Floor Statements

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. 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. 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. 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.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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. 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. 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. President, how much time remains?

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.

Madam President, the Senate today is expected to pass the Kate Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act of 2011. I support this legislation and I commend its sponsors, Senator Isakson and Senator Boxer, and their counterpart in the House of Representatives, Congressman Poe, for the efforts they have made to get it passed.

Kate Puzey was a young, vivacious Peace Corps volunteer in Benin when she was murdered. Not only was she the victim of a terrible crime, the Peace Corps mishandled her case, in fact it contributed to her death by failing to protect her identity after she sent an email expressing concerns about the actions of a family member of a Peace Corps employee. It was inexcusable, and it tarnished the Peace Corps' reputation.

This legislation is also a tribute to Kate Puzey's family, who never wavered in their determination to honor and remember Kate by doing everything possible to protect the safety of other Peace Corps volunteers. And I commend the former volunteers, who were victims of sexual assault when they served, who have joined with her family in this effort.

I support this bill and have been a strong proponent of reform at the Peace Corps to improve training, transparency, accountability, and the effective use of resources. In fact, the report accompanying the Senate version of the fiscal year 2012 Department of State and foreign operations bill, S. 1601, which was reported by the Appropriations Committee earlier this week, discusses several steps the Peace Corps should take in this regard. But as chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee that is responsible for the Peace Corps' budget at a time when, like other Federal agencies, it is facing cuts, I want to take this opportunity to ask my friend from Georgia if he would clarify the intent behind a few of the bill's provisions.

Am I right in understanding that the Peace Corps has established an Office of Victim Advocacy and that the requirement in section 8A(e)(3) of a 24-hour sexual assault hotline can be met by ensuring that all volunteers have contact information for the Office of Victim Advocacy? I assume this provision is not intended to impose an onerous or impractical burden on the agency, but rather is intended to ensure that volunteers who are victims of sexual assault have reliable contact information for a Peace Corps employee who is appropriately trained to receive a report of sexual assault and provide the necessary information and support to the volunteer.

Is it correct that section 8C(d), ``Transition,'' is specifically intended to ensure that the Office of Victim Advocacy assists returned volunteers who are attempting to access services through the Federal Employees' Compensation Act? While such services are not provided through Peace Corps, and the agency's role may be limited, the victim advocate can assist and guide returned volunteers through the Department of Labor process.

Is it also correct that section 8E(a), ``Monitoring and Evaluation,'' is not intended to impose new requirements on the agency, nor to supersede current requirements in law, such as those of the Government Performance Results Act--Modernization Act, enacted in 2010. The GPRA-MA requires agencies to develop strategic and performance plans, among other things. To the extent that the agency already meets the requirements of this subsection to monitor and evaluate country programs and directors, it would not have to expend additional scarce resources for these purposes.

With respect to section 8F(a)(3), concerning stalking, the mandate that the agency protect the confidentiality of volunteers who report stalking to ``the maximum extent practicable'' would not preclude the agency from taking appropriate steps to ensure the safety and security of the volunteer, or to take other steps to provide services to him or her. A victim of stalking may be at risk of physical attack, and if other appropriate individuals need to be informed of the identity of a volunteer in order to take action to address a potential risk to that volunteer's safety or security, we would

not want to prevent that. At the same time, the agency must ensure that it complies with all legal protections regarding confidentiality, including the Privacy Act.

Concerning section 8H, ``Removal and Assessment and Evaluation,'' we recognize that Peace Corps cannot guarantee or know with absolute certainty that a given site is safe. But we do want the agency to take all necessary steps to assess the safety of a volunteer's site if that volunteer expresses a legitimate concern that he or she is at risk of imminent bodily harm.

This bill, once it becomes law, may require the agency to hire additional staff, and given the wording of section 10, ``Offset of Costs and Personnel,'' that could mean cutting costs or laying off other staff. However, I want to be sure that unless the new employee is being added solely because of this law, and would not have otherwise been added, and that the new staff's responsibilities relate solely to implementing provisions of the law, the agency would not be required to eliminate another position. Personnel numbers at any agency fluctuate, so it is important to determine whether a particular employee was hired ``to carry out the provisions of this Act,'' as indicated in subsection (2).

I thank the Senator, and again commend him and the Puzey family for this very important legislation. We all support the Peace Corps' mission and we want to do everything we can to help it succeed, and at the same time ensure that volunteers have the training and support they need. There are inherent risks whenever an American travels, studies, works, or serves overseas, especially in remote areas in poor countries where law enforcement and judicial systems are often corrupt or dysfunctional. But what happened to Kate Puzey should never have happened. We need to do everything reasonably possible to protect the safety of Peace Corps volunteers, and this bill represents a major step forward. I am very pleased that it bears Kate's name. I know Peace Corps Director Aaron Williams has already taken some significant steps in this regard, and that he shares our goal.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate a notable development in the community of Moretown, VT. Moretown is located near the confluence of the Mad River and the Winooski River, just down the road from my home in Middlesex, and the community was hit particularly hard by the flooding caused by Tropical Storm Irene. Homes were flooded, the town offices were inundated, and the Moretown School was damaged. Bridges were washed away, cutting the town off from central Vermont's highway system, and leaving some residents stranded. But through this disaster, the town pulled together, in yet another of the many stories that can be told of the great resilience shown by Vermonters in the storm's terrible aftermath.

As flood waters rose, the postmaster in charge of the Moretown Post Office, Naomi Tilton, and the two carriers who work in the Moretown Post Office managed to save every piece of mail from the rising flood waters. Every single piece of mail in their charge. Water eventually filled the entire post office lobby, and as water damage left by the flooding in Moretown demonstrated, as much as 8 feet of water filled the first floors of structures surrounding the post office.

When my staff visited the Moretown Post Office a week later, workers had already begun renovating the building.

They had shoveled out the mud and muck deposited by the river, and they had torn out the mold-prone sheetrock. Yet even in disrepair, the post office was not in disarray or disorder: The Moretown Post Office continued to operate. A sign made out of a plain sheet of white paper directed customers to the side of the erstwhile post office, up a set of crooked stairs and into an office on the second floor. In that makeshift temporary post office, customers could still buy stamps, pick up their mail, and share their stories of survival and community togetherness.

The postal employees of Moretown did all this on their own time, outside of normal business hours, and on their own initiative. I understand that Ms. Tilton's manager was stranded dozens of miles to the south in Rochester, VT, a town similarly cut off from the outside world. Professionalism and dedication to the community motivated the employees of the Moretown Post Office to keep the area's postal system working. Their efforts offered a glimmer of hope to their neighbors as the community realized the extent of the devastation caused by the flood and the tremendous effort it would take to rebuild Moretown. And what a powerful testament to the currency in modern times of the proud tradition of this Nation's venerable postal system and its dedicated public servants.

The Moretown Post Office is just one story of the hundreds of stories I would like to tell to remind everyone how determined we are to recover from Tropical Storm Irene. The determination of our Moretown postal workers reminds us all of what it means to be a Vermonter and an American.

Mr. President, I have spoken over the years about the political transformation that has been taking place in Nepal since 2005, from a corrupt, autocratic monarchy to an emerging democracy.

That process has moved forward by fits and starts, plagued by political infighting and the seeming inability of political and ethnic factions to unite for the good of the people. We are struggling with partisanship and divisiveness in this country, so I understand the problem, but Nepal is at a historic crossroads and cannot afford for this process to fail.

Key issues that were at the heart of the internal armed conflict, such as impunity for crimes against civilians by both sides, have not been addressed. Shielding perpetrators of gross violations of human rights from punishment is incompatible with a democratic society based on the rule of law.

There are many other challenges, like reform of the army, demobilization of former Maoist combatants, improving literacy, building effective, transparent government institutions, and reducing poverty. The United States is helping, but Nepal's competing political leaders must point the way forward by making the necessary compromises.

Today I want to speak briefly about caste discrimination, which is at the core of Nepal's feudalistic history. I do so by paying tribute to an extraordinary leader of Nepal's Dalit community, Suvash Darnal, who was tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident in Virginia on August 15, 2011.

Mr. Darnal was only 31 years old when he died, but he had already achieved far more than most people, even people with every advantage, do in a much longer life.

Mr. Darnal was of humble beginnings, with nothing but hardship and unfairness to look forward to. Yet he managed to overcome daunting obstacles to become a respected leader with boundless energy, a quenchless thirst for knowledge, extraordinary vision, and a tireless determination to help improve the lives of his people.

As I have said before in this Chamber, Nepal's democracy cannot succeed without the inclusion of minority castes, including Dalits, in political and economic decisionmaking. Mr. Darnal devoted himself passionately to that cause through journalism, research, and advocacy.

He was an inspiring example of why caste discrimination has no place in the 21st century, and his death is a tragic loss not only for Dalits but for all of Nepal. He had the humility, integrity, intellect, and dedication to his people that Nepal needs in its leaders, and I hope others of his generation are inspired by his life and work to continue his legacy.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an August 16 article in the Kathmandu Post about Mr. Darnal.

Mr. President, I would not object, but I ask consent that upon completion of that, I be allowed 7 minutes as though in morning business.

Mr. President, I have spoken many times here on the floor, as has the distinguished Presiding Officer, about the disaster and tragedy Vermont faced from Hurricane Irene.

We all learned with profound sadness that MSG Shawn Stocker of the Vermont Air National Guard suffered a fatal heart attack while working on a road reconstruction project in Cavendish, VT. Sergeant Stocker was the first sergeant of the Vermont Air Guard's Civil Engineering Squadron. We in Vermont mourn this tragic loss, and our thoughts and prayers are with Sergeant Stocker's wife Kristine and their children. When I spoke with Kristine today, I told her that I would talk about her husband on the floor, and his sacrifice for his community, and for our country.

It struck me that what happened on the morning of Sergeant Stocker's passing says much about him, and about the Vermont National Guard. When Sergeant Stocker passed, his troops gathered to consider how best to honor his memory that day. Ultimately, They decided to keep on working, to continue helping their neighbors in Cavendish. ``It is what Shawn would have wanted us to do,'' they said.

We have talked often of the loss and suffering in Vermont in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene. But we must recognize the skillful and tireless work of the Vermont National Guard, which has been so critical to rebuilding our state. They have answered the call to duty to help their neighbors in need. Sergeant Stocker and his fellow Guard members put their country first, do whatever the mission requires, and we will never forget that.

From the very beginning of the disaster up until today, the Vermont National Guard has been deployed to help Vermonters in need. I spoke to Secretary Panetta last night in Washington, and I told him what a great job the Vermont National Guard is doing.

Let me show my colleagues a photograph. This photo is of a Vermont airdrop of supplies to a Vermont town. That town was totally cut off. The only way we could get in the supplies was to bring them in by helicopter. In the days following Irene, the Vermont National Guard immediately went into action to make sure the storm victims cut off by Irene's destruction received emergency supplies. Helicopters airdropped food and water, and we reached out to other State Guards.

I talked with the Senators from Maine. They told me how happy their Guards were to be able to come down and help out. It demonstrates the versatility of the National Guard.

In addition to meeting our immediate needs, the Vermont Guard has taken on major projects such as debris removal and road construction. As in so many other States, when Vermont has a need, our National Guard is there for us. Often they are the first to arrive and the last to leave. Guard units who have come to Vermont to help include ones from New York, Ohio, Maine, West Virginia, Virginia, South Carolina, and Illinois. All of these Guard units have said: We are here. Call us. Tell us what you need. That is one of the things we love about the National Guard. When one State needs help, every State steps up.

One thing Vermont did need in the immediate aftermath of Irene was helicopters. The distinguished Presiding Officer and I helicoptered around the State. It was regrettable that our State needed more airlift. Why did we? Because many of our Black Hawk helicopters were still in Iraq following the most recent deployment. They are the most modern in the fleet, but they are in Iraq. In this season of war, it takes a moment to remember the troops and equipment sent overseas are not going to be available to help out at home if we need them in an emergency.

Like that deployment of equipment, every dollar we spend on the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan is one less dollar we have to invest in recovery and rebuilding in America.

Let me show another photograph to my colleagues. Look at that National

Guard working to put in these roads. They are stretched thin, as are the National Guards all over this country because so many of them serve overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are talented engineers, talented men and women, people who know what to do and have the equipment. They can do things nobody else can do, certainly not in our little State.

This is a time to choose investment at home first. I hear people tell me we can't pay for disasters in America unless we take money out of education or medical research or other things Americans need, but we can sign a blank check to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. I am saying, let's worry about America. Americans need help. We are asking for a tiny percentage of what we are spending on a credit card for Iraq and Afghanistan.

America needs us. The citizens in our States are suffering because of a natural disaster. The men and women of the Guard who have come to their aid deserve nothing less.

For the last decade we have waged two wars on the Nation's credit card. We totally ignored paying for it during that time, even though we have raised taxes to pay for every other war in this Nation's history. We did, however, pause to throw ourselves a party in the form of tax breaks tilted toward the very wealthiest among us. The policy was wrong, and it hurt America.

Now, after all these years of funding wars and rebuilding other countries overseas, the leadership of the House of Representatives, in their continuing budget resolution that was defeated yesterday, brazenly told the American people we can no longer afford to come to the aid of Americans in need. Instead we are going to offset the costs of rebuilding America by cutting a program that Americans badly need.

This is ``Alice in Wonderland.'' Are they asking the wealthy to pay their fair share? No. Are they asking the oil and gas companies making record profits quarter after quarter to sacrifice their tax giveaways? No. Are they asking a sacrifice from those companies who get tax breaks for shipping American jobs overseas? No.

That is wrong. We cannot ask these suffering people to sacrifice and refuse to ask those who have the most to contribute their fair share.

We can't cut programs that are going to create new jobs, that provide a basic safety net for struggling families and seniors, while giving every break possible to the very wealthiest among us. It is unconscionable. It is not the American way.

I have been privileged to be in the Senate representing our great State of Vermont for 37 years. We have always dealt with disaster bills together. We have worked across the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship. Vermonters have not asked why we help out with an earthquake in California. We do it. Vermonters don't ask why we help out in Louisiana or Texas or Virginia. We do it.

We are the United States of America. We work together. We can not afford to toss aside that tradition.

The decision of some to inject politics and political point scoring into disaster relief is a new low for Congress, a Congress that is already scoring records for unfavorability. Leader Reid is right to call for a continuing resolution that includes an emergency disaster relief package that will get aid to all 50 States suffering from the effects of these unprecedented natural disasters.

We try to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan and nobody questions that. Instead, let's rebuild America.

I encourage my colleagues here and in the House of Representatives to do the right thing for people who need our help and move forward with Leader Reid's bill. Our fellow Americans need our support. Let's start spending some time worrying about America.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be equally divided.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senator Moran to be recognized for up to 10 minutes; that following his remarks that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. President, earlier this month, Vermont's Governor Peter Shumlin appointed Sydney Lea to serve as Vermont's new Poet Laureate. This honor has been bestowed to Vermonters whose poetry manifests a high degree of excellence since Governor Kunin reestablished the position of Poet Laureate in 1988. Sydney Lea is certainly deserving of this honor.

A resident of Newbury, VT, Sydney has written a number of poetry collections including Young of the Year, Ghost Pain, Pursuit of a Wound, and The Floating Candles to name a few. His pieces have been published in the New York Times, the New Yorker, the New Republic, Sports Illustrated, and many others. In 2000, his poem, Pursuit of a Wound, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for poetry. In 1998, he was a cowinner of the Poets' Prize, one of the nation's highest honors for a single collection of poems.

Sydney has taught at Dartmouth, Wesleyan, and Middlebury College as well as the University of Vermont and Yale University. He has also spent time teaching at the Franklin College in Switzerland and the National Hungarian University in Budapest. His dedication to and love for the written word has inspired hundreds of students in Vermont and around the globe. As a Central Vermont Adult Basic Education board member, he continues to see education as a lifelong process. Sydney's stories attract a wide array of audiences and come alive for Vermonters of all generations. His personal dedication to land conservation

has given him an unique ability to describe our beautiful New England landscape.

I am proud of Sydney Lea and applaud his accomplishments as a distinguished Vermonter and poet. When I called to congratulate him he was characteristically modest, but we are so proud of him, and I join all Vermonters in congratulating him on this appointment.