Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to note Senate passage of H.R. 4286, legislation that would award the Congressional Gold Medal to the jailed prodemocracy leader and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. The bill now goes to the President for his signature.

I am pleased to report that this legislation has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Once again I am joined in this effort by my friend, the senior Senator from California. Senator Feinstein and I introduced this legislation and it has 76 cosponsors. In this regard, I would like to thank Rich Harper of Senator Feinstein's staff and Lucy Bean of my staff for their work on the bill.

When first established in 1776, the Congressional Gold Medal was given to military leaders for their achievements in battle. Since that time, it has become America's highest civilian honor, having been bestowed upon great friends of freedom such as Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr. Granting Suu Kyi the Gold Medal would continue that same tradition of honoring heroism in the defense of liberty.

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

Despite the efforts of Suu Kyi and her allies, the SPDC will soon place a sham constitution before the people of Burma for an up-or-down vote. This might sound democratic, but no one is fooled. This proposed constitution includes language that would forbid Suu

Kyi from holding public office. Criticism of the document is a criminal offense. The true intent behind the proposed constitution is not the expansion of democratic principles. Its true purpose is to legitimize and make permanent the military junta and its brutal tyranny.

By awarding Suu Kyi the Congressional Gold Medal, we in Congress are letting the world know that the American people stand with Suu Kyi and the freedom-loving people of Burma and against the junta and the illegitimate charter it is propounding.

I yield myself leader time.

Madam President, I remind my colleagues that if we invoke cloture on this bill, we will actually be moving off the veterans bill. Let me repeat that. A vote to proceed to the Ledbetter bill is a vote to proceed away from the veterans bill. This is really highly ironic because my side was taking a pounding Monday and Tuesday for allegedly holding up, if you will, the veterans bill. Of course, that was not the case. We have ended up, in order to accommodate the schedules of those who are frequently not here--and understandably not here because they are running for President--we had the Senate, in effect, not in session until 5 o'clock this afternoon. While Americans are waiting for Congress to do something about the economy, jobs, and gas prices, our friends on the other side decided to close shop in order to accommodate the uncertainties of the campaign trail. Finding solutions for the concerns of all our constituents should be our top priority, not just accommodating the travel schedules of two of our Members.

The proper course of action is clear. We should vote to stay on the veterans bill and finish our work on behalf of American veterans. The best way to do that is to vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to the matter before us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, of course the bill is not being held up, and of course the majority does not need permission from us to take up the bill. Today we will, in fact, vote on the cloture motion to proceed to the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. It is my belief cloture should be invoked and will be invoked.

There is actually much to commend in this bill. It will improve the lives of our veterans by supplementing the level of assistance for disabled veterans for the purchase of automobiles and increasing assistance for those veterans who need to modify their homes to accommodate their disabilities.

I wish to recognize with admiration my colleague from North Carolina, the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and thank him for his hard work on this bill. Yesterday, he made clear that he will offer a substitute that seeks to correct the one glaring flaw contained within S. 1315, a provision that would divert $221 million over the next 10 years to create a special pension for Filipino veterans of the Second World War living in the Philippines who have no service- connected disability. That money, of course, would be diverted at the expense of American veterans living in America. The Senator from North Carolina spoke eloquently about the fact that diverting these resources from our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan represents misplaced priorities, and I agree with him.

My expectation is the Senate will have a healthy debate concerning this provision. Senators on my side of the aisle will have ample opportunity to amend the committee bill so we can have a bill that will pass with bipartisan support and be signed into law. It is my hope we can work together on this bill and produce another strong, bipartisan achievement for our veterans. I expect that to happen certainly in the very near future. We will have an opportunity in our conference at noon to discuss going forward, but we anticipate moving forward with the Burr amendment early in the process. I think we are going to be able to get a strong, bipartisan accomplishment in the very near future in the Senate.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I really think any observers will find all of this quite silly, really. We are going to discuss the measure at noon. Many in my conference are not on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and have not had an opportunity to hear from Senator Burr about this issue. Yesterday was a no-vote day. Members were not around. We are going to discuss the matter at noon.

I already indicated to my good friend the majority leader that we are going to be able to move forward, I think, with dispatch on this issue, and we are going to get a bipartisan accomplishment. No amount of trying to steamroll the minority into giving up its rights is going to work. Maybe that is one of the reasons this Congress has a lower approval than the President of the United States. My good friend the majority leader never misses an opportunity to talk about the President not being very popular. Every time in the future the majority leader wants to bring up the President's popularity, I will bring up the popularity of this new

majority which makes the President's popularity look really good.

What I think the American people would like for us to do is to quit this silly sparring back and forth, and finger-pointing, and legislate. We have a very good chance to begin this week with a strong bipartisan accomplishment, and I think we ought to get about it. As soon as lunch is out of the way and Senator Burr has had an opportunity to brief our Members on this measure, with which many of them are not yet familiar, we will sit down, as we always do, the majority leader and I, with smiles on our faces, and figure out how to go forward. And I think we will be able to get there in the relatively near future.

I object.

At the risk of prolonging this a little longer, I don't think, at the end of the day, anybody in the country is going to believe we are obstructing this bill. This is a serious effort to legislate. Senator Burr has taken it very seriously. He has an important amendment to be offered, which will be offered later today. The Senate will have an opportunity to consider it.

Look, the way you get things done in the Senate is on a bipartisan basis, and the rules around here give the minority an opportunity to be involved. This is not the House of Representatives. I wish we had been able to get more done last year, but one of the reasons we didn't is because we had 34 Iraq votes. Some of my friends in the other conference told me last year that any week they weren't voting on Iraq was a bad week. We spent an awful lot of time on sense-of-the-Senate resolutions on Iraq last year.

Floor time is at a premium in the Senate, as the majority leader used to say repeatedly when he was the leader of the Democratic Party and in the minority. The Senate is not the House. Things don't move as speedily. Most observers of the Senate understand that. By Senate standards, this bill is going to move forward in relatively rapid order after the rights of the minority to offer amendments have been protected.

So I don't know what this little back and forth this morning is all about because I do think we are going to have an opportunity to get a bipartisan accomplishment in the very near future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with all due respect to my good friend, the majority leader, the American people are giving Congress such low approval ratings principally because of the rhetoric and the tone and the feeling that we can't accomplish anything.

I don't know why, on this particular Tuesday morning, at about the time we are going to go to a bill on which we could achieve an important bipartisan accomplishment, we want to engage in this kind of rancorous debate. We will have plenty of highly contentious issues to come before us. That is the nature of the legislative process. And certainly we have spirited debates in the Senate. But on the measure that we are about to go to later today, I think there will be very little difference of opinion, and at the end of the process we are likely to have a bipartisan accomplishment that we can all feel good about.

So I would hope we could improve our moods and attitudes this week as

we go forward and see if we can't accomplish something important for the veterans of our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today because a brave man from Kentucky has fallen in the far-away country of Iraq. LCpl Thomas P. Echols was tragically killed on December 4, 2006, during combat operations in the city of Ramadi. The Shepherdsville, KY, native was 20 years old.

Lance Corporal Echols was serving his second deployment in Iraq. For his valor as a U.S. Marine, he received several medals, awards, and decorations, including the National Defense Service Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, and the Purple Heart.

Raised in Shepherdsville, in Bullitt County, Tom was actually born in Mount Clemens, MI, and as a result Tom brought with him to Kentucky a fast and true love for his University of Michigan Wolverines. His grandfather, Don Wight, still recalls how his grandson once saved up money for weeks to buy tickets to a University of Michigan football game.

``I'm an MSU grad, he's a dyed-in-the-wool University of Michigan fan. Anything he could find that was U of M memorabilia, he had it,'' says Don. ``He was just a good, fun-loving young man.'' Despite the longstanding rivalry between the University of Michigan and Michigan State, Tom and his grandfather went to that Wolverines football game together.

While Tom's eyes looked north to his beloved Wolverines, his feet were firmly planted in Kentucky. He attended Cedar Grove Elementary School, Bernheim Middle School, and Bullitt Central High School, all in Shepherdsville. He graduated from Riverview High School in Shepherdsville in 2004.

Growing up, Tom belonged to his school's football and track teams. He played video games and paintball. And in high school he participated in Junior ROTC and the drill team, perhaps preparing himself for the military life he hoped would lie ahead.

Tom chose to pursue service in uniform by the time high school graduation rolled around. His father, Kurt Echols, remembers his son thinking of a career in the Armed Forces as early as middle school. Perhaps Tom drew inspiration from his father, a veteran himself.

Tom ``was a good kid, loved sports, a big Michigan fan,'' Kurt says of his son, and remembers him as someone who always enjoyed a good joke.

In the fall of 2004, Tom enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was a member of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division from Camp Lejeune, NC, and during his deployment to Iraq, his regiment fell under the command of the First Marine Expeditionary Force, Forward.

Tom's longtime friend Tim Zamboroski was sorry to see the childhood buddy he had grown up with whisked away to the other side of the world. As kids, Tom and Tim used to play baseball together in the backyard. As men, they would trade e-mails back and forth from America to Iraq.

``I think he was pretty happy with serving the country,'' Tim says. ``I'm going to miss him.'' When he heard Tom had been killed, Tim says he felt as if he had lost a brother.

Lance Corporal Echols drove humvees during his first tour in Iraq, and by his second tour had become an infantryman.

While serving in the Marine Corps, he also became a husband, after asking Allyson Echols, whom he met in high school, to marry him.

Tom and Allyson married during the week of Thanksgiving in 2005. Allyson now raises the couple's young daughter, Julia, who sadly never got to meet her father.

Tom was buried at the Zachary Taylor National Cemetery in Louisville, KY, with full military honors. A large crowd of people came to pay their final respects. Sheriffs from both Bullitt County and neighboring Jefferson County were there, and Tom's father Kurt remembers with pride that members of a local fire department erected a large American flag in honor of his son.

Our prayers are with the family of Lance Corporal Echols today as God comforts them for their tragic loss. We are thinking of his wife Allyson; his daughter Julia; his parents Kurt and Rose; his sister Rebecca; his brother Alexander; his grandparents Jerry and Sharon Echols and Donald and Mary Wight; and many other beloved family members and friends.

This U.S. Senate expresses its deepest gratitude for LCpl Thomas P. Echols's life of service. And we express our deepest gratitude for the Echols family, for nurturing this man, patriot, and marine who answered the call in his country's time of need.

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

Mr. President, 1 year ago today, a tragedy struck the campus of Virginia Tech, where the lives of 32 students and faculty members were tragically cut short in what was the worst campus shooting in U.S. history. We remember with sadness the terrible loss we all suffered that day while we all mourned with the Virginia Tech family. Our prayers go out to everyone in the Virginia Tech community who is remembering a loved one on this day.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this week we welcome his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, for his first visit to America as Pope.

Here in Washington, Pope Benedict will meet the President at the White House, marking only the second time in America's history that a pontiff has visited the White House. He will offer Mass at the newly opened Nationals Park, and deliver an address at Catholic University.

Pope Benedict will then travel to New York, where he will address the United Nations, visit Ground Zero, site of the devastating 9/11 terrorist attacks, and say Mass at Yankee Stadium.

During his visit, the Pope will also champion a brotherhood of faith between the religions, by meeting with leaders from the Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, and other faiths.

The Pope's visit observes some important anniversaries. Wednesday, April 16, will be his 81st birthday, and Saturday, the 19th, will mark the third anniversary of his election as Pope.

His visit also coincides with the 200th anniversary of four of the oldest dioceses in the United States, one of which was established in my own State of Kentucky. Two hundred years ago this month, Pope Pius VII carved the Diocese of Bardstown from one of the oldest dioceses in the New World.

The territory of the Bardstown Diocese once covered a giant swath of land, including what are now the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and half of Arkansas.

The Bardstown Diocese was established alongside the dioceses of Boston, Philadelphia, and New York. Its seat was eventually moved to Louisville, KY, and made an archdiocese. But its place in the history of American Catholicism continues to be a point of pride across Kentucky.

Kentuckians celebrate this bicentennial throughout the year at the St. Thomas Church, considered the ``Cradle of Catholicism'' in the Bluegrass State and still located in Bardstown. A two-story log house that stands on St. Thomas' property is the oldest structure related to the Catholic faith in our region of the United States.

Built in 1795 by Thomas and Ann Howard, the property was willed to the church by Mr. Howard in 1810, and it became the first home of the St. Thomas Seminary, the first seminary west of the Alleghenies. It later served as the residence of Bishop Benedict Joseph Flaget, first bishop of the Bardstown Diocese.

Bishop Flaget and others who worked to establish the Bardstown Diocese were pioneers of the land as well as of the spirit. Kentucky was the western frontier of the young United States at that time, and frontier life posed many hardships.

Yet Bishop Flaget successfully made his work and presence felt throughout the diocese, and the St. Thomas Church still cites his influence today, two centuries later.

The resolve and faith displayed by the founders of that Bardstown Diocese are the same resolve and faith that have enabled so many other Catholic missionaries to attract more than 1 billion adherents to the Catholic faith.

As the Bishop of Rome, the Pope's leadership inspires millions with confidence that mankind can find God's will amidst the chaos of this world.

Yet, for all the obvious affection people show him, Pope Benedict would be the first to recognize that he is merely ``a simple, humble laborer in the vineyard of the Lord.''

We are honored by his visit. And in Bardstown, Washington or elsewhere, we welcome Pope Benedict VXI to bring his labors to America.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier on this day in 1947. He immediately made his mark on the field and off the field, winning the Rookie of the Year Award in 1947 and suffering painful indignities from fans and opposing players with both patience and grace.

As a young man growing up in Louisville, I always took pride in the fact that Pee Wee Reese, a graduate of my high school, had become a Major Leaguer and even the captain of his team, the Brooklyn Dodgers. But I was even more proud of the fact that Pee Wee walked over to Jackie one day when the taunts were especially tough, put his arm on Jackie's back, and sent a message to the fans that Jackie Robinson was no different than anyone else they came to root for that day.

Reflecting on Jackie's courage, a baseball commentator said this week that it is remarkable to note that in all the photographs from those years, Jackie always seemed to be smiling, despite the jeers and taunts and the hatred.

We honor Jackie Robinson today for his courage and his example and for accelerating the march toward equality for all Americans.

Mr. President, most Americans view April 15 as a sort of national anti-holiday, when they are forced to take a hard look at how much of their money goes into a Washington spending machine instead of their childrens' education or their gas tank.

It is worth noting that most people don't dread tax day as much as they used to; as much as they did before Republican policies significantly reduced the share of the family budget that goes from taxpayer wallets to the Treasury Department.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 43 percent of middle income earners say they are paying too much in taxes--43 percent, but still far fewer than the 59 percent who thought they were being overtaxed 7 years ago.

The reason for the drop-off isn't too hard to figure out: The reason a lot fewer people think their tax burden is too high is that their tax burden is a lot lower than it was 6 years ago.

Married couples and families with children have benefited from tax credits, tens of millions of Americans have benefited from tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, including more than 250,000 people in Kentucky.

And that is why it's critical that middle class Americans understand the path that Democrats are headed down.

At a time when the economy is slowing and Americans are paying record prices for food, gas, and healthcare, our Democrat friends are preparing the largest tax hike in U.S. history--nearly three times larger than the previous record.

We saw the plan last month in a budget that only one Democrat in the Senate voted against, a blueprint that raises taxes on middle class families by $2,300 a year.

Our friends won't admit this is a tax hike; they won't say they're raising taxes; they plan to do it quietly, by letting all the recently enacted tax cuts and credits that Americans have benefited from over the past several years expire.

If you ask about it, they will tell you these tax cuts were only for the rich anyway.

Don't listen to them--unless, of course, you think 43 million American families with children who will pay thousands more in taxes under the Democrat budget are rich, and should be taxed more; or that all 18 million seniors who will pay thousands more in taxes under the Democrat budget are rich and should be taxed more; or that every owner of the 27 million small businesses in the U.S. who will have to pay $4,100 more in taxes under the Democrat budget are rich and should be taxed more.

Under the budget that every Democrat in the Senate but one voted for last month, taxes will go up on anyone who makes more than $34,000. Are these people rich? Should they pay more in taxes?

The first-year teacher in Louisville who makes $35,982--is he or she rich? Does he or she need to be taxed more? I will bet they don't think so.

How about the veteran teacher with a Ph.D. who maxes out at $73,418-- is he or she rich? Does he or she need to be taxed more? I will bet they don't think so.

Our Democrat friends have their own answer to these questions: they voted for an amendment last month that extends tax breaks on married couples and children.

The problem, of course, is that they voted for a similar amendment last year, and then they didn't do a thing about it. They had no intention of making it into law.

So if past experience is any indication of future events, our friends won't act on the amendment this year either. They cast a vote that's intended to appeal to working families, but their record shows they won't follow through by actually doing anything about it.

As Americans struggle to pay the bills and millions worry about falling home values and whether they will even be able to keep their homes, they should be able to expect more from Congress than political cover votes and class warfare rhetoric.

All the recently enacted tax cuts will soon expire. These cuts have helped tens of millions of American families and seniors. These folks should know what is coming. And Democrats in Washington should relent on their plans to return to the bad old days when 60 percent of them thought their tax bills were too high.

That is the road our friends on the other side are taking us down. They

have shown us the blueprint. It certainly was not written with working families in mind.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my good friend, the majority leader, and I, I think at the beginning of this conference--and I believe this is a correct characterization of where we were; I am sure he can disabuse me of the notion if it is not a direct characterization of where we were--we felt at the very least, President Bush, with regard to circuit court nominees, should be treated as well as President Reagan, President Bush 41, and President Clinton were treated in the last 2 years of their Presidencies.

Each of those Presidents found themselves with the following dilemma: The Senate was in the control of the opposing party, so there was a certain symmetry to this President. George W. Bush ends up the last 2 years of his Presidency similarly situated to President Reagan, President Bush 41, and President Clinton. The average number of circuit court judges approved for all of those Presidents was 17. President Clinton was on the low end of that at 15.

As of today, April 15, we have approved in this Congress seven circuit judges. Except for last week, there had not been one since last September. I am sure the majority leader would agree with me that we are running dramatically behind. We know there is an election coming up in the fall.

The majority leader mentioned the so-called Thurmond rule which at some point here will probably be implemented, indicating there will not be any circuit judges approved.

We currently have before the committee two judges, one from North Carolina and one from South Carolina. The one from North Carolina has a unanimously well qualified from the American Bar Association and has previously been confirmed to his current position as a district court judge by the Senate. The blue slips are back on both of these judges. We anticipate there will be a nominee from Virginia who will have blue slips returned and, in the near future, two nominees from the State of Michigan whose blue slips will be returned. As we all know, in Michigan there are two Democratic Senators and in Virginia there is one Democratic Senator and one Republican. In South Carolina and North Carolina, there are two Republican Senators. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee has made it clear he is not likely, almost certainly not likely, to move a nominee from a State for which there are no blue slips. So we have blue slips in on North and South Carolina, and both nominees have been waiting for quite some time. So there are nominations ready to go.

What I have said is there is a great interest on my side in seeing three circuit court nominees confirmed by the Senate before the Memorial Day recess. The majority leader has indicated he is comfortable with that. We have not picked the candidates, but let me suggest it would be unfair to discriminate against a State which has two Republican Senators with blue slips in and has had nominees pending for quite some time in favor of nominees only recently with blue slips in or only recently nominated. The principle should be the same regardless of whether a State is represented by two Republicans, two Democrats or one Republican and one Democrat. If the blue slips are in, the blue slips are in. If the nominee is otherwise qualified and noncontroversial, I would hope, I say to my good friend, the majority leader, he would share my view that we should not discriminate against a nominee from a State with two Republican Senators, the nominees having been pending for quite some time, in favor of recent nominees who happen to be from States with two Democratic Senators or one Democratic and one Republican Senator. I wonder if my friend, the majority leader, has any observation about that.

Mr. President, the only thing I would add with regard to my earlier comments, just picking, for

example, the North Carolina judge, the Fourth Circuit is a judicial emergency. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee has set forward some standards. His first standard: If a vacancy is deemed to be a judicial emergency, it should be addressed quickly. That is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In the case of the Fourth Circuit, it has been declared a judicial emergency. It is one-third vacant. The nominee from North Carolina, to pick an example, is not controversial, has a unanimously well qualified from the ABA. The blue slips are back from both North Carolina Senators. My only point to my good friend, the majority leader, was it would seem not to be fair, when you have a nominee pending for a long time who is not controversial, upon which the blue slips have been returned, where there are two Republican Senators, for that nominee to be in effect moved to the back of the bus while you handle nominees nominated more recently from a State with two Democratic Senators or a State with one Democrat and one Republican Senator.

What I am pleading for is a sense of fairness. I believe in the case of both North Carolina and South Carolina, with the judicial emergency existing on the Fourth Circuit, you could make a strong case that they should be dealt with first under the standards of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. But in particular I cite the nominee from North Carolina because he has been declared noncontroversial, had the unanimous ABA approval rating, and has been pending for hundreds of days. I don't know why we couldn't meet the goal the majority leader has set out of doing three circuit court nominees before Memorial Day. There is no reason not to. There are enough ready to be dealt with who don't require additional paperwork.

So I guess my question of the majority leader is, What is his view as to the likelihood that we would get three circuit judges confirmed before the Memorial Day recess?

Mr. President, I guess the only thing I would add, would the majority leader agree with me on the following principle: That a circuit judge from a State with two Republican Senators, who is completely qualified and upon which two blue slips have already been returned and have been pending for a long time, does the majority leader share my view that those type nominees from States with two Republican Senators should not be discriminated against in trying to meet our responsibility? We have only confirmed seven circuit judges throughout this Congress. We are a long way from coming anywhere close to what President Clinton got at 15.

Well, I certainly understand what the intention of the majority leader is. We will need to discuss this further, I guess privately. I certainly understand his intention. I know he is a person who operates in good faith. I trust him. We have had a good relationship over the last period during which we have been in our respective positions. I guess the calculation I have to make, at some point, is what is the likelihood of this occurring, because there is a deep-seated unrest on our side related to this low number of circuit court judges. I think that is understandable. It is a paltry number in comparison to how President Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton were handled in a similar situation. But I understand the representations my good friend, the majority leader, has made as far as he is prepared to go today. We will continue to discuss the matter.

Mr. President, I wish to make a few observations about the status of the judicial confirmation process, and then I will turn to another matter.

It has been 108 days since the Senate confirmed a Federal judge of any kind. It last did so the week before Christmas, on December 18, 2007. Since then, the Senate has made precious little progress on judicial nominations. I don't blame the majority leader for that. I think we began this Congress with a general understanding of what we hoped to achieve, and that is still possible. But as of today, we have not confirmed any judicial nominees this year, and the Judiciary Committee has held only one hearing on one circuit court nominee since last September.

Today we will finally be able to confirm some judicial nominees. That is obviously good news, and I applaud that. But after we confirm the judicial nominees on the calendar, that may be it for a while due to the glacial pace at which the Judiciary Committee is proceeding.

It is not as if the committee has been otherwise occupied. This is another week in which the committee could have held a hearing, for example, on the qualified nominees to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, but again it chose not to. These nominees meet the chairman's own criteria for prompt consideration. Nevertheless, they have been inexplicably languishing for hundreds of days without a hearing while the Fourth Circuit is one-third vacant.

We were told that having the support of home State Senators ``means a great deal and points toward the kind of qualified consensus nominee that can be quickly confirmed.''

Let me say that again. We were told that having the support of home State Senators ``means a great deal and points toward the kind of qualified consensus nominee that can be quickly confirmed.''

Well, Steven Matthews of South Carolina had the strong support of both of his home State Senators, one of whom, by the way, sits on the Judiciary Committee, but he has been waiting 217 days just to get a hearing.

Judge Robert Conrad of North Carolina, whom the Senate majority unanimously confirmed to two Federal positions and most recently to a lifetime position on the district court, has the strong support of both of his home State Senators. Yet he has been waiting for 268 days.

My Democratic colleagues are quick to point to the lack of home State support as a reason not to give someone a hearing. But it is beginning to look as if this criterion is being selectively applied. It is readily used as a reason not to move a nominee, coincidentally, when the nominee is from a State with a Democratic Senator, but it is ignored when the nominee has the support of two Republican Senators. At least that has been the case to date with the Fourth Circuit nominees.

For example, Rod Rosenstein is the U.S. attorney in Maryland. He has been nominated to the Fourth Circuit. By all accounts, Mr. Rosenstein is a fine lawyer and public servant. His peers at the American Bar Association certainly think so. They gave him the ABA's highest rating, ``unanimously well qualified.''

The Washington Post also thinks Mr. Rosenstein is an outstanding nominee. In an editorial entitled ``A Worthy Nominee,'' the Post noted that Mr. Rosenstein has ``earned plaudits for his crackdown on gang violence and public corruption,'' and that one of his supporters at the head of the Criminal Division during the Clinton administration, Jo Ann Davis, called him a ``perfect'' candidate for a judgeship:

Smart, savvy and as straight of an arrow as I have ever

encountered.

The Post bemoaned the fact that Mr. Rosenstein does not have the support, for some reason, of his home State Senators, and out of deference to them the committee would not process Mr. Rosenstein's nomination. But Mr. Matthews and Judge Conrad do enjoy the strong support of their home State Senators. Yet those nominees can't get a hearing. So it doesn't seem that the same sort of deference is being paid to the Carolina Senators as to others.

I do understand the committee intends to give a hearing to the Fourth Circuit nominee from Virginia because the junior Senator from Virginia--a Democrat--in addition to the senior Senator from Virginia-- a Republican--support the nominee. It is great that the committee may actually at some point move a circuit court nominee, especially one to a circuit that is 33 percent vacant. But why is this nominee leap- frogging over two other nominees to the very same circuit, both of whom enjoy the strong support of their home State Senators and both of whom have been pending for hundreds of days longer than the nominee from Virginia?

It looks as though if a Democratic Senator in the Fourth Circuit opposes the nominee, then the committee will not move the nominee, and if a Democratic Senator of the Fourth Circuit supports the nominee, then the committee will move the nominee. But if two Republican Senators in the Fourth Circuit--or, in this case, four Republican Senators in that circuit--support two nominees, that doesn't seem to mean anything.

We need to treat all of the Senators who represent the Fourth Circuit consistently and fairly. We can do that by holding a joint hearing for Mr. Matthews and Judge Conrad. Doing so will make up for lost time and will afford the Carolina Senators the respect to which they are entitled.

Mr. President, in Kentucky there is a family mourning the loss of a young man who was taken from them entirely too soon. On September 21, 2006, CPL Windell Jeryd Simmons was tragically killed when an improvised explosive device detonated under his humvee while on patrol near Taji, Iraq. The Hopkinsville, KY, soldier was 20 years old.

For his valor in service, Corporal Simmons received several medals, awards, and decorations, including the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star.

Jeryd, as he was known, may have been born in Nuremburg, Germany, in 1986, but he was raised in Hopkinsville. Jeryd's mother, Betty Simmons- Mayo, tells us how her son would always greet her whenever he entered a room.

Jeryd used to always enter a room and say,``Hey Mom.'' Then whenever he would come back into the room, he would say, ``Hey, Mom'' again, she recalls. I think he would say ``Hey, Mom'' at least 15 times a day. He would start his e-mails from Iraq with ``Hey, Mom.''

But her friendly son was not without his mischievous side. Betty also recalls a time when Jeryd hid a water gun behind his back and would sneakily shoot his mother, brother, and sister with it every time they walked by. Whenever one of his victims accused him of being a culprit, Jeryd would plead innocence. So his mother hatched a scheme to prank the prankster. She said:

Jeryd loved to play practical jokes. To get him back, I got

everyone a water balloon, and the next time he was outside,

we threw balloons at him. He stopped shooting everyone after

that.

Jeryd graduated from Christian County High School in 2004 and set his sights on enlisting in the U.S. Army. He had made his decision to serve his country before graduating.

Jeryd's friends remember him as a natural leader, somebody they would dearly miss, but also someone they knew would make them proud for his service in uniform.

``He was like the ring leader. He was the best,'' says Tad Abukuppeh, a high school classmate. ``No matter what it was, he was always energetic about everything we did together.''

Another friend, Justin Baker, agrees.

He was pretty quiet in school, but when you got him out of

school, he was one of the funniest guys you would meet. He

was the idea man. If we were bored, he would think of

something to do.

Jeryd enlisted on June 24, 2004, and was assigned to HHC Company, 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, stationed in Fort Hood, TX.

He was deployed to Iraq in December 2005. Jeryd wrote in an email to his mother that he would be home in time for Christmas. But, sadly, that was an appointment he would not keep.

Jeryd's funeral service was held in Hopkinsville, where he was buried in a veterans' cemetery. He was laid to rest with full military rites, including a 21-gun salute and the playing of ``Taps.''

A memorial service for Corporal Simmons was held in Fort Hood also. At that service, CPT Brad McBrayer remembered Jeryd as someone who made people laugh. He reminded his fellow soldiers of Jeryd's career ambition to be a special agent for the FBI someday.

Our thoughts are with the Simmons family today after the loss of CPL Windell Jeryd Simmons. We are thinking of his mother, Betty Simmons- Mayo; his father, William Simmons; his stepfather, Jamel Mayo; his brother, William J. Deal; his sister, Jarysa L. Simmons; his step- grandmother, Mrs. Alfreda Brewer, and many other beloved family members and friends.

April Harris, Jeryd's math teacher from Christian County High, remembers Jeryd this way: ``He could have taken the easy route,'' she says, ``but he wanted to prepare himself.''

While she was speaking about Jeryd's efforts in her classroom, she could easily have been talking about the focus and determination Jeryd applied to life itself.

Our Nation is honored to have so many sons and daughters like CPL Windell Jeryd Simmons, who choose to stand and fight for freedom and for their country.

On behalf of a grateful Nation, this U.S. Senate salutes Corporal Simmons's choice to serve. We owe his family a debt that cannot be repaid. And we will forever honor his sacrifice.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me say briefly, I wish to offer my congratulations, along with those of others, to both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for their astonishingly good work over the last 9 to 12 months. In virtually every measurable way that you can look at Iraq, conditions have dramatically improved. That is a direct result of the smart military strategy that has put Iraq in a position where it can realistically aspire to be a relatively normal country by the standards of the Middle East and certainly an ally on the war on terror, which is extremely important.

I also think it is important for all of us to remember we have not been attacked here at home for almost 7 years--a direct result of the strategy of getting on the offense and pushing back against those who would attack us here at home, which we have done both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

So it was an opportunity, with the appearance of the general and the ambassador, to congratulate them for their outstanding work over the last year. We look forward to going forward in Iraq in a way that leaves behind a stable country that can make a positive contribution to the security of the United States here at home and in the Middle East.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the troops are coming home in an orderly way. Precipitous withdrawal we know would lead to a new haven for terrorists with the opportunity to attack us here at home. I think, clearly, we will debate this issue in the fall. The American people have this on their minds, obviously. They also have on their minds the economy, health care, and other matters. They are interested in their future. I think the American people are not interested in having additional attacks on the homeland in the future. That is something we will debate not only in the Senate but out on the campaign trail this fall.

Mr. President, of course, no one has said that, and my dear friend, the majority leader, knows it. That is a swipe at Senator McCain, who was talking about troop deployments overseas, not the continued engagement in warfare. The mainstream media--which has not been particularly friendly to the war--has hammered those who have accused Senator McCain of saying we were going to have a 100-year war in Iraq.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what he has said. Anybody who looks at the entire exchange, which occurred in a town meeting in New Hampshire back in January, knows precisely what he was saying. He was talking about having troops deployed overseas, which we have had in Germany and Japan and South Korea for many years. He was talking about a situation under which they are not under attack, not being killed or wounded but deployed overseas, not only to protect our security interests but also to reassure our allies. That is what Senator McCain was talking about. No one I know is suggesting--and it is almost laughable to suggest--that we are talking about that kind of lengthy military engagement.

Mr. President, one other thing. One thing we do agree on--in trying to end this exchange with something we do agree on--I think both the Democrats and Republicans agree the size of the Marines and Army is insufficient. I think there is bipartisan support in the Congress to increase the size of both the Army and the Marines. I think that is something we can agree on. Hopefully, that will be achieved in the coming years.

Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from Kansas in the well of the Senate. He must be coming over to celebrate the victory of the Kansas Jayhawks last night. I assume that is the reason for his presence. I will let him address that and whatever other matter he may have in morning business. But in noting his presence, even though I know he has some K State leanings, he nevertheless must be incredibly proud of the Kansas Jayhawks, as they won the national championship last night.

Mr. President, on another matter and a sad matter, I wish to start with news of the passing of John Hanford. John was a World War II vet, a great patriot, and the dear brother of our colleague, Senator Dole, who I know is very close to him and will miss him terribly.

This is a sad day for the Dole family, and I wish to extend our deepest sympathies to Senator Dole and all her relatives and friends.