Floor Statements

Mr. President, there was a time when strong bipartisan majorities in Congress sided with the interests and views of the American people about curbing pollution to safeguard the public's right to a clean and healthy environment. Citizens placed their trust in the government to act on their behalf, to set science-based health standards to protect the air we breathe. On both sides of the aisle, there was an understanding that a healthy environment was critical to our families, our livelihoods, our economy, and our Nation. To improve the Nation's air quality, Congress almost unanimously passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, under President Richard Nixon. Congress then passed the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, again with overwhelming majorities in both Chambers, under President George H.W. Bush.

As part of the 1990 Amendments, Congress specifically required the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to address emissions that interfere with another State's ability to protect public health through air quality requirements. Yet today we still lack the appropriate pollution limits necessary to protect each and every American from drifting smog and soot pollutants, and to protect States from bearing the health and economic costs of distant polluters who are far beyond their purview. With the cross-State air pollution rule, the EPA is doing exactly what we in Congress asked them to do. This is also exactly what the courts told them to do, and exactly what they should do to protect the American public from the hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants emitted each year from coal-fired powerplants.

These pollutants all too often reach unsafe levels, resulting in air quality alerts and dangerous health consequences--all the more so for young children, the elderly, and those who already have respiratory problems. My own wife Marcelle is a nurse, and she knows from experience how harmful air pollution can be in contributing to asthma, bronchitis, heart attacks, and even death.

This cross-State rule will protect the American people from dangerous air pollution pumped into our air by the largest polluters. These are sensible, workable limits that would tangibly improve Americans' lives. These are improvements that would foster a better economy by annually preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, 19,000 emergency room visits, 400,000 aggravated asthma cases and 1.8 million sick days.

By 2014, in Vermont alone, the health benefits will add up to $360 million each year from these improvements. These changes are literally a matter of life and death for many Americans. For example, studies show that in our state, curbing smog and soot pollution will allow 44 Vermonters to celebrate another birthday and live to see the next generation of children and grandchildren thrive. In States like Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the cross-State rule will save as many as 1,400 to 3,200 lives each year. That is a lot of parents, children, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.

However, S.J. Res. 27 would void the life-saving, health-promoting cross-State air pollution rule and prohibit any future attempt by the EPA to limit unsafe levels of air pollutants that drift across state boundaries--making it one of the all-time most harmful and egregious attacks on the Clean Air Act and on the health of the people we represent. If passed, this resolution would force the EPA to ignore dangerous, drifting emissions forever, compelling Americans to accept shorter lives, to accept the risk of heart attacks and strokes, to suffer with asthma and other serious illnesses, and to accept the degraded quality of the Nation's parks, waterways, and forests. Those are not things that I am willing to accept and no Member of the Senate should support.

Powerful special interests and their allies who want to overturn the cross-State rule are asking Americans to suffer to save the economy, but their economic arguments fall flat in the face of the evidence. The truth is, nothing will sink the economy more than degrading our environment and poisoning our workforce. Pollution regulations help to lower health care costs, maintain worker productivity, and support local economies through recreational industries. The cross-State rule will have national benefits of up to $280 billion annually. This dwarfs the annual compliance costs of about $800 million in 2014, which helps explain why most Americans believe that health-based

pollution standards are essential in safeguarding our families and our economy.

For decades, evidence has shown that pollution limits fuel spending and create jobs in producing, installing and monitoring control technology and emissions. In fact, utilities have already spent $1.6 billion installing pollution controls to meet current air quality requirements and anticipated requirements under the cross-State rule. Furthermore, powerplants have already achieved more than two-thirds of the pollution reductions necessary to comply with the cross-State standards that go into full effect in 2014. Studies already show that the EPA's proposed air toxics rule and cross-State rule combined will create almost 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 years.

Undoing this rule now will nullify, or potentially even reverse, these important pollution reductions. It will also harm the many businesses that have made investments in clean air technologies, while perversely rewarding those plants that refused to make the sensible, long-term investments required by a rule that is nearly a decade in the making.

Vermont has no coal-fired powerplants, but we do have people suffering with asthma and other respiratory illnesses, and we do have an economy that depends on the health of our environment. In Vermont, we have made, and continue to make, decisions to invest in clean fuels and technologies. We do this because we value good health and family, friends, and the outdoors. We do this to preserve the quality of life a healthy environment provides us. We do this so that future generations have access to clean air and all the benefits that come with healthy, vibrant communities. But without the cross-State rule, we are powerless to fully protect our Green Mountain State.

Reckless decisions regarding public health policy, especially in such a broad manner as this resolution, should not be fast-tracked through the Congressional Review Act process. This resolution goes much too far, putting people permanently at risk by rolling back decades of progress to make the air we breathe safer for each and every American, especially for our children and seniors. The Clean Air Act has a proven record of improving public health, the environment, and our economy. The cross-State air pollution rule is in keeping with that impressive record: These standards are conservatively estimated to produce net benefits exceeding $100 billion a year. With today's spiraling health care costs, this is a cost-effective way to help control harmful pollution, save lives and foster a healthy environment and economy for future generations. I oppose S.J. Res. 27 and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Madam President, a bedrock principle of the Internet is that consumers should be able to access the lawful Internet content of their choice without service providers discriminating based on the source of the content. This has allowed the online marketplace to evolve into the vibrant and competitive system that we are all accustomed to today. Last December, the Federal Communications Commission took action to promulgate ``network neutrality'' rules, which are set to go into effect later this month. These are rules that will create transparency and foster competition. I oppose the resolution being considered by the Senate today that disapproves of the Commission's actions in this area.

Many Americans have either no choice or a limited choice of broadband service providers. This is particularly true in rural areas like Vermont. This lack of competition in the market raises the threat of providers discriminating against certain lawful Web sites and Internet content. Net neutrality rules are crucial in ensuring that the Internet remains the ultimate free marketplace of ideas, where better products or services succeed on their own merits and not based on special financial relationships with providers.

Congress and the executive branch must take steps to ensure that competition on the Internet is vibrant. This has taken on new importance as the Internet has become increasingly central to our lives. The online marketplace is going to be a key driver of the 21st century economy, and implementing net neutrality rules now, while it is still growing, will ensure that the online marketplace will continue to be dynamic well into the future.

The Judiciary Committee held hearings on this issue several years ago, and it is an issue in which I have been interested. I was an original cosponsor of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act in both the 109th and 110th Congresses. That bill would have gone even further to preserve an open Internet than the actions taken by the FCC last year. I will remain a strong supporter of strong and responsible net neutrality regulations in the Senate, and I oppose the resolution being considered today.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to MG Raymond Carpenter, the acting director of the Army National Guard, for his ongoing, selfless dedication and service to our country.

After enlisting in the South Dakota National Guard in 1967, Major General Carpenter joined the Navy and deployed to South Vietnam. After returning to the Guard as a Vietnam veteran, General Carpenter became a commissioned officer in 1974 and has since commanded at all levels. His efforts have transformed the Army National Guard from a strategic reserve into an operational reserve force, and the Army National Guard is now at its highest level of readiness in its 375 year history.

In our most recent conflicts, and through these tough economic times, General Carpenter has been credited for driving cost efficiencies that have saved millions of taxpayer dollars. General Carpenter led the Army National Guard through the drawdown in Iraq and oversaw a critical component of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, the implementation and expansion of the Guard's Agribusiness Development Teams.

General Carpenter's service to our Nation has come with considerable personal sacrifice from himself and his family. Rather than fill the role of the adjutant general of the South Dakota Guard and return home to live with his family, General Carpenter answered the call of duty, accepted the job of the director of the Army National Guard at the National Guard Bureau, and uncomplainingly shouldered a three star workload for his two star pay. General Carpenter put his and his family's life on hold for over 2 years and lived at the mercy of the nomination process, never knowing when he might be replaced by a full director of the Army Guard. I call on my colleagues in the Senate to join me in honoring MG Raymond Carpenter, and I hope his successor will be confirmed in the near future.

I know that the entire Senate joins me in expressing my appreciation for General Carpenter's service to our grateful Nation.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Steve Arms, a technology inventor, innovator, and successful entrepreneur from Vermont.

Steve founded and developed a high tech firm, MicroStrain, which creates sophisticated micro sensors that were originally designed for arthroscopic implantation on human knee ligaments. Their sensors have since evolved and are now used by NASA, on car engines, for advanced manufacturing, on civil structures, and by the U.S. military.

When Philadelphia's Liberty Bell needed to be moved in 2003, the National Park Service used MicroStrain to detect whether the 250-year- old bell's famous crack was worsening, even by a hundredth of a hair's width. Fortunately, and thanks to MicroStrain's sensors, the Liberty Bell was moved without damage.

A product of Vermont's public education system and flagship state university, Steve grew a one-man business

based out of his Burlington apartment into a more than $12 million a year company. Based in Williston, VT, and now employing 55 people, MicroStrain's constant innovation and product improvement has earned the company numerous top awards in the industry.

I am proud to see to see Vermonters working on cutting-edge technology that will benefit both Vermont's and the country's economy. I thank Steve and all of the employees at MicroStrain for their hard work.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the recent Burlington Free Press article entitled Vt. Tech innovator: Be in the moment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for pressing forward to secure a vote on another of the 25 judicial nominees ready for Senate consideration. I am disappointed that the Senate Republican leadership would only agree to vote on 1 of the 25 judicial nominees ready and waiting for final Senate action. All 25 of the nominees are qualified and have the support of their home state Senators, Republican and Democratic. Twenty-one of these judicial nominations were unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee. Senate Democrats are prepared to have votes on all these important nominations. I know of no good reason why the Republican leadership is refusing to proceed on 24 of the 25 nominations stalled before the Senate. At a time when the vacancy rate on Federal courts throughout the country remains near 10 percent, the delay in taking up and confirming these consensus judicial nominees is inexcusable.

I know that Senator Reid is especially pleased that the Senate has the opportunity for a final vote on the nomination of Judge Evan Wallach to fill a vacancy on the Federal Circuit. Judge Wallach is an experienced jurist with a distinguished record who has been serving on the U.S. Court of International Trade. He received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, unanimously ``well qualified.''

I am delighted that Judge Wallach's nomination has not been delayed as long as others. This nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee on October 6. There is no good reason why all judicial nominations are not considered within a month of being reported, especially the consensus nominees reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. It is my hope that this timeline can be an example and set the standard for action on other nominations, as well. When the Senate approved the nomination of Judge Zipps of Arizona less than 1 month after it was reported by the committee, we showed that there is no need for additional delay. These needless delays perpetuate vacancies and deny the American people the judges needed in our courts to provide justice.

What is disappointing is that the Senate Republican leadership has yet to agree to votes on the long-pending nominations of Judge Chris Droney of Connecticut to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit, Morgan Christen to fill one of several judicial emergency vacancies on the Ninth Circuit, or Judge Adalberto Jordan to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit. The Droney nomination has been stalled for 3\1/2\ months despite there being no opposition. The Christen nomination has been pending a month longer than Judge Wallach's and was also reported unanimously. Judge Jordan's nomination is approaching 1 month on the Senate Executive Calendar despite his being a consensus nominee supported by both his Democratic and Republican home State Senators. Also pending is the nomination of Stephanie Thacker to fill a vacancy on the Fourth Circuit. All of these consensus circuit court nominations should be considered and approved without further delay. In addition, the Senate should give consideration to Caitlin Halligan's nomination. Her nomination to the DC Circuit was approved by the committee in March.

Judge Wallach is only the seventh of President Obama's circuit court nominations the Senate has considered this year, compared to 12 at this point in President Bush's third year. We are not doing nearly as well despite five additional circuit court nominations on the Senate Calendar awaiting a vote. By this point in the third year of President Bush's administration, the Senate had confirmed 29 of his circuit court nominees. By comparison, the Senate has confirmed only 22 of President Obama's circuit court nominees. By this point in the Bush administration, vacancies had been reduced to 42. By comparison, today they stand at 83. By this point in President Bush's first 3 years, the Senate had confirmed 167 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. So far in the 3 years of the Obama administration, that total is only 115.

During President Bush's first 4 years, the Senate confirmed a total of 205 Federal circuit and district court judges. As of today, we would need another 90 confirmations over the next 12 months to match that total. That means a faster confirmation rate for the next 12 months than in any 12 months of the Obama administration to date. That would require Senate Republicans to abandon their delaying tactics. I hope they will. This is an area where the Senate must come together to address the serious judicial vacancies crisis on Federal courts around the country that has persisted for well over 2 years. We can and must do better for the millions of Americans being made to suffer by these unnecessary Senate delays.

More than half of all Americans--over 162 million--live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that could be filled today if Senate Republicans just agreed to vote on the nominations now pending on the Senate calendar. As many as 24 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 explain why they will not consent to vote on the qualified, consensus candidates nominated to fill these extended judicial vacancies.

Senator Grassley and I have worked together to ensure that each of the 25 nominations on the Senate Calendar was fully considered by the Judiciary

Committee after a thorough but fair process, including completing our extensive questionnaire and questioning at a hearing. This White House has worked with the home state Senators, Republicans and Democrats, and each of the judicial nominees being delayed from a Senate vote is supported by both home State Senators. The FBI has conducted a thorough background review of each nominee. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has conducted a peer review of their professional qualifications. When the nominations 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.

No resort to percentages of nominees ``processed'' or ``positive action'' by the committee can excuse the lack of real progress by the Senate. 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.

The American people need functioning Federal courts with judges, not vacancies. Though it is within the Senate's power to take significant steps to address this problem, refusal by Senate Republicans to consent to vote on consensus judicial nominations has kept judicial vacancies high for years. The number of judicial vacancies has been near or above 90 for over 2\1/2\ years. A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that these delays have resulted in the longest period of historically high vacancy rates on Federal district courts in the last 35 years. These needless delays do nothing to help solve this serious problem and are damaging to the Federal courts and the American people who depend on them.

Madam President, I thank the majority leader for securing votes on 2 of the 22 judicial nominees on the Senate's Executive Calendar ready for Senate consideration. I am glad that we will finally vote on the nominations of Scott Skavdahl to the District of Wyoming and Richard Andrews to the District of Delaware, both qualified, consensus nominees reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee nearly 2 months ago. I wish that we were able to vote today on the other 20 judicial nominees who have been ready and waiting for final Senate action.

This morning the Judiciary Committee reported another 5 judicial nominations, bringing the total to 27 who have been thoroughly vetted, considered and reported by the Judiciary Committee. All 27 of these nominees are qualified and have the support of their home State Senators, Republican and Democratic. Twenty-three of the 27 nominees, like the 2 we will consider today, were unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee with all members. Senate Democrats are prepared to have votes on all these important nominations. I know of no good reason why the Republican leadership is refusing to proceed on the 20 nominees who have been stalled before the Senate for weeks and months. At a time when vacancies on Federal courts throughout the country remain near 10 percent, the delay in taking up and confirming these consensus judicial nominees is inexcusable.

The American people need functioning Federal courts with judges, not vacancies. Though it is within the Senate's power to take significant steps to address this problem, refusal by Senate Republicans to consent to voting on consensus judicial nominations has kept vacancies high for years. The number of judicial vacancies has been near or above 90 for over 2\1/2\ years. 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. These needless delays do nothing to help solve this serious problem and are damaging to the Federal courts and the American people who depend on them.

More than half of all Americans--over 163 million--live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that could be filled today if Senate Republicans just agreed to vote on the nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. As many as 26 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 explain why they will not consent to vote on the qualified, consensus candidates nominated to fill these extended judicial vacancies.

Senator Grassley and I have worked together to ensure that each of the 27 nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee was fully considered after a thorough but fair process, including completing our extensive questionnaire and questioning at a hearing. This White House has worked with the home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats, and each of the judicial nominees being delayed from a Senate vote is supported by both home State Senators. The FBI has conducted a thorough background review of each nominee. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has conducted a peer review of their professional qualifications. When the nominations are then reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, there is no reason for months and months of further delay before they begin serving the American people.

Despite the damagingly high number of vacancies that has persisted throughout President Obama's term, some Republican Senators have tried to excuse their delay in taking up nominations by suggesting that the Senate is doing better than we did during the first 3 years of President Bush's administration. That is simply not true. It is wrong to suggest that the Senate has achieved better results than we did in 2001 through 2003. As I have pointed out, in the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002, the Senate confirmed 100 of President Bush's Federal circuit and district court nominees. By contrast, after the first 2 years of President Obama's administration, the Senate was allowed to proceed to confirm only 60 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees.

Indeed, as 2010 was drawing to a close, Senate Republicans refused to proceed on 19 judicial nominees who had been considered and reported by the Judiciary Committee and forced them to be returned to the President. It has taken the Senate nearly twice as long to confirm the 100th Federal circuit and district court judge nominated by President Obama as we had when President Bush was in the White House.

During the third year of President Bush's administration, the Senate confirmed 68 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. By early November, 66 judges had been confirmed. In contrast this year, even including many nominees confirmed this year who should have been confirmed last year, the Senate has only confirmed 53 of President Obama's judicial nominees. Fifty-three is not better than 66. By this point in President Bush's first 3 years, the Senate had confirmed 166 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. So far in the 3 years of the Obama administration, that total is only 113. One hundred and thirteen is not better than 166. Notably, the Senate this year is lagging far behind the pace we set for circuit court nominations in the third year of President Bush's administration. The Senate this year has confirmed just 6 circuit court nominations, compared to 12 at this point in President Bush's third year. The six confirmations this year are only half as many as were confirmed at this point in President Bush's third year. There are five circuit court nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar today and a sixth circuit court nomination reported by the committee this morning. By this point in the third year of President Bush's administration, the Senate had confirmed a total of 29 of his circuit court nominees. By comparison, the Senate has confirmed only 22 of President Obama's circuit court nominees. Twenty-two is not better than 29. By this point in the Bush administration, vacancies had been reduced to 42. Today they stand at 85. Eighty-five vacancies is not better than 42.

This is not the way to make real progress. No resort to percentages of nominees ``processed'' or ``positive action'' by the committee can excuse the lack of real progress by the Senate. 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.

I think confirmations and vacancies numbers better reflect the reality in our Federal courts and for the American people. It is hard to see how the Senate is supposed to be doing better when it remains so far behind the pace we set in those years. During President Bush's first 4 years, the Senate confirmed a total of 205 Federal circuit and district court judges. As of today, we would need another 92 confirmations over the next 12 months to match that total. That means a faster confirmation rate for the next 12 months than in any 12 months of the Obama administration to date. That would require Senate Republicans to abandon their delaying tactics. I hope they will.

The two nominations we consider today are each superbly qualified consensus nominees whom I expect will be confirmed with significant bipartisan support. The nomination of Judge Scott Skavdahl to fill a vacancy on the District of Wyoming was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on September 8, nearly 2 months ago. Judge Skavdahl, who is currently a magistrate judge on the District of Wyoming, having previously served as a law clerk for Chief Judge William Downes, the judge he is nominated to replace, has the strong support of his Republican home State senators, Senators Enzi and Barrasso. Judge Skavdahl spent 8 years as a State court judge for the Seventh Judicial District of Wyoming before that working in private practice in Wyoming. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Skavdahl ``well qualified'' to serve, its highest rating.

The Judiciary Committee also unanimously reported the nomination of Richard Andrews to fill a vacancy on the District of Delaware nearly 2 months ago. Mr. Andrews currently serves as Delaware's State prosecutor, having previously spent 24 years as a Federal prosecutor in Delaware, where he rose through the ranks to become chief of the Criminal Division. Mr. Andrews was appointed to serve as the acting U.S. attorney for Delaware on three occasions, including by John Ashcroft, the Attorney General under President Bush. He also clerked for Chief Judge Collins Seitz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Mr. Andrews has the strong support of both his home State Senators, Senator Carper and Senator Coons, who worked with Mr. Andrews in Delaware. I thank Senator Coons for chairing the committee's hearing on Mr. Andrews' nominations and for working hard to move it through the committee and Senate process.

The Senate must come together to address the serious judicial vacancies crisis on Federal courts around the country that has persisted for well over 2 years. We can and must do better for the more than 163 million Americans being made to suffer by these unnecessary Senate delays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I am taking this opportunity to share with the Senate the extraordinary accomplishment of a young Vermonter. At the age of 17 years, 4 months, and 13 days, Kristen Kelliher became the youngest female to climb the highest peaks in all 48 States in the continental United States. Her journey began in 2002 as she and her family started climbing during family vacations. Soon she progressed to scaling the tops of America's most challenging peaks, including Mount Hood and Mount Rainer. Along the way, she endured injuries and logistical setbacks, but she never let those stop her from reaching her goal. She saved the best for last. Surrounded by 30 family members on a sunny September day, she summited Vermont's Mount Mansfield, in Stowe. She is a dynamic role model to all Vermonters, young and old.

Along with excelling on the hiking trails, Kristen is also an honor student and a three-sport athlete. She plans to graduate early and climb the last two peaks--Hawaii's Mauna Kea, and Alaska's Mount McKinley--next year. Kristen is modest when praised about her achievement and says she only hopes to inspire others to reach goals they once thought unattainable. Vermonters are proud to recognize Kristen Kelliher's strength, skill and stamina, and we congratulate her on this great accomplishment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article about her achievement, from The Boston Globe.

Mr. President, some of the worst damage caused by disasters around the country has been to the houses, mobile homes and apartments where families have built their lives and made their homes. In Vermont, entire mobile home developments were washed away in Hurricane Irene's fury. Where homes once stood, now lies a path of damage, destruction and heartbreak. Our small State's ability to build new homes depends greatly on support from Federal safety net programs, like the $400 million in emergency community development block grant funding that we have worked to include in this bill. While this emergency funding is a first step in addressing the urgent housing needs of States like 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. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee to ensure that homeowners, businesses and towns have the assistance they need to begin the long rebuilding process. I have not seen damage and destruction of this magnitude in Vermont in my lifetime. Vermont and other states that were hit by Irene are stretched to the limit right now, and just as the victims of past disasters throughout the country were able to rely on their fellow Americans' help in their time of need, so should Vermonters be able to count on a helping hand when they need it most.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer, and I also compliment both Senators who just spoke, Senator Kohl and Senator Blunt, for their excellent work.

Like everybody here, I have followed these votes and the negotiations and did vote, and I am encouraged by the progress made on the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill which the Senate has now approved. It funds our Nation's ongoing transportation investments. It also includes crucial emergency disaster funding for Vermont and the other States struggling to recover from Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene and other natural disasters.

This bill is part of the response needed from Congress by thousands of Vermonters and millions of other Americans. It is vital not only for the economy of Vermont and other States whose roads and bridges were decimated by the storm, but for the Nation's economy. I commend the chair, Senator Murray, and the ranking member, Senator Collins, for their hard work and dedication toward ensuring appropriate funding for disaster relief, particularly in Irene's aftermath.

I have said many times on the Senate floor that Hurricane Irene was devastating to our small State of Vermont. I was born in Vermont, as were my parents, and I have never seen destruction of this magnitude. The only thing that even compares are stories of floods in Vermont that my grandparents used to tell me about when they were younger.

The flash floods caused by the storm destroyed homes and farms, businesses, bridges, and roads. Roads and structures that have stood for over a century were wiped out in a matter of minutes. I helicoptered over Vermont with Governor Shumlin and General Dubie, the head of our Vermont National Guard, the day after our storm, and none of us could believe the things we were seeing. With the repair costs estimated to be over $100 million, our little State has been stretched to the limit.

As the rain stopped, Vermont moved immediately and we had crews working to repair the damage. We didn't wait for anybody else; we just started moving--neighbors helping neighbors, our State and local governments, our National Guard, Red Cross, working together. However, we do need the traditional helping hand of Federal disaster recovery loans and grants to help those whose lives were upturned by Irene. Federal disaster recovery aid has always been available to other States after disasters such as this. We need it now in Vermont. This bill is an essential part of the work that Congress should be doing in response to major events such as Irene, pulling together as a Nation to heal these wounds.

The Senate, as the Presiding Officer will recall, reconvened after Labor Day. Those of us on the Appropriations Committee worked on this bill and other disaster relief legislation, which have been top priorities for Vermont and for many other States. Many other committees were involved in this important work. The Vermont delegation worked together on this bill and other Senators came together to help make

progress week by week. One by one, we have overcome a series of legislative obstacles and have been able to turn the lights from red to green.

Our legislative process this year has been unduly cumbersome and unresponsive; different than I have ever seen in the years I have spent here in the Senate. However, the progress we have achieved here in the Senate is a testament to the determination of many in this body who have been willing to set aside ideological imperatives and partisan differences to work together as Republicans and Democrats to accomplish the work that the American people and our constituents expect from their government.

Now, in Vermont and the other New England States, winter is not just on the horizon, it is on our doorstep. In our State last weekend, we had more than 1 foot of snow in some parts. I mention this because if you are going to repair roads and bridges, time is a significant factor, and time is slipping away.

We all know that roads and bridges are the circulatory system for commerce in the daily lives of living, breathing communities and their citizens--where people have to go to work, school or be together with their families. With many of the Federal aid disaster programs underfunded, I am especially pleased that this bill contains the $1.9 billion that I and others worked to include to replenish the Federal Highway Disaster Relief Fund. This fund will help rebuild Vermont's vital roadways. These roadways are critical to rebuild our economy, distribute aid, and bring people to hospitals and to schools. It is of the utmost importance that this Federal aid reaches Vermont sooner rather than later, as our winters can be extremely harsh. I look at Washington, DC, which will close down with 3 inches of snow. We call that a dusting in our State. Many times we have a foot of snow overnight. Schools will still be open, commerce still goes on, but we can't rebuild roads with a foot of snow on them. We have to be working to rebuild now and we have to be prepared to work immediately when the snow stops.

I have talked with Senator Sanders, Congressman Welch, and Governor Shumlin, who has spent every single day working on this. My wife Marcelle and I have driven around the State. We have talked to community leaders, to those who have worked on disaster relief, and others. It is very clear, given the mammoth, unprecedented destruction of this storm, certain waivers are needed to allow States to access funds for repair work they need without going through all kinds of burdens for repairs.

I mention these waivers because if we are going to ensure that Vermont and other States can promptly design and begin emergency and permanent repairs, we have to do it now. We put the waivers into this bill, and I hope the other body will understand we need them preserved. This bill, an investment in America's crumbling and damaged roads and bridges, is a crucial step. It will help restore the economic vitality of our country.

I am also pleased the legislation includes emergency community development block grant funding. Right now, HUD has no funding available. They cannot address the housing needs of Vermonters affected both by Hurricane Irene and the flooding of this past spring. These disaster recovery programs are woefully underfunded.

I cannot think of the number of hours that I and other members of the Appropriations Committee have worked on this, the evenings, the phone calls, the weekends, touching base, but it is all worth it. If this bill will now be accepted by the other body, we can go forward and we can start doing the rebuilding we need.

Vermont is a very special place, not just because it is my home but because of the spirit of its people. This is a State that has always supported help for other States and Americans all over the country facing similar disasters. We need that help now, and this bill is a major step forward for that help. I thank everybody involved with it. Now all we have to do is get it through the other body, get it on the President's desk, and continue the recovery work we are doing both in Vermont and other States damaged by Irene.

As we talk about the money, I will not resist the temptation to repeat what a Vermonter told me. I have said it before on the Senate floor. We spend unlimited sums to rebuild buildings and roads and bridges in Iraq and Afghanistan and somebody else comes along and blows them up. We build them in America for Americans by Americans and we Americans will keep them safe.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as chair of the Judiciary Committee to say I oppose amendment No. 860. It is a one- size-fits-all approach. It would have catastrophic consequences to the Justice Department and on the important work the Justice Department does in supporting local law enforcement, crime victims, and justice across the country.

I have worked with my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, on many issues. We have been able to, in a bipartisan way, develop accountability measures to ensure that particular grants administered by the Department of Justice operate efficiently and effectively. That is particularly important at a time of budget austerity. We have done it in specific contexts when those measures make a lot of sense.

For example, in the course of our negotiations of a bipartisan version of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, we worked out specific proposals. Nonetheless, six of the eight Republicans on the Judiciary Committee opposed this bill.

But one size does not fit all. Measures that make sense in one program cannot willy-nilly be applied to others without careful consideration of the consequences to the programs and, to the intended beneficiaries in local law enforcement, and crime victims.

A one-size-fits-all measure actually might harm rather than help important functions at the Department of Justice.

For example, this amendment would prevent grants to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. I know some have criticized some aspects of the Boys and Girls Clubs, and I would be happy to work with any Senator to work out these issues. But the Boys and Girls Clubs of America do great work.

I remember one police chief in my State, when asked if I could help him get a couple more police officers to help out because of crime problems, said: No. Get me a Boys and Girls Club. Get me a place for young people to go.

I know in Vermont they do a great deal, as they do in most States. If there are reforms that should be made, let's do them, but not just cut out the funding in a one-size-fits-all way at a time when we are doing everything possible to give young people a different goal than going out into a life where they might do things none of us would agree with.

This amendment would greatly restrict the Department of Justice's ability to spend funds for salaries of its own people. Is that going to lead to huge cuts in prosecutors and agents? Are we going to be imposing a salary cap on top of the one the President has already imposed? Are we going to be losing some of our best people? Are we going to be unable to develop experienced law enforcement officers or prosecutors?

I know, in law enforcement and prosecution, we value experience. We do not want to go for the lowest common denominator. We want people who are experienced.

Again, a willy-nilly amendment does not help.

The amendment includes a grant-matching requirement. But in some programs, grant matching is not a good idea. Let me tell you about one, legislation that former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I put together. It has worked very well. It is the Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program for local jurisdictions. We have, in some local jurisdictions, the ability to waive matching provisions.

We have seen a rise in the number of assaults and murders of police officers across this country. Many officers' lives have been saved because they have had bulletproof vests under the Leahy program. They would have died otherwise. But they are in small departments, in small departments in States that could not afford the $500 or $600 per bulletproof vest. Yet we expect these police officers to be out at 3 o'clock in the morning, usually with no backup. But if they are in a small, rural park in West Virginia or Vermont or all these other States, they do not have any backup. They are out there alone. We ought to give them the kind of protection they need.

I want our police officers in rural communities who do not have the budgeting of a big city department to have this kind of protection. So if we put a matching requirement by fiat--again, one-size-fits-all--we have a lot of rural police departments that are going to be badly hurt.

What about crime victims? Crime victims have already suffered great loss. Are we going to say: We can help you out, but pony up some money. Pony up a matching requirement, and then we will come in and help you. We are going to spend a fortune on the guy

we lock up who committed a crime. We will spend $30,000, $35,000 a year on that person. We are not going to ask for any matching money from the criminal. But we are going to say to the victim: We can help you, but, sorry--I know you lost all this money; I know you have been beaten, you have been bruised, you have been injured--you have to come up with some money before we can help you. The guy who did it, we will take care of him. We will pay for that. But we cannot help you.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I was a prosecutor for 8 years. I know how these victims suffer. They are usually the forgotten person in the criminal justice system. The headlines are: So and so was arrested. They are marched off. We are going to prosecute them. That is good. They should be. I prosecuted a lot of those people. But the victim is the one forgotten. Victims and others most in need of assistance are those least likely to be able to provide matching funds. Rural communities, small nonprofit providers, tribes, and States that are facing their own problems should not have another funding mandate put on them from Washington.

The new matching requirement and other requirements in this amendment would impose new burdens on all money going to State and local law enforcement through the COPS Program and many of the Byrne-JAG programs. It would prevent many police departments from hiring and keeping the officers they need. That is why the National District Attorneys Association and the National Association of Police Organizations have expressed their opposition to this amendment.

At one time, I had the honor of serving as vice president of the National District Attorneys Association. They care. They care about law enforcement. They care about prosecutors. They care about victims. We ought to listen to them.

It also would burden grants awarded through the Debbie Smith Act to reduce backlogs in testing rape kits. There are rapists who go free because we do not have the money to test the rape kits. Tell that to a victim. Tell that to the victim: We do not have the money to go get the person who did this. I am not going to vote in a way that I am going to be telling that victim: We cannot help you. We cannot test that rape kit.

The Debbie Smith grant program has received bipartisan support. It helps to ensure that rape victims will not have to continue to live in fear because somebody said: It is going to take a few months to test this because we do not have the money. By the way, lock your door. He might come back.

I am not going to vote for that.

The matching requirement would be devastating to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which works hard every day to keep our children safe from those who would do them harm. It is hard to think of any work more important than protecting our children from the evils of abuse and exploitation, but this amendment would make that work much harder because the National Center receives Justice Department grants, but it does not have matching funds.

Time is running out. I could tell some stories. I could tell some stories about what happens to these children who are exploited and abused, and it would have everybody in tears. It did me when I saw them as a prosecutor, and it does every day when I read these reports as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

My God, if we can go and try to protect people around the world, let's protect our children here at home.

I agree with Senator Grassley that we need rigorous accountability measures. Of course, we should. We do this in our hearings every week in the Judiciary Committee. GAO does it. The inspector general does it. But do not do a one-size-fits-all that is going to say to our victims, that is going to say to rape victims, that is going to say to exploited children or that is going to say to our police officers, who are told to go out there without a bulletproof vest but to defend you and me in the middle of the night: Sorry, sorry, sorry. The wealthiest Nation on Earth cannot help you.

No; I oppose this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 879, as Modified

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have worked with my good friend from Iowa on accountability measures and will continue to do so but not for this amendment.

This is a one-size-fits-all. There is a reason the National District Attorneys Association and a reason the National Association of Police Organizations oppose it. This would make it impossible for small, rural communities to get bulletproof vests under the Leahy-Campbell bulletproof vest program. This would make it impossible for some of the small departments to have the money to pay for rape kits, so they would have to tell the rape victim: Sorry, we can't go after the person who raped you, even though they might come back, because we don't have the money. We don't have the money to test this rape kit.

This is a one-size-fits-all that is going to hurt law enforcement. It is going to hurt victims. We will pay the price of the person we lock up, but we won't do anything to help the victim? I oppose it.

I stand with the prosecutors and the police who oppose it.

Madam President, I am disappointed that with so many Americans struggling in difficult economic times, we are considering amendments that will greatly reduce the ability of the neediest among us to put food on the table for their families. The amendment numbered 810 filed by Senator Sessions would eliminate the ability of States to align the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, eligibility rules with the temporary assistance to needy families to reduce administrative costs and simply enrollment.

Since 2008, Vermont has used categorical eligibility to reach more households and more needy individuals by simplifying enrollment. Reducing administrative costs and simplifying paperwork should be a goal we all share for Federal programs. But by adopting this amendment, about 1 million low-income Americans would lose their benefits and many more families that are newly eligible during these difficult economic times would have their benefits delayed because of the increased complexity of the additional processing time for applications.

Low-income working families with children are the majority of those who would be affected by the elimination of categorical eligibility. Additionally, roughly 200,000 children in these families would lose access to free school meals.

Improving the error rate even further in the SNAP program is an issue that the Agriculture Committee is committed to addressing in the upcoming farm bill negotiations, and one that we have already heard to chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee speak about this week. Eliminating State flexibility through categorical eligibility programs does not address error rates in any meaningful way. Supporters of this amendment cite limited examples as proof that categorical eligibility is at the root of erroneous enrollments in SNAP. But allowing millions to go hungry because of a few anecdotal stories is shortsighted at best.

The Senate Agriculture Committee, which I am proud to be a senior member of, will be looking for additional ways to improve SNAP in the coming months, but eliminating categorical eligibility as this amendment does is not the answer. I urge all Senators to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, recently in my State, as throughout the world, Yom Kippur was celebrated. This beginning of the Jewish year comes as Vermonters and residents of other States are struggling to regain their footing and to renew their lives and livelihoods after the devastation wrought by Hurricane and Tropical Storm Irene.

Vermonters of all faiths can take heart and inspiration from the thoughts about the meaning of the Yom Kippur observance, in the context of the aftermath of this natural disaster, which were presented in a recent essay published in the Rutland Herald and the Huffington Post. It was written by my good friend, Rabbi Michael Cohen. Vermonters' resilience in the face of this devastation and its lingering challenges truly has been remarkable. I commend Rabbi Cohen's message to the Senate's attention, and I ask unanimous consent that his essay be printed in the Record.

On October 21 we will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, one of the Nation's premiere privacy laws for the digital age. Since the ECPA was first enacted in 1986, this law has provided privacy protections for e-mail and other electronic communications for millions of Americans who communicate and transact business in cyberspace.

Today, the many rapid advances in technology that we have witnessed make this key privacy law more important than ever if we are to ensure the right to privacy. Just in the past few months, we have witnessed significant data breaches involving Sony and Epsilon that impact the privacy of millions of American consumers. We are also learning that smartphones and other new mobile technologies may be using and storing our location and other sensitive information, posing new risks to privacy.

When I led the effort to write the ECPA 25 years ago, no one could have contemplated these and other emerging threats to our digital privacy. But today, this law is significantly outdated and outpaced by rapid changes in technology and the changing mission of our law enforcement agencies after September 11. At a time in our history when American consumers and businesses face threats to privacy like no time before, we must renew the commitment to the privacy principles that gave birth to the ECPA a quarter century ago. That is why I am working to update this law to reflect the realities of our time.

Before the end of the calendar year, the Judiciary Committee will consider legislation that I have drafted to update the ECPA and to bring this law fully into the digital age. My bill makes several commonsense changes to the law regarding the privacy protections afforded to consumers' electronic communications. Among other things, my bill gets rid of the so-called ``180-day rule'' and replaces this confusing mosaic with one clear legal standard for protection of the content of e-mails and other electronic communications. This bill also provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by expressly prohibiting service providers from disclosing customer content and requiring that the Government obtain a search warrant based on probable cause to compel the disclosure of the content of an individual's electronic communications.

The ECPA Amendments Act also gives important new privacy protections for location information that is collected, used, or stored by service providers, smartphones, or other mobile technologies. To address the role of new technologies in the changing mission of law enforcement, my bill also provides important new tools to law enforcement to fight crime and protect cybersecurity including--clarifying the authority for the government to temporarily delay notice to protect the integrity of a law enforcement investigation and allowing a service provider to disclose content that is pertinent to addressing a cyberattack to the government to enhance cybersecurity.

I drafted this bill with one key principle in mind--updates to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act must carefully balance the interests and needs of consumers, law enforcement, and our Nation's thriving technology sector. I also drafted this bill after careful consultation with many government and private sector stakeholders, including the Departments of Justice, Commerce and State, local law enforcement, and members of the technology and privacy communities.

As the ECPA approaches its silver anniversary, I join the many privacy advocates, technology leaders, legal scholars, and other stakeholders who support reform of the ECPA in celebrating all that this law has come to symbolize about the importance of protecting Americans' privacy rights in cyberspace. I hope that all Members will join me in commemorating this important milestone anniversary and in supporting the effort in Congress to update this law to reflect the realities of the digital age.