Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Cathy Bissoon to the Western District of Pennsylvania, one of 27 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate's Executive Calendar awaiting a vote. Like 24 of those 27 nominations, the nomination of Judge Bissoon was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, with every Republican and every Democrat voting in support. Judge Bissoon is supported by both of her home State Senators, Senator Casey, a Democrat, and Senator Toomey, a Republican. I am glad we are finally able to vote on this nomination nearly 3 months after it was reported. I have heard no reason or explanation from the Republican leadership for this delayed action. There is no good reason or explanation for the Republican leadership's refusal to vote on the other two dozen consensus nominees stalled before the Senate, while a judicial vacancies crisis continues to affect the Federal courts and hurt the American people. These are all nominations that have gone through an extensive process. They were considered by the White House and vetted before the President nominated them. The White House has worked with the home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats, and each is supported by both home State Senators. The FBI has conducted a thorough background review. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has conducted a peer review of their professional qualifications. The Judiciary Committee has held a hearing on each nominee, and each has responded to extensive questioning. When they are then reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, there is no reason for months and months of further delay before they can start serving the American people. With Republican agreement, we could vote not just on one district court nomination, but on all 27 of the nominations reported by the Committee. I trust that the Senate will be allowed to confirm additional judicial nominations this week, before the upcoming recess, so that we can begin to build on the agreement by the Senate leadership in September to finally have votes on long stalled judicial nominees. Votes on 4 to 6 nominations are what is required every week throughout the rest of this year if we are to bring down a judicial vacancy rate that remains at nearly 11 percent, with 90 vacancies on Federal courts around the country. Senator Grassley and I have worked together to ensure that each of the 27 nominations on the Senate calendar was fully considered by the Judiciary Committee after a thorough but fair process. We have worked hard to ensure that the Committee continues to makes progress on nominations. Our cooperation and work on the Committee makes the continuing extensive and unexplained delays in the Senate's consideration of judicial nominations even harder to understand. These delays are damaging to the Federal courts and the American people who depend on them. A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that we are in the longest period of historically high vacancy rates in the last 35 years. The number of judicial vacancies has been at or above 90 for well over 2 years. We must bring an end to these needless delays in the Senate so that our Federal courts can better serve the American people. More than half of all Americans--almost 170 million--live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that could be filled today if the Senate Republicans just agreed to vote on the nominations now pending on the Senate calendar. As many as 25 States are served by Federal courts with vacancies that would be filled by these nominations. Millions of Americans across the country are harmed by delays in overburdened courts. The Republican leadership should apologize to the American people or at least explain why they will not consent to vote on the qualified, consensus candidates nominated to fill these extended judicial vacancies. In recent letters to the Senate Majority Leader and Republican leader, ABA President Bill Robinson highlighted the problems created by these excessive vacancies on the Federal courts, writing: Filling existing vacancies on the federal bench has become a matter of increasing urgency. Across the nation, federal courts with high caseloads and longstanding or multiple vacancies have no choice but to delay or temporarily suspend their civil dockets due to Speedy Trial Act requirements. This deprives our federal courts of the capacity to deliver timely justice in civil matters and has real consequences for the financial well-being of businesses and for individual litigants whose lives are put on hold pending resolution of their disputes. Nothing less than a sustained, concerted, and cooperative effort will be sufficient to make discernible progress in reducing the longstanding and dangerously high vacancy rate on the federal courts. And, as important, nothing less will assure litigants--businesses and aggrieved individuals alike--that our federal courts have sufficient judges to hear their cases in a timely and thorough fashion. I ask unanimous consent that copies of Mr. Robinson's October 13 letters to the Senate leaders be included at the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The Presiding OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. LEAHY. Those of us serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee are making this kind of ``sustained, concerted, and cooperative effort.'' Regrettably, that effort is not duplicated by the Senate, because the Senate Republican leadership continues to object, stall and delay consideration of these much-needed judges. This is not a partisan issue. Two weeks ago in a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Scalia agreed that the extensive delays in the confirmation process are already having a chilling effect on the ability to attract talented nominees to the Federal bench. Chief Justice Roberts has also described the ``persistent problem of judicial vacancies in critically overworked districts.'' Hardworking Americans are denied justice when their cases are delayed by overburdened courts. While people appearing in court are waiting years before a judge rules on their case, they feel they are being forced to live the old adage ``justice delayed is justice denied.'' I have heard Republican Senators come to the floor purporting to justify their delays by selectively pointing to past instances in which Democratic Senators opposed a handful of President Bush's most ideological nominations. Their misguided attempt to go ``tit for tat'' and settle a political score on nominations ignores the realities of the crisis in judicial vacancies created by their delays. They ignore the fact that President Obama's current nominees are not divisive, ideological picks, but consensus, qualified nominees who are being blocked across the board for no good reason. Senate Republicans also ignore the actual record on nominations established by Senate Democrats in considering President Bush's nominations. In the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first 2 years in office, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of his judicial nominees. In stark contrast, it has taken us twice as long--34 months--to confirm just over 100 of President Obama's judicial nominations. In President Bush's first term we confirmed a total of 205 Federal circuit and district court judges. As of today, we have almost 100 confirmations of President Obama's circuit and district court nominations to go in order to match that total during the next 12 months. Given the obstruction and delays during these first 3 years of President Obama's administration, we have a lot of ground to make up and need to get started if the Senate is to be as productive as we were during President Bush's first term. Democrats did not go ``tit for tat'' on nominations during President Bush's first years in office. Even though Senate Republicans pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations and refused to proceed on them while judicial vacancies skyrocketed to more than 110, we proceeded. As I have noted, we confirmed 100 in 17 months during President Bush's first 2 years. Now, however, Senate Republicans have not built on that progress and bipartisan cooperation but have returned, instead, to their practices of obstruction in order to hold judicial vacancies open, rather than confirm the nominations of a Democratic President. And as a result, judicial vacancies have skyrocketed, again. At this point in President Bush's first term we had confirmed 162 Federal circuit and district court judges, and the vacancy rate was down to 5 percent, with 46 vacancies. Vacancies are now twice as high with a vacancy rate of nearly 11 percent and vacancies again at 90, where they have been for well over 2 years. This is not the way to make real progress. In the past, we were able to confirm consensus nominees more promptly, often within days of being reported to the full Senate. They were not forced to languish for months. The American people should not have to wait weeks and months for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty and ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans around the country. There is no good reason for the Republican refusal to consent to votes on three circuit court nominations which were favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee many months ago. We should be able to have a debate and vote on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan, the superbly qualified nominee to the ninth seat on the D.C. Circuit reported by the Judiciary Committee over seven months ago. She is a highly-respected appellate litigator who has excelled in private practice and public service, including 6 years as Solicitor General of the State of New York, and her nomination has the strong support of law enforcement and a number of prominent conservative lawyers. With a new vacancy on that court, it is now more than one-quarter vacant. Four of President Bush's D.C. Circuit nominees were confirmed to that Court, twice filling the tenth seat and once filling the eleventh seat. There is no reason we cannot now confirm President Obama's first D.C. Circuit nominee to fill the ninth seat. There is also no reason for the Senate to have been required by Republican objection to have skipped the nominations of Stephen Higginson of Louisiana to the Fifth Circuit and Christopher Droney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit. Each has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy and each was reported unanimously by the Committee three months ago and before the nomination being considered today. In fact the Senate has only been allowed to consider 5 circuit court nominations this entire Congress. This stands in sharp contrast to the 17 circuit court nominations in 17 months that we confirmed when I chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002 and President Bush was in the White House. The delays which have led to the damaging backlog in judicial nominations are compounded by attempts by Senate Republicans to use invented controversies to damage qualified nominees. The decision by the entire Republican caucus to vote against the nomination of Alison Nathan to the Southern District of New York last week reminded me of the shameful party line vote which defeated President Clinton's nominee of Justice Ronnie White of Missouri in 1999. Even though Alison Nathan's nomination had been reported in July with the support of half of the Republican members of the Committee, last week those Senators flipped their votes and all Republican Senators voted as a bloc against confirming her to the Federal bench. That was extraordinary. Fortunately, they did not prevail and Judge Nathan, an accomplished, impressive nominee, was confirmed. She deserved better treatment by Senate Republicans, not their party line opposition. Today the Senate finally considers the nomination of Cathy Bissoon. She will make a superb addition to the Federal bench. She is already well-known on the court to which she is nominated, having served as a Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania since 2008, when she became the first Hispanic woman appointed to that role. She also clerked for Judge Lancaster of the Western District following law school. Judge Bissoon worked in private practice for 14 years at Cohen & Grigsby and Reed Smith in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Both of Pennsylvania's Senators support her nomination. Senator Casey, in particular, has worked very hard to help us get to this day. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported Judge Bissoon's nomination without dissent in July. When confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic woman to serve the Western District of Pennsylvania as a Federal judge. I hope we can consider additional judicial nominations this week to address the serious judicial vacancies crisis on Federal courts around the country that has persisted for over 2 years. We can and must do better for the nearly 170 million Americans being made to suffer by these unnecessary Senate delays. Exhibit 1 American Bar Association, Chicago, IL, October 13. 2011. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Republican Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Republican Leader McConnell: I am writing on behalf of the American Bar Association to commend you on the confirmation of ten judges during the past two weeks. Your agreement with Senator McConnell allowed a higher number of judges to be confirmed than in any prior month this Congress. Moreover, your scheduling of the first six nomination votes on the same day was a welcome departure from the general pattern observed this Congress of considering only one or two nominees at a time. We strongly encourage you to continue to schedule same-day votes on multiple nominees throughout the rest of the session. Nothing less than a sustained, concerted, and cooperative effort will be sufficient to make discernible progress in reducing the longstanding and dangerously high vacancy rate on the federal courts. And, as important, nothing less will assure litigants--businesses and aggrieved individuals alike--that our federal courts have sufficient judges to hear their cases in a timely and thorough fashion. Filling existing vacancies on the federal bench has become a matter of increasing urgency. Across the nation, federal courts with high caseloads and longstanding or multiple vacancies have no choice but to delay or temporarily suspend their civil dockets due to Speedy Trial Act requirements. This deprives our federal courts of the capacity to deliver timely justice in civil matters and has real consequences for the financial well-being of businesses and for individual litigants whose lives are put on hold pending resolution of their disputes. The effect of the recent confirmations on the overall vacancy rate amply attests to the need for continued bipartisan action to achieve progress. On September 7, the day after the Senate's first confirmation vote since its return from the August recess, there were 91 vacancies on the federal bench. Despite the recent confirmation of ten judges, there are 92 vacancies on the bench today because of recent retirements and a death. Regrettably, this outcome is not an aberration or product of selective statistical reporting; even though the Senate has confirmed from one to seven judges every month this Congress, the vacancy rate continues to hover around 10 percent--right where it has been for the past 24 months. However, if the Senate were to confirm by the end of this month the 29 nominees currently pending on the floor who were reported from the Judiciary Committee by bipartisan voice vote, the vacancy rate would drop to approximately seven percent, absent unanticipated events. That would be a real accomplishment. We urge you to build on your recent success by continuing to reach agreements to schedule multiple nominees for votes on the same day at regular intervals throughout the remainder of this session. Given the long-term backlogs, it is important that confirmations outpace attrition and that the Senate has the opportunity to achieve significant success in reducing the vacancy rate and providing the federal judiciary with the judges it needs to evaluate each case on its merits and dispense timely justice to all. Sincerely, Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III, President.

Mr. LEAHY. I see the senior Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to speak. I will yield to him in a moment. First, I ask consent that I speak briefly about the Transportation and Highway appropriation bill the Senate is going to next be debating.

Mr. LEAHY. I want to thank the subcommittee chair, Senator Murray, and the ranking member, Senator Collins, for all the assistance they provided to me on several issues that are important to Vermont, especially in the wake of Hurricane Irene's massive devastation a few weeks ago. I have talked on the floor many times about what happened in Vermont with Hurricane Irene. I was born in Vermont. I have never seen anything like this. It reminds me of the story my grandparents told me of a flood in the early 20th century. We have seen roads, bridges, businesses, homes, farms all over the State wiped out, with repair estimates topping nearly $900 million. My wife and I have gone all over the State. I have gone with the Governor, adjutant general, and others, seeing things that literally brought me to tears in our beautiful State. Getting hit like that, it is very clear, as I have talked to the people working, that everybody has pitched in. Whether they are from the town that got hit or the next town over that might not have been hit, everybody has pitched in. It is clear in our little State of 660,000 people we are stretched to the limit. If we don't have adequate Federal disaster recovery aid, Vermont will not have the resources needed to rebuild the lifelines destroyed--the homes, roads, and businesses represented in the daily lives of so many Vermonters and their communities. Several Federal disaster programs are woefully underfunded. The highway administration emergency relief fund has less than $140 million in reserves. It has a backlog of more than $2 billion to repair projects from previous disasters, including $700 million from Vermont. HUD had no funding available to provide Community Development Block Grant funding to help our State rebuild. So I pushed hard for the $1.9 billion in emergency highway funding and for the vital State waivers that allow States to access the crucial repair work they need without overly restrictive cost sharing. I talked to the Governor, Senator Sanders, Congressman Welch, other State and municipal officials about Vermont's rebuilding needs. The Governor was down here last week. We sat in my office to talk about the rebuilding needs. These waivers are always at the top of the priority list or our State is going to be devastated. There are also in this bill provisions that will permanently shift trucks from overburdened State secondary roads, some of which are now dirt roads because of the flooding. They wind through many downtowns across our State's interstate highways. This will especially help Vermont businesses and communities that are struggling most from the large number of State and local roads heavily damaged by Irene. I was glad to work with Senator Collins to include the Vermont provision and any similar provision for Maine. Again, bipartisan cooperation has succeeded. We included $400 million in emergency CDBG funding. It is a critical downpayment to address housing needs of those hurt by Irene and the flooding this past spring. We have to do this right away. It will be snowing in Vermont in a matter of weeks. Today is a beautiful day. I have been there long enough to know, if you don't like the weather, wait a minute, it will change. We have to get people back in their homes. Vermonters are working hard to make the necessary funding, but we need this. We need this help. As a Vermonter said to me: Senator, it appears we can spend unlimited amounts of money to rebuild roads and bridges in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they just blow them up. Can't we find even a small portion of that money to rebuild roads and bridges and homes in America by Americans for Americans? And Americans will protect them. I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, and I yield to him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort His Excellency Lee Myung-bak, President of the Republic of Korea, into the House Chamber for the joint meeting at 4 p.m., Thursday, October 13, 2011.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce legislation to improve the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, PSOB. This law, enacted in 1976, is a vital safety net for our first responders who are permanently disabled in the line of duty, and for the families of those who make the ultimate sacrifice while serving their fellow citizens. This legislation, along with several technical refinements to the program, will add certain classes of first responders who, due to gaps in the law, have been left without protection. For example, the bill contains legislation I introduced in the 111th Congress in response to the tragic death of Dale Long, a decorated emergency medical responder in Vermont. The Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act would protect Mr. Long's survivors and those who may follow and encounter the same limitations under the current law. Under current PSOB law, in order to be eligible for benefits, a member of an ambulance crew must work for an organization that is deemed a unit of State or local government, and thus be deemed a public employee. In Dale Long's case, as with rescue crews across the country, he worked for a private, non-profit entity that nonetheless served his community in a way indistinguishable from an organization with status as a unit of government. Based upon this distinction, Dale Long's surviving family was ineligible for these benefits. This is unfair, and undermines the Federal policy that is in place to support and protect these men and women. The bill I introduce today would end this disparate treatment. The legislation also includes a provision to ensure that a cadet officer killed during a dangerous training exercise would be eligible for such benefits. The current law's weakness in this area was highlighted in a case in Maryland, during which fire cadet Racheal Wilson was killed during a training exercise. Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin have been very concerned about this situation, and I commend them for advocating for its inclusion in this legislation. In the 111th Congress, the Judiciary Committee considered and reported the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act by voice vote. Despite the Committee's work, and the process and debate it was afforded within the Committee, the bill was objected to when I tried to get Senate consideration. This was very disappointing, given the importance of this legislation to first responders around the country, and given the fact that the legislation was fully offset. This year, I once again introduced the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act. During the Senate's debate in February on the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, I worked closely with Senator Inhofe to propose an amendment that included both the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act and a proposal from Senator Inhofe to support those who volunteer their time and expertise as airplane pilots to help those in need. Our bipartisan amendment was adopted by voice vote. During the course of the subsequent conference negotiations on the FAA authorization legislation, I worked closely with Chairman Rockefeller and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith to ensure that our bipartisan amendment was retained in the conference agreement. During the course of these negotiations, Chairman Smith proposed to expand the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act to include other changes to the current PSOB law. For example, Chairman Smith proposed a refinement of the Hometown Heroes law, a law that I authored and which was enacted in 2003. I worked with firefighters, police officers, and first responders to make sure that what Chairman Smith had proposed would not only retain the spirit and intent of the original Hometown Heroes law, but, most importantly, would improve upon it to alleviate some of the administrative delays that the families of first responders had encountered in the past. This refined proposal is included in the bill. The bill I introduce today also includes provisions to lessen the length of a currently unwieldy appeals process for claimants, clarify the list of eligible survivor beneficiaries, and make those who have been catastrophically injured eligible for peer support and counseling programs. It also removes artificial distinctions under the Hometown Heroes Act to expand the types of injuries that would make a public safety officer's survivors eligible for benefits. The final version of the legislation to which Chairman Smith and I agreed represents a bipartisan compromise on the overall improvement of this important program. I appreciate Chairman Smith's willingness to work with me in support of this program, and the first responders for whom the law is intended to protect. I understand that our agreement was to be incorporated in the FAA conference report. Unfortunately, the future for a conference agreement on the FAA legislation is unclear. Each day that passes is another day that Mr. Long's family, and others who would benefit from this legislation, must live without the assistance this benefit provides. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act has been in effect for over 30 years, and has brought a measure of security to survivors of fallen first responders. In 1990, Congress continued this tradition and acted again to ensure that those first responders who have been permanently disabled in the line of duty are taken care of. This longstanding policy is reflective of Congress' recognition of the importance and necessity of the men and women who commit themselves as firefighters, police officers, and medical responders. It is difficult to imagine what communities across America would be like without these essential services. From the firefighters in Vermont who race to the scene of a rural fire during a cold winter night, to the ambulance crews providing emergency medical services following a natural disaster in Oklahoma, our dedicated first responders are all connected by their sense of duty and their selflessness in the service of their neighbors. In Congress, lawmakers have traditionally acted in support of these men and women irrespective of party and we should continue that great tradition. I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce legislation to improve the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, PSOB. This law, enacted in 1976, is a vital safety net for our first responders who are permanently disabled in the line of duty, and for the families of those who make the ultimate sacrifice while serving their fellow citizens. This legislation, along with several technical refinements to the program, will add certain classes of first responders who, due to gaps in the law, have been left without protection. For example, the bill contains legislation I introduced in the 111th Congress in response to the tragic death of Dale Long, a decorated emergency medical responder in Vermont. The Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act would protect Mr. Long's survivors and those who may follow and encounter the same limitations under the current law. Under current PSOB law, in order to be eligible for benefits, a member of an ambulance crew must work for an organization that is deemed a unit of State or local government, and thus be deemed a public employee. In Dale Long's case, as with rescue crews across the country, he worked for a private, non-profit entity that nonetheless served his community in a way indistinguishable from an organization with status as a unit of government. Based upon this distinction, Dale Long's surviving family was ineligible for these benefits. This is unfair, and undermines the Federal policy that is in place to support and protect these men and women. The bill I introduce today would end this disparate treatment. The legislation also includes a provision to ensure that a cadet officer killed during a dangerous training exercise would be eligible for such benefits. The current law's weakness in this area was highlighted in a case in Maryland, during which fire cadet Racheal Wilson was killed during a training exercise. Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin have been very concerned about this situation, and I commend them for advocating for its inclusion in this legislation. In the 111th Congress, the Judiciary Committee considered and reported the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act by voice vote. Despite the Committee's work, and the process and debate it was afforded within the Committee, the bill was objected to when I tried to get Senate consideration. This was very disappointing, given the importance of this legislation to first responders around the country, and given the fact that the legislation was fully offset. This year, I once again introduced the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act. During the Senate's debate in February on the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, I worked closely with Senator Inhofe to propose an amendment that included both the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act and a proposal from Senator Inhofe to support those who volunteer their time and expertise as airplane pilots to help those in need. Our bipartisan amendment was adopted by voice vote. During the course of the subsequent conference negotiations on the FAA authorization legislation, I worked closely with Chairman Rockefeller and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith to ensure that our bipartisan amendment was retained in the conference agreement. During the course of these negotiations, Chairman Smith proposed to expand the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act to include other changes to the current PSOB law. For example, Chairman Smith proposed a refinement of the Hometown Heroes law, a law that I authored and which was enacted in 2003. I worked with firefighters, police officers, and first responders to make sure that what Chairman Smith had proposed would not only retain the spirit and intent of the original Hometown Heroes law, but, most importantly, would improve upon it to alleviate some of the administrative delays that the families of first responders had encountered in the past. This refined proposal is included in the bill. The bill I introduce today also includes provisions to lessen the length of a currently unwieldy appeals process for claimants, clarify the list of eligible survivor beneficiaries, and make those who have been catastrophically injured eligible for peer support and counseling programs. It also removes artificial distinctions under the Hometown Heroes Act to expand the types of injuries that would make a public safety officer's survivors eligible for benefits. The final version of the legislation to which Chairman Smith and I agreed represents a bipartisan compromise on the overall improvement of this important program. I appreciate Chairman Smith's willingness to work with me in support of this program, and the first responders for whom the law is intended to protect. I understand that our agreement was to be incorporated in the FAA conference report. Unfortunately, the future for a conference agreement on the FAA legislation is unclear. Each day that passes is another day that Mr. Long's family, and others who would benefit from this legislation, must live without the assistance this benefit provides. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act has been in effect for over 30 years, and has brought a measure of security to survivors of fallen first responders. In 1990, Congress continued this tradition and acted again to ensure that those first responders who have been permanently disabled in the line of duty are taken care of. This longstanding policy is reflective of Congress' recognition of the importance and necessity of the men and women who commit themselves as firefighters, police officers, and medical responders. It is difficult to imagine what communities across America would be like without these essential services. From the firefighters in Vermont who race to the scene of a rural fire during a cold winter night, to the ambulance crews providing emergency medical services following a natural disaster in Oklahoma, our dedicated first responders are all connected by their sense of duty and their selflessness in the service of their neighbors. In Congress, lawmakers have traditionally acted in support of these men and women irrespective of party and we should continue that great tradition. I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in a few moments the Senate has the opportunity to proceed to the American Jobs Act. The bill the President asked us to pass a month ago includes bipartisan proposals that have received broad approval in the past from Members of both parties, including road and bridge repairs, teacher retentions and extensions of tax relief for businesses to encourage hiring. We should answer the President's call and the American people's needs and act to help get Americans back to work and grow the economy. There is another unacceptable rate that we can help change to the benefit of all Americans. That is the judicial vacancy rate. It now stands at nearly 11 percent, with 92 vacancies on Federal courts around the country. I will ask to have printed in the Record an editorial on this topic entitled ``The Other Federal Crisis'' that appeared in McClatchy--Tribune papers last week. We can act today to bring down that rate dramatically by considering and confirming 26 judicial nominations approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee that are awaiting final Senate action. Today we are voting on only one of those judicial 26 nominees. With Republican agreement, all 26 could have been voted on today. Of the 25 judges who will remain on the Executive Calendar after today's vote, 21 were reported with the unanimous support of all Democrats and all Republicans serving on the Judiciary Committee. All of them have the support of their home State Senators, 10 include Republicans home State Senators. Today, the Senate will finally vote on the nomination of Jane Triche- Milazzo to serve as a district judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. While I am pleased that we are finally having a vote on Judge Triche-Milazzo's nomination, after 3 months of unnecessary delay, more than two dozen well-qualified, consensus nominees still await a Senate confirmation vote. At a time when vacancies on Federal courts throughout the country have remained near or above 90 for more than 2 years, delaying votes on these nominees needlessly undermines the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans around the country. The Senate could take significant steps today to address this ongoing crisis in judicial vacancies just by acting on the nominations thoroughly vetted by the Judiciary Committee and reported with bipartisan support. This week, with Republican cooperation, the Judiciary Committee could report five more consensus nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies on the Eleventh Circuit and in Utah, as well as vacancies in Missouri, Nebraska, and Washington. I have repeatedly noted Senator Grassley's willingness to work with me to make sure that the Judiciary Committee makes progress on nominations. Regrettably, the Judiciary Committee's efforts to act on nominations have not been matched by action by the Senate, where the Republican leadership has refused promptly to consider even consensus nominations. They are delayed for months. The Republican leadership's refusal to promptly schedule votes on pending judicial nominations is a departure from the Senate's action in regularly considering President Bush's nominations, which we did whether the Senate had a Democratic or Republican majority. At this point in George W. Bush's presidency, the Senate had confirmed 162 of his nominees for the Federal circuit and district courts, including 100 during the 17 months that I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee during his first term. By this date in President Clinton's first term, the Senate had confirmed 163 of his nominations to circuit and district courts. In stark contrast, after today's vote, the Senate will have confirmed only 105 of President Obama's nominees to Federal circuit and district courts. In the next year, we need to confirm 100 more of his circuit and district court nominations to match the 205 confirmed during President Bush's first term. We can and must do better to address the serious judicial vacancies crisis affecting Federal courts around the country. Nearly half of all Americans--136 million--live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that could be filled today if the Senate Republicans just agreed to vote on the nominations currently pending on the Executive Calendar. As many as 21 states are served by Federal courts with vacancies that would be filled by nominations stalled on the Senate calendar. Millions of Americans across the country are being harmed by delays in overburdened courts. The Republican leadership should explain to the American people why they will not consent to vote on the qualified, consensus candidates nominated to fill these extended judicial vacancies. The unnecessary delays in our consideration of judicial nominations have contributed to the longest period of historically high vacancy rates in the last 35 years. The number of judicial vacancies rose above 90 in August 2009, and it has stayed near or above that level ever since. Vacancies are twice as high as they were at this point in President Bush's first term when the Senate was expeditiously voting on consensus judicial nominations. We must bring an end to these needless delays in the Senate so that we can ease the burden on our Federal courts so that they can better serve the American people. Last week, the Senate voted to confirm Judge Jennifer Guerin Zipps, who was nominated to fill the emergency judicial vacancy created by the tragic death of Judge Roll in the Tucson, AZ, shootings. I was pleased that, with cooperation from Republican Senators, the time from when the Judiciary Committee reported Judge Zipps' nomination to full Senate consideration was less than a month even including a recess period. All nominations should move at that rate. It should not take a tragedy to spur us to action to fill a judicial emergency vacancy. Indeed, the time it took the Senate to consider Judge Zipps' nomination was in line with the average time it took for the Senate to consider President Bush's unanimously reported judicial nominations, 28 days. Her nomination would not have been an exception during those years as it regrettably has become today. President Obama's consensus nominations, reported with the unanimous support of every Republican and Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, have waited an average of 79 days on the Executive Calendar before consideration by the Senate. Today's nominee is a good example. She was reported unanimously on July 14. That was nearly 3 months ago. Last week, I invited Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer to appear before the Judiciary Committee and discuss the important role that judges play under our Constitution. Justice Scalia agreed that the extensive delays in the confirmation process are already having a chilling effect on the ability to attract talented nominees to the Federal bench. Chief Justice Roberts has also described the ``persistent problem of judicial vacancies in critically overworked districts.'' Hardworking Americans are denied justice when their cases are delayed by overburdened courts. While people appearing in court are waiting years before a judge rules on their case, they feel they are being forced to live the old adage ``justice delayed is justice denied.'' Today the Senate will confirm an experienced, consensus nominee who could and should have received a vote prior to the August recess. Jane Triche-Milazzo is nominated to fill a vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Currently a Louisiana State court judge, she previously spent 16 years in private practice in her family's law firm in Napoleonville, LA. Judge Triche-Milazzo has the bipartisan support of her home State Senators, Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu and Republican Senator David Vitter. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported her nomination without a single dissenting vote almost 3 months ago. I expect that the Senate will confirm her unanimously today. We must do more to make progress in considering the other 25 judicial nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. The excessive number of vacancies has persisted in Federal courts throughout the Nation for far too long. The American people should not have to wait for the Senate to do its constitutional duty of confirming judges to the Federal bench. With millions of Americans currently affected by the vacancy crisis in our courts, there is serious work to be done. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the editorial to which I referred.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, beginning more than 140 years ago, Congress enacted a series of racist and discriminatory laws directed specifically at persons of Chinese descent. Collectively known as the Chinese Exclusion Laws, these laws remained in force for more than 60 years, and were repealed only as a matter of wartime expediency during World War II. These laws conflicted directly with the fundamental principles of equality and justice upon which our Nation was founded. It is long past time for Congress to affirmatively reject the ignorance and hate that spurred passage of those laws. S. Res. 201 reflects the Senate's regret for the passage of those unjust laws, but also affirms our commitment to ensuring that such policies never become law again. I commend the individuals and organizations that have advocated for this important resolution. The Chinese Exclusion Laws reflected a climate of intolerance and xenophobia that viewed immigrants of Chinese descent as inferior and incapable of assimilating as loyal Americans. Fueled in large part by an economic crisis and fears that Chinese immigrants would take jobs away from other workers, the hostility against Chinese immigrants sometimes turned violent. Through a number of state laws and ordinances in many Western states and several questionable court rulings, Chinese immigrants were systematically deprived of fundamental civil rights and privileges, rights that should be guaranteed to all by our Constitution. Eventually, political pressure led Congress to prohibit the immigration of all Chinese persons into the United States. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 explicitly banned Chinese immigrants from entering the United States for 10 years, and this ban was renewed and ultimately made permanent by Congress through subsequent enactments. In passing these laws, Congress failed to adhere to our Nation's basic founding principles that all are created equal, and that all persons deserve basic human and civil rights. Instead, Congress allowed fear and ignorance to drive our Nation's immigration policy and, for the first time, to exclude from our country a single group of people based solely on their race. That was wrong. Ours in a Nation of immigrants and of equality and these laws offended both of those fundamental precepts of America. While Congress was right to repeal the Chinese Exclusions Laws in 1943, it is important to note that Congress was motivated primarily by the fear that the Japanese would use the racist laws as part of its propaganda campaign to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its Chinese allies. The repeal of the Chinese Exclusions Laws was not accompanied by any genuine sense of regret for the decades of discriminatory policies, or any proclamation by the Congress that it would guard in the future against the type of racism and xenophobia that allowed such laws to pass in the first place. Instead, the exclusion laws were simply supplanted by application of strict race-based quotas that remained in place for more than 20 years. Let us not forget that at the same time that Congress was repealing the Chinese Exclusion Laws, the U.S. Government was imprisoning thousands of loyal Americans of Japanese descent in internment camps throughout the West. Thus, the repeal of the exclusion laws in 1943 can hardly be viewed as a genuine acknowledgement by Congress of the racist nature of its actions. In order to close the book on this series of unjust laws, I urge support of this resolution to express the Senate's regret, albeit belatedly, for these shameful pieces of legislation. Going forward, this resolution also reaffirms our commitment to the principles of equality and justice upon which our Nation was founded. I was disappointed that, at the insistence of some anonymous Republicans, the resolution is being stripped by amendment of any reference to the Constitution of the United States. That is inexplicable to me. No one has anyone come forward to take responsibility for this change. It is being done in the shadows, without accountability. I believe that the Chinese Exclusion Laws were incompatible with the spirit, and indeed the text, of our Constitution, our fundamental charter. I challenge whoever felt it necessary to remove the original reference in our resolution to the affront to the Constitution to come forward and explain why they were blocking this resolution unless that change was made. Contrary to the claims in the 1880s that Chinese immigrants looked, acted, and sounded too different--too foreign--to ever become loyal Americans, we have all witnessed the incredible contributions that Chinese Americans have made to our country. America has come a long way since the days of the Chinese Exclusion Laws. I hope that we all appreciate how our Nation's diversity makes America better and stronger. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have supported the nominations and recognized the service of many Americans of Chinese descent serving as attorneys and judges throughout the country, such as former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Bill Lann Lee, and Federal Judges Denny Chin, Edmond Chang, Ed Chen, and Dolly Gee. I am also mindful of the service of the late Thomas Tang, a Chinese American trailblazer on the Federal judiciary. I hope that passage of S. Res. 201 will mark a step in the Senate's progress toward greater commitment to protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity. Unfortunately, in these tough economic times, it is not difficult to hear echoes of the intolerance that led to the Chinese Exclusion Laws in some of the rhetoric of recent immigration debates. Congress should not legislate out of fear and intolerance, and we must not allow laws like the Chinese Exclusions Laws ever to pass again.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Would the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I pose this question, and as I look around this floor, with the exception of Senator Inouye, my dear friend from Hawaii, nobody has served in this body longer than I have--on the current membership--nobody. I keep hearing this talk about 60 votes. Most votes you win by 51 votes, and this constant mantra of 60 votes, 60 votes--this is some new invention, I tell my friends, based on my sense of history. So my question to the majority leader, whether we were here with a Democratic majority or a Republican majority, does he remember a time when judges who were confirmed unanimously--every single Republican, every single Democrat voting for them out of committee--would then sit on the calendar for 3, 4, 5, sometimes 6 months because there was not an agreement to vote on them without a 60-vote supermajority? I cannot remember it at any time in 37 years. I do not know if the majority leader can recall such a time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations, I have strongly supported funding to protect U.S. interests around the world. I am also fortunate to have Senator Lindsey Graham as a ranking member, who, like Senators Judd Gregg and Mitch McConnell before him, is a strong supporter of these programs. We recognize, as does the Pentagon, that military power alone is not sufficient to protect our security. In fact, sending Americans into harm's way should be an absolute last resort. We also need to invest in international diplomacy and development. Foreign aid today is an oft-maligned term that is widely misunderstood. It is viewed by many as a form of charity or a luxury we can do without, or as a sizable part of the Federal budget. It is none of those things. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. It is about whether the United States is going to remain the global leader it has been since World War Two. Three weeks ago, President George W. Bush said: One of the lessons of September 11th . . . is that what happens overseas matters here at home We face an enemy that can only recruit when they find hopeless people, and there is nothing more hopeless to a child who loses a mom or dad to AIDS to watch the wealthy nations of the world sit back and do nothing. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was equally blunt about the stakes involved. She said: We don't have an option to retire, to take a sabbatical from leadership in the international community and the world. If we do, one of 2 things will happen. There will be chaos, because without leadership there will be chaos in the international community, and that is dangerous. But it's quite possible, that if we don't lead, somebody else will. And perhaps it will be someone who does not share our values of compassion, the rights of the individual, of liberty, and freedom. I could not agree more, and I hope other Senators appreciate what is at stake. Just as past generations rallied to meet the formidable challenges of the Great Depression, the Nazis, and the Cold War, we will bear responsibility if we fail to meet the challenges of today. The budget for diplomacy and development includes funding for our embassies and consulates that assist the millions of Americans who travel, study, work and serve overseas. It pays our contributions to U.N. peacekeeping missions that do not require the costly deployment of U.S. troops, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the operations of our NATO security pact, aid for refugees who have fled wars or natural disasters, and to prevent the spread of AIDS, the Asian Flu, and other contagious diseases that threaten Americans and people everywhere. There are many other programs that promote U.S. exports, support democratic elections, combat poverty, and help build alliances with countries whose support we need in countering terrorism, thwart drug trafficking, protect the environment, and stop cross-border crime. We do this and a lot more with less than 1 percent of the Federal budget, yet it is a crucial investment in our national security. It also is no wonder that other countries--our allies and our competitors--are spending more each year to project their influence around the world, and to compete in the global marketplace. Great Britain's conservative government is on a path to increase its international development assistance to .7 percent of its national budget, compared to .2 percent for the United States. Yet the Republican majority in the House of Representatives proposes to slash funding for these programs to pre-2008 levels. Our leadership is being challenged unlike at any time since the Cold War. In Latin America, which is a larger market for U.S. exports than any other region except the European Union, our market share is shrinking while China's is growing. It is the same story everywhere. There is simply no substitute for U.S. global leadership. The world is changing, and we cannot afford to retrench or to succumb to isolationism. Funding that enables us to engage with our allies, competitors, and adversaries, while an easy political target, helps us to meet growing threats to our struggling economy and our national security. I strongly support this budget and have fought to protect it for years. I also know there are competing needs and that we have to eliminate waste. We need to support what works, and stop funding what does not. Too often, government bureaucracies continue funding programs that fail, and that needs to stop. Billions of dollars provided to high priced contractors and consultants for poorly conceived, wildly extravagant, unsustainable efforts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have been wasted or stolen. This has further damaged the public's opinion of foreign aid. The bill that I and Senator Graham recommended to the Appropriations Committee on September 21 and that was reported by a bipartisan vote of 28-2 is $6 billion below the President's budget request. It scales back most Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development operations and programs and will force them to significantly curtail planned expenditures. But the House bill cuts far deeper, and these are the cuts that President Bush and Secretary Rice warned about. There are unmistakable signs that our global influence is already eroding. It is not preordained that the United States will remain the world's dominant power. As former Secretary Rice said, ``if we don't lead, somebody else will.'' I doubt there is a single Member of Congress who, if asked, would say they don't care if the United States becomes a second or third rate power. They expect the United States to lead, to build alliances, to help American companies compete successfully, and to protect the interests and security of its citizens. You can't have it both ways. You can't expect others to follow if you can't lead, and you can't lead if you don't pay your way. This budget is a fraction of the Federal budget, yet it is a far cry from what this country should be investing. We need to wake up, to stop acting like these investments don't matter, that the State Department isn't important, that the United Nations isn't important, that what happens in Brazil, Russia, the Philippines, Somalia, or other countries doesn't matter, and that global threats to the environment, public health and safety will somehow be solved by others. Our budget for foreign operations already has gone through deep budget cuts, with more to come. But the American people deserve to be told that slashing, disproportionate cuts to these programs would have no appreciable impact on the deficit, and it would end up costing our country far more in the future.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that Members of the House from both parties acted quickly to reauthorize the U.S. Parole Commission. I was glad to help move this important measure in the Senate, and am disappointed that we were forced to accept this unnecessary amendment to shorten the bipartisan House bill. Today's amendment wastes valuable time and resources by forcing Congress to reauthorize the Commission again in another 2 years, instead of working toward a more permanent solution. Although Federal parole was abolished decades ago, the U.S. Parole Commission still has jurisdiction over thousands of offenders in the District of Columbia, as well as some in other parts of the country. Without reauthorization, we faced the risk that offenders would be released early without the proper public safety assessment. I believe that passing this bill promotes public safety and fairness. I would like to commend Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee and Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia and Representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin for joining together to originate this bill and move it through the House Judiciary Committee and the House.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to ADM Michael Mullen, a man who served our country with distinction for 43 years. During his tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he has presided over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the historic repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy, the successful operation against Osama bin Laden, and an episode of unprecedented change in the Middle East. He has been tireless in his job, having visited our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so many times that we have lost count. Moreover, his tenure as Chairman has been noteworthy for the amount of time he has spent with our troops on the front lines of war. Before becoming Chairman, Admiral Mullen served as the Navy's Chief and Vice Chief of Naval Operations, as the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces in Europe, and as the Commander of the Allied Joint Force Command in Naples, Italy. Over the course of his career, Admiral Mullen has served aboard seven warships, three times as the commanding officer. In the U.S. Navy's history, he is only the third naval officer ever to be appointed to four different four-star assignments. He is also one of the few remaining veterans of the Vietnam War serving in the top ranks of our military. When the Vermont National Guard's 1-86th Infantry Brigade Combat Team deployed to Afghanistan in 2010, Admiral Mullen traveled to Vermont to visit the troops at one of their departure ceremonies. On a cold January morning, joined by his wife Deborah, he spoke to a hall packed with families and friends seeing their soldiers off to war. He thanked them for their service to our Nation, and he assured them all--the troops and their families--that they had the full support of our country's highest ranking military officer. It was a great comfort to the Guard, and they will not forget his expression of support. Neither will I. In fact, Admiral Mullen and his wife, Deborah, have dedicated much of their time to advancing a range of initiatives to support troops and their families. These include wounded warrior care, veteran employment and education, survivor benefits, suicide prevention, and mental health. Again, these efforts speak to the type of man and leader Admiral Mullen is and to his commitment to our men and women in uniform. I wish Mike and Deborah all the best. He departs the U.S. military with the sincere thanks of a grateful nation. I know that I have benefitted from his wise counsel over the years. America is fortunate to have such a leader.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the devastating flooding in Vermont but also our recovery. Last week, my wife Marcelle and I probably drove 400 miles around the State of Vermont--inside the State. We are a small State. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows how in small States one can go from one end to the other fairly quickly. But we crisscrossed the State over a period of a little over 1 week, a lot of the time just the two of us in the car. We would drive around and say thank you to volunteers. Some of the things we saw were so touching. People who had lost everything were helping others and vice versa. The spirit is wonderful. The reality is, our little State, the State where both my wife and I were born, has been hurt in a way we have not seen in our lifetime. I have talked about these inspiring actions of Vermonters. One of the things we saw is some of the worst damage caused by the storm has been to the houses and mobile homes and apartments, where Vermonters had built their lives. They had made their homes, had become part of the community. Their kids go to school. They are the fabric of the community. We have seen entire mobile home developments washed away. Where homes once stood, now lies a path of damage and destruction and heartbreak. Look at the horrific flooding we have right here--suddenly no roads where there were roads. Look at the forefront of this picture--a house collapsed in on itself, children's toys on what might have been a playground at one time that is now devastated. I had people tell me: We lost everything. Then, in tears: We lost our wedding album. We lost the pictures of our children when they graduated from high school. We lost pictures of their baptism or their bar mitzvah. I mean, it tears one apart because they have lost not only their homes, they have lost part of their memories. I commend my staff both in Washington and in Vermont, because they have worked sometimes literally around the clock--weekends, evenings, days--to help. They have seen firsthand the ruin and pain delivered by this disaster. They have seen it with their eyes and in the tearful eyes of the families around the State. Over the sounds of generators powering sump pumps and heavy equipment removing debris, we have had countless conversations with people as they stared at foundations-- empty foundations--that once held their homes; as they dug toxic muck out of their basements and shops; and as volunteers helped with pulling down wet drywall, in a race against the onset of mold. Most of these conversations begin with memories of fast-rising water and death-defying rescues. In Northfield--a town a few miles from where I live--dozens of homes along the peaceful Dog River were flooded with as much as 6 feet of water. One homeowner who escaped the rising waters by canoe fears the insurance and FEMA assistance will not be enough to help him restore his home, which is part of his life. Like many of the residents of his Water Street neighborhood, he is left wondering whether rebuilding is possible or even worth the effort. In Brattleboro, which is down in the southeast corner of our State along the Connecticut River, and which is a boundary between Vermont and New Hampshire, the Brattleboro Housing Authority lost 60 units of housing. They put families in hotels, on their friends' couches, and spread throughout the region, as the housing authority tries desperately to fix what is lost. I saw a lot of that damage. I went there with the Governor and with the head of our Vermont National Guard. I saw it. In Roxsbury--a beautiful town--one family along a peaceful brook that is normally about 1 foot wide was forced to their roof as floodwaters rose, and the brook became a raging rapid more than 20 feet across and 6 feet deep. In Duxbury--the next town over from mine--in Quechee, in Berlin, and in nearly a dozen other towns, mobile home parks quickly became submerged. These homes are especially vulnerable to flood damage and are easily destroyed by a few feet of water. These are areas where they have never seen a few feet of water, and suddenly it was there. Last week, in Woodstock, I visited a mobile home park where, on the night of the flood, the entire community crowded onto a small mound in the middle of the park awaiting rescue, watching as their homes were being destroyed. Marcelle and I stood on that mound. It was a beautiful fall day. We looked down and you could see everything that had been torn up. You could see the gouges and all the damage. I wondered, how could somebody stay in there? Honestly, as the houses were destroyed and they watched that water come up, they probably thought if it comes up any farther, we are going to die. Just 1 week after the flooding, FEMA estimated that more than 900 homes in Vermont had suffered damage. Today, that number continues to grow, and families who found safety and comfort in their homes before Irene now find themselves living in temporary homes, in shelters and hotels, while winter is quickly, quietly approaching. Our small State's ability to build new homes depends greatly on support from Federal safety net programs, such as the emergency community development block grant funding that I was proud to support included in the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill. While this emergency funding is a first step in addressing the urgent housing needs of States such as Vermont that have been struck by natural disasters, we know that much more will be needed to help our decimated towns and communities and their citizens get back on their feet. Housing authorities need section 8 choice vouchers to provide relief to low-income renters permanently displaced, and they need the flexibility to make use of the few available units of government- subsidized housing without the burden of stringent income-eligibility requirements. To some, this sounds like numbers, but it is very important to the people who depend upon them. I am proud that in the Senate, on the Appropriations Committee over the past several weeks, we have been working so hard and we have been able to make prompt, significant, and bipartisan strides toward addressing the emerging disaster recovery needs in States such as Vermont, New Jersey, and North Carolina. Actually, 48 States face emergency disaster needs this year. I remember the stories my parents and grandparents told me of flooding long before I was born in Vermont. I am 71 years old, but I have not seen damage and destruction of this magnitude in Vermont in my lifetime. Other States were also hit by Irene and are stretched to the limit. Just as victims of past disasters throughout the country were able to rely on fellow Americans in their times of need--including Vermont--so should Vermonters be able to count on a helping hand when they need it most. It is regrettable and disappointing--actually incomprehensible--that some in Congress continue to insist that assistance can only come at the cost of other Federal programs that are relied upon by the American people. Do we take it out of education or medical research or job creation? Do we rob Peter to pay Paul? Some of these same voices have had no problem with spending hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars on wars waged overseas and on rebuilding communities in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will borrow the money to rebuild roads and villages and homes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are going to apply a different standard to recovery efforts that are desperately needed for Americans here at home in America. It is Alice in Wonderland. An old Vermonter said to me: You know, Pat, we give them money in Iraq and Afghanistan to build homes and bridges and roads, and then they blow them up. If we build them here in America, we will take care of them and we will use them. I could give a 10-hour speech on the floor on those two sentences, summing up what I have heard from everybody. I don't care what their political background is. Now is not the time to ask Americans to choose between helping victims of a disaster and funding for cancer research, equipment for first responders, or job-creating programs. We need to come together as a country, as we always have in the past, to pass an emergency disaster relief bill for our States in their time of need. The Senate has answered the call by passing critical disaster relief legislation. It is time for the House to do the same and let the victims of Hurricane Irene start rebuilding their homes. As they rebuild their homes, they will rebuild their lives. They will rebuild their lives and they will rebuild our communities. When they rebuild our communities, they rebuild our State. We are part of the United States of America. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time equally divided on both sides.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the service of COL Tracey L. Watkins of the U.S. Air Force on the occasion of his reassignment from the Air Force Congressional Budget and Appropriations Liaison Office and to say hail and farewell. Colonel Watkins graduated from the Citadel in 1991 and since then has served in a variety of comptroller assignments across the Air Force. He has held leadership positions at all field and staff levels, including assignments in personnel, logistics, and operational planning. Colonel Watkins' time in the Air Force has included three joint tours: on the Joint Staff, as part of Combined Joint Task Force 76 in Uzbekistan, and in the Multi National Corps in Iraq. Colonel Watkins' experiences in those tours were a benefit when he assumed the directorship of the Air Force's Congressional Budget and Appropriations Liaison Office. In that role, Colonel Watkins directed all Air Force appropriations liaison work on the Hill, including arranging key engagements for Air Force senior leaders with Members of Congress and helping to prepare their testimony during Appropriations Committee hearings. In each of those engagements, Colonel Watkins served as the Air Force point man for working with the Congress on all budgetary and appropriations issues. His office also supports congressional delegation trips and Colonel Watkins accompanied me on an important trip to Russia. I have been impressed with many of the staff that Colonel Watkins led during his tenure as Director of the Air Force Congressional Budget and Appropriations Liaison Office, which I find to be the mark of an outstanding leader and manager. I am sure that my colleagues join me in expressing our appreciation to Colonel Watkins for his service to the Air Force and to the Congress. On the occasion of his reassignment to command the Mission Support Group at Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas, I wish Colonel Watkins, his wife Kelly, and his children all the very best in the years to come.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the great treasures of Vermont is Howard Frank Mosher. Mr. Mosher is a writer who knows and understands Vermont, and in books like ``Where The Rivers Flow North,'' he makes any Vermonter know they are home. A recent article in The Burlington Free Press by Sally Pollak speaks to the man he is, and I would like to take this opportunity to share this with the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, the article to which I referred.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia is absolutely right. We have tens of billions of unspent dollars sitting in accounts for Iraq and Afghanistan for rebuilding roads and such there. Let's spend it in America. Let's spend it on America. It is American tax dollars. Let's spend it on America. I yield the floor.