Floor Statements

Mr. President, last month, Democratic leaders in the House made a truly terrible decision. They opted to kill a free-trade agreement that had already been reached between the United States and Colombia, one of our closest, if not our closest, ally in Latin America, and a nation that has made great strides at democratic reform.

At the heart of the deal was an agreement that U.S. manufacturers and farmers would no longer have to pay tariffs on U.S. goods that are sold in Colombia. This would have leveled the playing field since most Colombian goods are sold in the United States duty free.

At a time of economic uncertainty at home, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement should have been an obvious bipartisan effort to bolster U.S. manufacturing and agriculture and to expand overseas markets for U.S. goods.

Unfortunately, the House leaders decided that the support of union leaders was, in this case, more important than our relations with a close ally or the state of the U.S. economy. That decision has already had serious and far-reaching consequences, and that is not just the view on this side of the aisle.

Virtually every major paper in the country was swift in condemning the House Democrats for changing the rules and blocking a vote on this trade agreement. They recognized that the decision was bad for our relations with Colombia, bad as a matter of national security, and bad for the U.S. economy.

Here are just a few of the headlines from newspapers across our country:

``Drop Dead, Colombia,'' said the Washington Post.

``Free Trade Deal is A Winner,'' said the Charleston Post and Courier.

``Approve Pact with Colombia,'' said the Los Angeles Times.

``A Trade Deal that All of the Americas Need,'' said the Rocky Mountain News.

``Our View On Free Trade: Pass the Colombia Pact,'' USA Today.

``Pelosi's Bad Faith,'' the Wall Street Journal.

``Time for the Colombian Trade Pact,'' the New York Times.

``Historical Failure on Colombia Trade Pact,'' the Denver Post.

``Lose-Lose; House Rejection of Trade Agreement is Bad for U.S. Workers and Colombia,'' the Houston Chronicle.

``Caving on Colombia,'' the Chicago Tribune.

And in my own hometown paper, the Louisville Courier Journal, an editorial titled: ``Free Trade's Benefits.''

Here is how the Courier Journal put it:

Far from the Washington Beltway, out here in Kentucky, the

U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement would have real

consequences in real people's lives--most of them good, in

our view.

I could go on. In the days after the House scuttled the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, the Office of U.S. Trade Representative counted more than 75 editorials opposing that decision. It is still waiting for a single editorial somewhere in America supporting the Speaker's decision to scuttle the free-trade agreement.

A congressional resolution in support of Independence Day would probably draw more criticism than the Colombia Free Trade Agreement has from U.S. newspapers. And the reason is abundantly clear. The decision to block a vote has already had serious and far-reaching consequences. As the San Diego Union Tribune put it in yet another editorial critical of the move: ``Bashing Has a Price.''

With respect to tariffs, that price is quantifiable. According to an estimate by the Department of Commerce, U.S. goods entering Colombia have been weighted down with more than $1 billion--$1 billion--in tariffs since the Colombia Free Trade Agreement was signed--$1 billion. This is a heavy burden to place on U.S. workers and the businesses they work for.

We hear a lot from the other side about the need for fair trade. Is it fair that U.S. goods have been saddled with more than $1 billion in tariffs just in the last year and a half alone, while more than 90 percent of Colombian-made goods are sold here without any tariffs at all? What is fair about that? This, apparently, is what House Democrats in Congress regard as fair trade.

The trade imbalance between the United States and Colombia is a matter of enormous significance for the many States that rely on exports--States such as Kentucky, which exported about $67 million worth of goods to Colombia last year. Had the FTA been brought up and passed, that figure would have been all but certain to increase this year.

The beef industry is a good example of how the trade imbalance hurts the U.S. Kentucky is the largest beef-cattle-producing State east of the Mississippi River. But at the moment, prime and choice cuts of Kentucky beef face 80 percent duties once they reach Colombian ports. Obviously, an 80-percent markup on beef makes it hard for cattle farmers in my State to compete.

The House failure to take up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement puts States such as Kentucky at a serious competitive disadvantage with Colombia--despite the fact that Colombia itself wants to level the playing field. It is Democrats in the House, not Colombia, who insist on keeping high tariffs on U.S. goods in place.

At a time when the U.S. economy is struggling, we should be doing all we can to help U.S. exporters sell their goods abroad. Instead, House Democrats are burdening our exporters with high tariffs. In these economic times, we should be expanding access to overseas markets for American-made products and American-grown goods, not standing in the way.

This is a consensus view--a consensus view--not just a Republican view. The Senate is ready to vote in favor of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement on a very broad bipartisan basis. For the good of the economy, we should be allowed to take that vote. The House should take up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and pass it, and they should do it without any further delay.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I support the flood insurance bill that has been reported out of committee. I think it is a good bill.

However, as important as it is that we strengthen the flood insurance program and get it back on sound financial footing, we cannot continue to ignore the No. 1 issue on the minds of the American people, and that is high gas prices.

Two years ago, Democratic leaders told us they had a ``commonsense'' plan to lower gas prices. But since they took control of the Congress, gas prices have risen by $1.29 a gallon, according to AAA.

At home in Kentucky, the average price of a gallon of gasoline is now $3.58. Diesel fuel--which runs our trucks and farm machinery--is now $4.11. This creates incredible hardships for families, small businesses, and farmers.

Apparently, the Democrats' commonsense plan is not working so well. In fact, the general thrust of their plan is to increase taxes on energy companies which would raise, not lower, gas prices. But Republicans do have a plan to reduce gas prices over the long term by increasing our supply of energy, American energy and American jobs, right here in our own country.

In last year's Energy bill, we passed a number of provisions that most of us supported to reduce the demand for oil, increasing fuel economy standards for both cars and trucks and increasing the use of alternative fuels. All of that was important and needed to be done. Those were important provisions. I certainly supported them and most of the Senate did as well, but we cannot seriously address the root cause of today's high gas prices without also addressing the issue of supply.

The senior Senator from New York, for example, said last week that 500,000 more barrels of oil per day on the world market would bring relief at the pump--500,000 barrels of oil per day would bring relief at the pump. I agree with him. The difference is, I believe we should produce those additional barrels of oil right here in America, with American jobs, to bring prices down. The fact is, if President Clinton had not vetoed a bill to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 13 years ago, 1 million barrels of oil would be flowing from ANWR to American consumers every day--twice what the senior Senator from New York said would bring relief at the pump.

We will have a good debate on the flood insurance bill, and ultimately we will pass it. I certainly support that. But first we are going to discuss the only real plan that would address the root cause of today's high gas prices by increasing America's supply of oil and supporting American jobs here at home.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the underlying FAA bill that came out of the Commerce Committee had wide bipartisan support. The provisions that came out of the Finance Committee that are directly related to aviation financing have wide bipartisan support.

This bill was on a fast track to passage and to improving airline safety in our country. Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle bogged it down with extraneous provisions that do nothing to improve airline safety and that do not belong on this bill.

And then, to prevent any changes to those provisions, they used a procedure that used to be rare to block amendments and improvements to the bill. So rather than quickly passing an airline safety bill that has broad bipartisan support, our friends on the other side have decided it is more important to fight for a few pet projects.

Rather than quickly finish the bill and move on to gas prices, they have decided to dig in and fight for a few extra provisions for a few extra Senators. The right choice is clear: We should quickly pass the bipartisan aviation-related portions of the FAA bill and move on to legislation that addresses the high price Americans are paying at the pump.

Republicans put forward an energy proposal, a plan that gets at the root of the problem rather than at increased dependence on OPEC. The Republican plan would increase the supply of American energy and bolster American jobs while lowering our dependence on foreign oil.

Meanwhile, Democratic suggestions for addressing high gas prices ranged from driving slower to more frequent oil changes. This is a debate we are eager to have. One wonders if the reason our friends are stalling on the FAA bill is that they are worried about exposing the fact that they have no plan for gas prices.

But Americans who are paying close to $4 a gallon for gasoline do not particularly care which party comes up with the idea; they would like some action.

Mr. President, my prayers go out to the families of those killed in Burma in this past weekend's natural disaster. Initial estimates reported the cyclone killed more than 22,000 people and tens of thousands more are missing.

Yesterday, First Lady Laura Bush announced that the United States is prepared to provide assistance and supplies to Burma, but at this time the Government has not accepted our offer.

I urge the Burmese Government to move quickly and accept the offer of the American people and act in the best interests of the population.

Mr. President, I had a chance earlier this morning to attend the signing ceremony for legislation to award Aung San Suu Kyi the Congressional Gold Medal. I wish to thank the President and the First Lady for their continued support on this issue.

For more than 20 years, Aung San Suu Kyi's support for justice and democracy has placed her at odds with the tyranny and oppression of the Burmese junta. She and her supporters have combated the brutality of the junta with peaceful protests and resistance. Suu Kyi has chosen dignity as her weapon, and she has found allies around the world to aid her in this struggle.

By awarding Suu Kyi the Congressional Gold Medal, we are letting the world know the American people would stand with her and the freedom- loving people of Burma.

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

Mr. President, as I think everyone on this side of the aisle has made perfectly clear, we do not oppose moving forward with an FAA modernization bill. In fact, we would be more than happy to move forward on the aviation provisions of the Commerce Committee and Finance Committee titles of the bill that are on the Senate floor.

The ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, has been on the Senate floor for a week flagging the extraneous, nonaviation-related provisions in the Finance Committee package as a problem. She has called repeatedly on the majority bill manager to join her in seeking to remove these extraneous controversial provisions and move forward with a clean FAA bill. Unfortunately, the majority has not accepted her offer to date, and so we find ourselves in a stalemate. I think this is unfortunate and unnecessary. But there is a way to pass this bill in a bipartisan way if our colleagues will only take yes for an answer.

So bearing that in mind, I have indicated to the other side that I would propose a unanimous consent agreement.

I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2972, a bill to reauthorize and modernize the Federal Aviation Administration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Reserving the right to object, I assume that would put us right back in the same place we are now. I will not restate what I said earlier. But it was my hope, following the advice of the senior Senator from Texas, and our expert on this issue, that we would simply take up and pass those portions of the bill that seemed to be noncontroversial.

The proposal of the Senator from West Virginia puts the controversial measure back before us, upon which we will have the cloture vote shortly. Therefore, I object.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I apologize in advance for my pollen- ridden voice this morning. It makes it a bit of a challenge to speak.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who was a fixture of Kentucky basketball, with a fervent passion for competition and a fast loyalty to his country, his State, and his beloved University of Kentucky Wildcats.

Bill Keightley, affectionately known as ``Mr. Wildcat,'' passed away recently at the age of 81. He embodied the spirit and tradition that is Kentucky basketball. Born William Bond Keightley in 1926, Mr. Keightley was an All-State center for the Kavanaugh High School basketball team in his hometown of Lawrenceburg, KY.

He later enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and bravely served his country during World War II. After the war, Mr. Keightley spent much of his young adulthood working as a mail carrier.

Then in 1962, his friend and fellow postman George Hukle asked him to help out washing jerseys and towels for the University of Kentucky men's basketball team. Over the next 4\1/2\ decades, he proved himself indispensable as the school's top cheerleader, ambassador of goodwill and confidante to players and coaches alike.

``Mr. Bill,'' as he was called by friends and family, witnessed three national championships, befriended six

head coaches, and cared for hundreds of players over his long career.

Loved by fans and respected by opponents, he earned a permanent seat on the Kentucky bench at every game. In fact, Mr. Keightley attended more than 1,400 UK basketball games, nearly 60 percent of all games ever recorded. And former UK basketball coach Orlando ``Tubby'' Smith points out that ``it has been . . . us [coaches] sitting next to him, not him sitting next to us.''

Mr. Keightley often served as a father-like figure to the players, and many recall his talks with ``his boys'' on anything from Kentucky sports to lessons of integrity and pride. ``Players, coaches, and athletic directors come and go, but Bill Keightley was constant,'' says Kenny Walker, a friend and former UK player.

John Pelphrey, member of the ``Unforgettable'' 1992 Wildcats team and now head coach at Arkansas University, says:

For 48 years, Mr. Bill looked over coaches and student-

athletes with love and care that only a father could give . .

. every time we had an encounter, there was a hearty hello, a

hug, and a laugh, every single time, just like the first

time.

In 1997, Mr. Bill's jersey was elevated into the rafters of Rupp Arena, making him one of only two people to receive this honor without having taken to the court to play the game.

In 2005, he was entered with the charter class into the UK Athletics Hall of Fame. The equipment room in Lexington's Memorial Coliseum was named in his honor, and he humbly presided over it until his unfortunate passing this past March 31.

Noted Lexington sportscaster and friend Dave Baker says of Mr. Keightley:

He knew just when to lend a hand to the young man from

Appalachia who was adjusting to the big city, or a young man

who had been recruited from out-of-state and was getting

accustomed to a brand new life in Kentucky. Mr. Keightley

lived his life as a celebration.

Perhaps the most lasting tribute to Bill began in 2002, when the University of Kentucky athletic department presented its first Bill Keightley Award to the individual ``who exemplifies the pride, respect, and positive attributes'' associated with the University of Kentucky basketball program. They still present this award annually, to honor Mr. Bill.

UK followers and basketball lovers across the Commonwealth have lost the sport's No. 1 fan. And I know I speak for all of them when I say our prayers and best wishes of support go out to his family, including his wife, Hazel; and his daughter and son-in-law, Karen and Alden Marlowe.

UK President Lee Todd, Jr., best expressed what many Kentuckians are feeling when he said that we have ``lost someone who was not only the face of Kentucky Wildcat basketball, but the University itself.'' I second his words, and add to them my own: We will not soon forget the loyalty, passion, and dedication to excellence that Bill Keightley exemplified.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I certainly share the view of the majority leader that this is an important bill that needs to be completed. However, I do not agree that employing a parliamentary technique of filling the tree, which is what my good friend, the majority leader, did, will help facilitate the completion of the bill. This, of course, gives the majority leader the opportunity to basically pick which amendments from my side will be allowed. That is the kind of procedure that makes it impossible to get enough cooperation on the minority side to get cloture and finish the bill.

This process is not going to help us get the bill finished. We will have to continue our discussions on both sides about the amendments we are going to insist be offered.

Hopefully, at the end of the day, after we get through the various procedural moves that have been made, we can develop a regular amendment process. I do not think there will be a huge number of amendments, but the amendments that need to be dealt with are important to this side of the aisle.

Until that kind of procedure is agreed to or worked out in one way or another, it would be difficult to get cloture and to finish the bill.

I see my good friend from Texas on the floor. She has been working diligently on this, along with Senator Rockefeller, for quite some time. She may want to offer her observations as well.

Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Madam President, I will try one more time with this voice. I expect I am correct in saying that filling up the tree has not worked except on occasions when the Republican leader agreed with the majority leader on filling up the tree, and there have been a few occasions on which I have agreed. I do not agree this time. This is not a process that is going to get us a bill. But we all continue to talk to each other, and we will hope that when the Sun comes up tomorrow, there will be a process agreed to that will give us a chance to get the votes we are going to have to get on this side of the aisle in order to complete a bill we would all basically like to complete.

Mr. President, as we all know, the Senate voted unanimously last night to proceed to the FAA bill, despite the fact, as the majority leader indicated, at the time we voted, we had not yet received the Senate substitute. We did have a chance to receive it overnight and will now review it before proceeding. We can talk again after the respective policy lunches, at midday today, about that. It is my expectation when we do get on the bill that we, indeed, allow amendments. The majority leader has indicated that is his intention. Many on our side would like to offer amendments and there will be debate on this bill.

I would also like to point out that while the FAA is an important agency, the No. 1 issue for Americans right now, and their greater concern, is the price of gas at the pump. The price of gasoline has jumped by more than $1.25 a gallon since the beginning of the current Congress. The cost of oil has nearly tripled to $120 a barrel now. According to the AAA, the average price of a gallon of gas in Kentucky is $3.58, the highest ever. I was happy to read the majority has tasked their chairman to come up with ideas to work on this issue, but I fear the answer that comes back will be the same two-word prescription that has been offered in the past--higher taxes.

But higher taxes will only raise the price at the pump, not lower it. So while we move forward on the FAA bill, the Senate should not forget what Americans are most concerned about, the dramatic increase in pain at the pump over the last year. We should be able to stipulate at the outset that raising taxes as a way of addressing the problem is not even worth serious consideration.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself whatever leader time I may use.

Mr. President, the Library of Congress celebrates today its 208th anniversary. On this day in 1800, President John Adams approved the appropriation of $5,000 for the purchase of such books as may be necessary for the use of Congress.

The original collection included just 740 volumes and 3 maps, which are stored right here in the Capitol. In fact, what is now the reception area of the Republican leader's office was the Library's very first home. When British troops burned the Capitol building in 1814, they used the books and maps of the Library to ignite the flames, and all 3,000 volumes in the collection were destroyed.

Several years ago, when British Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed a joint session of Congress, he visited the leader's suite and told then- majority

leader Bill Frist that although it was coming a bit late, he was sorry for the fire incident.

Today, the Library of Congress is the largest library in the world. There are more than 138 million items, including books, recordings, photographs, maps, sheet music, and manuscripts. At the Library of Congress, access to this wonderful resource is no longer limited to Members of Congress. Today, the general public can browse everything from Presidential papers to books in over 470 languages, dating as far back as the 15th century.

Two hundred eight years after its launch, the Library is renowned for its original mission of making resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and sustaining and preserving a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations. Over 3,500 staff members work for the Library, and we thank them for doing so much to keep our rich history and heritage alive.

Mr. President, on another issue, 2 years ago today, Democrats announced they had a commonsense plan to lower gas prices. When Democrats took over control of Congress last January, the average price of a gallon of gas was $2.32. Today, it is $3.53, according to AAA. Apparently, their commonsense plan is not working as intended.

In fact, since taking control of Congress last year, Democrats not only failed to deliver on their promise to lower gas prices, they have repeatedly pushed for policies that in fact would raise, not lower, prices at the pump. Every week, I hear from Kentuckians who are feeling the squeeze each time they fill up their tanks. High gas prices hurt families, hurt commuters, hurt truckers, who are paying record prices for diesel, and drive up the prices of daily necessities, including food. Yet some of our friends, reverting to form, appear to have no plan except to increase taxes on energy companies, which of course will raise prices for consumers, not lower them.

At a time of record-high gas prices, Democrats want to tax them to even higher levels. The reality is high gas prices are the result of misguided policies that have been in place for many years and will take time to bring down. For example, for too long we have kept too much of America's oil and gas resources locked up, literally off limits and unavailable to help America's families meet their energy needs. This has left us 60 percent dependent on foreign sources of oil and vulnerable to price hikes and the whims of foreign governments.

We took a small step last Congress when we opened an area in the Gulf of Mexico to energy production, but there is much more we can and should do if we want to have a meaningful impact on supplies and prices in the long term. Back in 1995, when President Clinton vetoed a bill opening a very small portion of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to exploration, the price of oil was $19 a barrel. Over a decade later, when a million barrels a day from ANWR would have been flowing to U.S. consumers, oil is $118 a barrel. While there is not much Government can do to lower gas prices overnight, this was a policy that, had it not been vetoed 13 years ago, could be making a difference today.

Democrats have also blocked proposals to increase refining capacity, which would lead to additional supplies and lower prices. We have had some successes when we have acted in a reasonable, bipartisan way, as we did when we raised the fuel economy standards and increased the use of renewable fuels in last year's Energy bill. But we will not have a balanced, effective, sensible energy policy until we also address the issue of making more of America's energy here at home available to American customers.

So we want to know what is the Democrats' commonsense plan to lower gas prices? It was announced 2 years ago. What is it? We haven't seen it yet. What is taking them so long to unveil it? The American people are waiting and paying more at the pump each day they wait.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of a young man from Kentucky who was lost in the performance of his duty. CPL Christopher Tyler Warndorf, of Burlington, KY, was tragically killed on August 29, 2006, in Iraq's Al Anbar Province, after an explosion set by terrorists went off.

A U.S. marine, he was 23 years old. Corporal Warndorf's mother Tina explains the circumstances of her son's death and how he died a hero.

The suicide bomber's plan was to come through the gates of

their base. Tyler stopped him before that happened.

For his bravery in uniform, Corporal Warndorf received several medals, awards, and decorations, including the National Defense Service Medal, the Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon, and the Purple Heart.

Looking back, it is clear Tyler's service to his country, and indeed his entire life, was a gift. Tina remembers how she and Tyler's father Christopher Joseph Warndorf were once told they could not expect to have children.

A month before we were to be married, the doctors told us

children would not be possible. We were ecstatic when we

found out we were going to have a baby. It was a pretty high-

risk pregnancy and a tough delivery. Tyler came in fighting

and left fighting.

Tina and Christopher went on to have three children in all--Nicholas and Katelyn soon joined eldest son Tyler, who went by his middle name because Tina didn't want to hear her son called Little Chris.

As a child, Tyler had to wear braces to straighten his legs. But that didn't stop him from going on to play sports and becoming a leader of other kids both on and off the playing field.

Tina remembers:

Tyler was often teased for being so small. When he went out

for football, he was so small none of the gear would fit him.

The coach got gear from the peewee football league and told

me he was on the team because of his heart, his soul, and his

determination.

In addition to playing football and soccer as a kid, Tyler was active in his church, the First Church of Christ in Burlington. He convinced his family to join as well and made friends through the church's youth group.

Tina remembers how little trouble Tyler gave her growing up.

He always told me where he was going to be. I wish all

parents could have that relationship with their kids. Tyler

set the bar with Katelyn and Nick because they saw how I

trusted him. There was never a reason to worry.

Tyler was interested in bridges and architecture and for a while set his sights on becoming a structural engineer. After a family visit to California, he thought about going to school there. But then came the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and those plans changed.

Tina said:

When 9/11 happened, he came and told me he was going to

join. He loved the Marines. He excelled at it.

Tyler enlisted in the Marine Corps in the fall of 2003, a few months after graduating from Conner High School. He spent the whole summer beforehand running and getting in shape. He was assigned to Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, based in Camp Lejeune, NC, and was eventually sent to Iraq under the First Marine Expeditionary Force, Forward.

As a marine, Tyler deployed once to Haiti and twice to Iraq. While serving in Haiti, Tyler was appalled to see children forced to scavenge for food and eat out of garbage cans. He sent to his family a list of food to send, which he passed out to the neediest kids.

Tyler did not let the thousands of miles between Iraq and Kentucky weaken the bonds between him and his family. His little sister Katelyn received a special birthday present when she turned 13. Tyler had 13 white roses delivered to her class at Conner Middle School, while over the intercom a tape of Tyler singing ``Happy Birthday'' played. It was a touching gift from a big brother who, had he been there, would surely be looking over Katelyn's report card, as he had in the past. ``He made sure we got good grades,'' Katelyn remembers of Tyler. ``If not, he would give us a talking-to.''

Tyler's family was blessed to receive a phone call from him in Iraq before his tragic death, on the happy occasion of a new niece born into the family. ``My daughter and I got to talk to him 45

minutes before he was killed,'' Tina recalls. ``If anything, it was comforting, because if it had been weeks, it would have been really hard.''

The support the Warndorf family received during Tyler's funeral was of tremendous solace.

Tina said:

I didn't expect what we received. Streets were lined the

entire way to the funeral. I had no idea. For the visitation,

the people gave me strength. Over 4,000 people visited. They

will never know how much their support and kindness meant.

One of those supporters was Tyler's captain, who used to invite Tyler to his house for dinner on weekends. He told the Warndorfs that Tyler was such a wonderful person, he was as proud of him as if he had been his own son.

My prayers go out to the Warndorf family for the loss of this fine young man. We are thinking today of his mother Tina; his brother Nicholas; his sister Katelyn; and many other beloved family members and friends. Tyler was predeceased by his father Christopher Joseph Warndorf.

Tyler leaves behind many grateful people who were happy to have known him and felt his presence in their lives. His mother Tina expresses this feeling best of all, so I will leave my colleagues with her words:

Many soldiers commented on how amazing he was. This made me

very proud. He was my confidant, my son, and my best friend.

At least we got to have him at all.

The Senate salutes Christopher Tyler Warndorf for his service to his country. He reminded those who knew him what it was to be a hero, and we will forever honor his noble sacrifice.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend, Dan Cherry. A retired U.S. Air Force brigadier general, Dan Cherry is a respected Kentuckian and a man of character.

During his time in the Air Force, General Cherry volunteered for combat duty in 1966 and 1971, flying over 295 missions, most of them over North Vietnam. On one of those missions in April 1972, General Cherry shot down the plane of a Vietnamese soldier, Nguyen Hong My.

General Cherry always wondered what happened to the pilot that he shot down, and he recently was given the chance to meet him. General Cherry and Hong My met face to face in Vietnam almost 36 years to the day of General Cherry's shooting down Hong My's MiG-21 fighter.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Brigadier General Dan Cherry, who through his actions of patronage and reconciliation has shown us what it means to be a true American, and Kentuckian. Recently

the Bowling Green Daily Newspaper published a story about General Cherry and the remarkable story of his journey to Vietnam. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.