Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Daschle amendment---- Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, our goal this afternoon is to get to a process or an agreement that allows the Senate to deal with the very important issues pending before the Senate: trade promotion authority, the Andean Trade Preservation Act, the GSP, as well as the trade adjustment assistance. These are four very big issues, very important for our country and other countries--in the case of the Andean area-- and for the workers of this country. The way it has been put together, it is very difficult to work through all of these issues and get a result. Serious efforts are underway to see if we can achieve an agreement that produces a result. We also have to deal with a process issue, how to make that happen. A few moments ago, I filed a first-degree amendment to the Andean Trade Preference Act and filed cloture. I think that is the way to proceed. I think we need a showing of who wants to get trade promotion authority and how we will move this to a conclusion. I want to do that and I know Senator Daschle wants to do that, too--find a way to get to conclusion and produce a result. I was within my rights to seek that recognition and offer that amendment. I did so in good faith with the recognition that if I didn't, some further motion or procedure might have been offered by Senator Daschle or Senator Reid. Having said that, Senator Reid and Senator Nickles and others were in the Chamber. They had an agreement on how to proceed, and they felt this was not fair under the understanding that had been worked out. I always try to make sure we play above board and fair with everybody. Senator Reid has always been fair with both sides, and he felt this was not the right way to proceed at this point. After a lot of discussion, I will move to vitiate that action. But I do want to emphasize--and then I presume Senator Daschle may announce we would have a period of further discussion as we continue to work on this issue--I do think this is the correct way to proceed. We should not get off the trade legislation and go to any other issue. We are on the verge of beginning to make progress. If we let up, I think the momentum will stop. I had to explain what happened and why I am doing this. I have heard stories from the past of how Senators have come to the aid of Senators on the other side of the aisle saying, no, this was not the fair way to do it, even if it might have appeared to be fair. We want to always try to do that with each other. Amendment No. 3399 Withdrawn Therefore, I ask to vitiate the cloture motion I filed and withdraw the amendment I filed.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just a couple of clarifications, and a statement of what I believe our understanding is: First of all, I believe--we talked about this earlier--there still needs to be a point of order made against the package that was filed, and there would be enough votes to sustain that point of order.

Mr. LOTT. When the point of order is made, at that point we will move forward with the agreement we have in regard to TAA. Amendments would be in order on the rest of the underlying package, TPA, trade promotion authority, and the Andean Trade Preference Act. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. LOTT. We have had an opportunity to quickly review the components of this compromise agreement. It has been a bipartisan effort. The administration has had input. I believe all parties are agreed to support it. There could still be amendments that would be offered, or entertained, as Senator Daschle said. But I believe the negotiators are prepared to defend the agreement and oppose amendments that would change that. I want to state very firmly that it would be my intent to do the same thing. If we don't do that, we begin to pick apart the agreement, and then there is no agreement. But I believe good work has been done. All parties have made some concessions. I think, though, that it is going to have significant assistance for those who need this transition assistance, and this will set a process up that can get us a bill. I hope Senator Daschle will join me in opposing amendments that could undermine the agreement which we have. Further, I observe that I am glad we will be having votes on Monday. I think we are going to have to do serious work. I understand Senators have amendments on both sides that will be offered. But we do need to try to finish the bill next week. I think we are going to have to look at how we are guaranteed that is done while Senators have a chance to make their case. That is a delicate balance, as is everything in the Senate. It always takes understanding and cooperation, and we are going to do that. Senator Daschle and I both are going to have to provide leadership with which our entire caucuses won't always agree. But that is how business is done. I think we have done the right thing here. I intend to support this agreement and work on getting this very important legislation completed. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I don't want to dice and slice there too closely, but I want to clarify that the negotiators and I believe Senator Daschle and I are prepared to support the components of this compromise agreement even though not all of it was in the TAA area. Obviously, other amendments may be offered on trade promotion assistance, and we will have an opportunity to offer those. But we will defend the components of the compromise.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Now, Mr. President, the pending business will be the trade bill?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Daschle amendment No. 3386 exceeds the Finance Committee's allocation of budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2002 and breaches the revenue floor for fiscal year 2002, fiscal years 2002 through 2006, and fiscal years 2002 through 2011. I raise points of order against this amendment under sections 302(f) and 311(a)(2)(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, if the Senator will yield: How much time is remaining on this side of the aisle?

Mr. LOTT. On each side?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the majority leader took some time at the beginning of this debate. Was that out of leader time?

Mr. LOTT. It was not out of leader time?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have been wanting to speak about the situation with regard to the President's judicial nominations. I have a number of points I wish to make. I know there were some discussions about the nominations earlier this morning and even this afternoon. The major point we are trying to make today is that today is the 1-year anniversary of eight of the President's nominations to serve on circuit courts. These minorities, men and women, have not even had the courtesy of a hearing, let alone a vote in the Judiciary Committee. I have learned over the years that when you are talking about judges and judicial nominations each side will have their statistics about what happened in the Clinton years, what happened in the Reagan years, and what happens right now. But the fact is, these eight nominees have not even had a hearing; they have been pending for a full year. There are actually 11 nominees who were sent forward in a group--the first nominations of President Bush. Three of those have been confirmed. Two of those, I might add, were recycled, in effect, because they were Democrats, or were selected by Democrats, and they were qualified. The President resubmitted their names. They got through the process. But these eight have not had any further consideration for a full year. You can argue statistics. But usually Presidents get their circuit nominations confirmed within a year of having them sent forward. The President sought men and women of great experience and who meet the highest standards of legal training, temperament, and judgment--for all of his nominations, but particularly for this first group of circuit court nominees. He sought out nominees who respect the powers given to them by the Constitution and who will interpret the law--not make the law. He sought out nominees who have reputations as lawyers of skill, discernment, and high character. He even sought out nominees who had a great deal of experience in arguing cases before the Supreme Court. In this group of eight nominees, they have collectively appeared before the Supreme Court over 60 times. One of the nominees has alone argued before the Supreme Court 30 times. In terms of their education, their experience, and their integrity, this group is unimpeachable and quite remarkable. Here are these individuals' pictures. I think a picture helps inform our debate, because it takes the debate away from the realm of just statistics or mere names. Mr. President, when we are talking about judges who have been delayed, we are talking about Miguel Estrada, who was born in Honduras, and has lived the American dream. He has tremendous experience in his profession, including serving as Assistant U.S. Solicitor General under President Clinton, a Supreme Court law clerk, arguing 15 cases before the Supreme Court, and working as a Federal prosecutor. He also graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School--not an institution known for turning out conservative lawyers, or judges--but certainly an eminently respected institution as far as quality, high standards, and academic rigor are concerned. Yet Estrada has been denied a fair hearing. Why? Noone has suggested he is not qualified by education, by experience, or by professional or personal integrity. Does he have a conservative philosophy? Does he believe in strict construction of the Founder's intent in interpreting the Constitution? Yes. Does that disqualify him? It should not. I voted for Justice Ginsburg when she came before the Senate. I did not agree with her judicial or legal philosophy. I knew she would rule quite often in ways with which I would not agree. While most justices exercise discretion, you can't always count on how they may rule. But she was qualified by experience, by education, and by personal integrity and demeanor and I voted for her regardless of the fact that her philosophy was contrary to my own. Unfortunately, I cannot think of any other reason than ideological prejudice for why Miguel Estrada has not had a hearing and an opportunity to be voted on--despite the fact that he was unanimously given the ABA's highest rating, ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association which is supposed to be the Democrat's Gold Standard for evaluating nominees judicial qualifications. Yet, Miguel Estrada has not even had a hearing. Another example, which is clearly one that is hard to understand, is the delay in considering Justice Priscilla Owen, a nominee to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have a special feeling in my heart about this circuit because it does include my State of Mississippi. Judge Owen has served on the Texas Supreme Court since 1994. She has been involved in business in the private sector. She is an outstanding graduate of Baylor Law School in Texas. Again, by education, by experience, and by personal integrity, this is a lady who should have been accorded a hearing and a vote by now in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, why do we need another pound of flesh concerning the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals? Is Judge Charles Pickering who has already been voted down in the Judiciary Committee not enough. If we are looking for tit for tat, how about just saying: OK, good, take that, Mr. President, Trent Lott, Republicans, we repaid you what you deserved from the past? But how does all of that apply to Priscilla Owen? Why has this lady not been accorded a hearing? Remember, once again, that she has been pending for a full year. One interesting thing of note, Mr. President, is that two of these nominees, were actually nominated by the first President Bush. So they in a sense have been waiting over 10 years to get a fair hearing and be confirmed to the circuit courts. John Roberts is one of those two, and has again been nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He is one of the Nation's leading appellate lawyers, having argued 36 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and serving as a Deputy Solicitor General for our Nation. He also graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. So again, by education, by incredible experience, and by personal integrity, he has stellar qualifications to serve as a circuit court judge. Yet, he too has been denied a fair hearing and an opportunity to be considered by the Senate by the majority of Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, our Nation's fourth President, James Madison, was certainly correct when he said that the courts exist to ``exercise not the will of men, but the judgment of law.'' This President has gone to great lengths to nominate the kind of men and women who will do that once they are confirmed. Another nominee who has been delayed for over a year without cause or justification, is Justice Deborah Cook, nominated to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. She has served as a justice on the Ohio Supreme Court since 1994. Before becoming a judge, she was the first woman partner at Akron's oldest law firm. She is a graduate of the University of Akron Law School. This is the circuit where half of the judicial seats are vacant. There is a long history on why that is, but the fact is that again the nominee is an eminently qualified nominee. And she has been waiting 52 weeks for a hearing even though the ABA voted unanimously that she was qualified. So what is the problem, Mr. President? There are no allegations of improper conduct. There are no allegations that she is not qualified by experience, by education, or by demeanor, yet she is still waiting on a hearing. Yet another nominee unjustifiably delayed is Judge Terrence Boyle, a nominee to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. He was unanimously confirmed to be a Federal district judge in 1984. Mr. President, one of the things that struck me as very interesting about Judge Pickering's treatment by the Democrats was that he has been a sitting federal district court judge since 1990, over 12 years. And now we have a nominee who has been a Federal district judge for almost two decades, who was unanimously confirmed in 1984. The former chairman of the State Democratic Party in North Carolina even supports his nomination. He is a graduate of American University's Law School. This is one of the two nominees, the other being John Roberts, who was first nominated to be a circuit court judge back during the first President Bush's administration. He was younger and well experienced then, and he now has another decade of experience as a Federal district court judge to his credit. And here he is back again, only to be denied a fair hearing by the Democrats. So, in each and every one of these cases, there is no explanation for the year-long delay in giving President Bush's first group of nominees prompt and fair treatment. Michael McConnell has been nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and again he is an eminently qualified legal scholar. He is one of the Nation's leading constitutional scholars, the author of legal books, and a prolific contributor to law journals. He has argued 11 cases before the Supreme Court. His reputation for fairness and integrity has generated support from numerous law professors. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School. Again, on what possible grounds is such an extraordinarily qualified individual denied a hearing for over a year? Judge Dennis Shedd, a nominee to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, was another nominee unanimously confirmed to be a Federal district judge in 1990--yet another sitting Federal district judge, Mr. President. He is strongly supported in his home State by both Senators--Senator Fritz Hollings and Senator Strom Thurmond--and served in the past as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is one of ours no less. Yet, he has been waiting unjustifiably for over a year for a fair hearing and a vote. Mr. President, I believe I have talked about each one of the nominee's personal qualifications to serve on the circuit courts of America. I should note that, back in January, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee indicated there would be a hearing for Justice Priscilla Owen, Michael McConnell, and Miguel Estrada--and that they would have hearings this year. Now, I guess we have 4 more months that have expired, another 4 months in which they have not been given a hearing much less a vote. I hope they will given more than the courtesy of a hearing, which seems the minimum they should have. They should have a vote in the Judiciary Committee and then a vote here in the full Senate. Mr. President, the delay in confirming such well qualified nominees to be judges has had an adverse impact on the judicial system itself. The number of vacancies has gone up over the past year--there are now almost 100 judgeships vacant--while 44 nominations languish in the Senate. As a result, justice is being delayed as the caseload burden increases for almost every current judge in the nation. I would take a moment to note one curious thing about today's efforts regarding judges. We had six judges on the calendar ready to be voted on; but only four were moved, the other two were not. One of the two nominees has a very close association with Senator Hatch. The other one is the lone circuit judge on the calendar. So, once again, it appears circuit judges are receiving worse treatment by the Judiciary Committee than are the Federal district court nominees. I realize around here we get to thinking: Well, wait a minute, circuit courts are more involved in the interpretation of the law. Maybe they are more important. But I will tell you what, if you ever practiced a day of law, the ones you see who really are dealing with the law every day are the Federal district judges. I do not understand the big dichotomy here and why the circuit judges are being delayed and treated so unfairly. I want to point out what is happening in terms of these circuit judges nominated by President Bush as compared to the treatment that was afforded circuit court nominees during President Clinton's first two years in office. First off, I should note that while President Bush sent his first nominations up on May 9, 2001, a year ago, President Clinton did not send up his first batch of nominations to the Senate until August of his first year in office. So, there was actually less time to actually get President Clinton's nominees confirmed than there has been to get George Bush's out. Yet you can see from the chart what is actually happening with Bush's nominees, particularly with respect to the circuit judges. President Clinton, in the 14 months after his first nominee was sent up, got 86 percent of them confirmed by the time Congress adjourned. Ultimately, over the course of the following Congress, Clinton ended up getting almost all of the judges he nominated during his first Congressional term. Again, I am not going to get into great arguments over the exact percentages or numbers, but there is clearly a problem here. While Clinton got 86 percent of his circuit judges by the time his first Congress adjourned, President Bush only has 30 percent so far. And at the current pace the judiciary is considering Bush's nominees, it looks like Bush is not going to break 50% by the end of this Congress. It looks as if we might get two or three more circuit judges by the end of the year, but it surely is moving deliberately slowly. The American people recognize this is a problem for the country. When you have a circuit like the 6th circuit that has a 50-percent vacancy rate, then you begin to wonder, do we have enough judges to cover all the cases, even the truly important ones? This is a question of law and order, Mr. President, drug cases, terrorist cases. Justice Rehnquist, the Chief Justice, has decried the vacancy crisis as ``alarming.'' More than 10 percent of Federal judgeships are currently vacant. So this problem for our nation that is very serious, particularly after the terrorist attacks in New York and here in Washington. I have talked to Senator Daschle about it. Senator Nickles and I, along with Senator Hatch, have talked to Senator Leahy and Senator Reid. I know, having been majority leader, that sometimes these problems are hard to resolve. The Judiciary Committee doesn't always follow instructions even from the elected leaders. But this creates a problem. We have been trying to resist slowing down or blocking meetings or progress on the legislative process because we want to move forward on these important bills. But we have to point out that there is a blatant unfairness here, to the country and to the nominees. I can't help but think of the cliche that justice delayed is justice denied. That is what is happening here. I know my time is running out. I probably will come back and talk more about this later. I ask for fairness, fairness for these eight circuit judges. We can argue about the others later, the other circuit nominees, other district judges, but after an entire year President Bush's first eight nominees should have a hearing. They should have a vote on the Senate floor. No criticisms have been raised against them other than un-attributed hints that they are conservative, and the current majority in the Senate is looking for some sort of a litmus test or conformance, I guess, based on philosophy and ideology. I don't think that either fair or appropriate. It is not what is called for under the Constitution. I hope that the Senate will ultimately find a way to make progress in this area and give these nominees the opportunity to be fairly considered based upon their temperament, professional and educational qualifications, and their personal integrity. As President Bush has noted in making the case for getting his nominees confirmed, Federal judges are key to making sure America functions well. Every day they uphold the rights of an individual, they protect the innocent, they punish the guilty. Their rulings are essential to the rule of law in our nation. To discharge their responsibilities the federal courts must have judges.'' Because of the number of vacancies in our nation's courts, Americans are being forced to wait for justice, and the burden on federal judges is growing heavier. Mr. President, one newspaper, the Wichita Eagle, got it exactly right on the judges issue back in March in part I think because it is located in the heart of America when it said: ``But just as presidents have an obligation not to nominate the incompetent or unqualified to the federal bench, presidents deserve the broad authority in making their choices for such judicial posts. And the Senate has a responsibility to give those choices every possible consideration and, barring some glaring defect, confirm them quickly. Yet the backstabbing and stalling on judicial confirmations has escalated to the point of obstructing justice. It needs to stop.'' This President's nominees are men and women of distinction and great accomplishment. They are solidly within the mainstream of American legal opinion, and they share a principled commitment to follow the law, not legislate it from the bench. Mr. President, President Bush' nominees should be given fair hearings, voted on, and confirmed by the Senate as soon as possible. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, at this point I would have to object. I don't know that I would want to. I just have not had a chance to discuss this with Senator Daschle.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LOTT. We did vitiate the cloture, withdraw the first-degree amendment, but I ask that we consider filing cloture on the underlying amendment, just ATPA. My cloture and amendment had been both trade promotion and Andean trade. If we file cloture on just the Andean Trade Preservation Act, that would ripen Monday night or Tuesday if we got an agreement, and it would at least guarantee we would be able to get that issue resolved and hopefully sent to the President by Tuesday or Wednesday, thus dealing with this problem that Senator McCain addresses. If we don't, we are going to have this deadline that we are facing. I say this in a bipartisan, nonpartisan spirit. It would be one way to make sure we get a vote on that. We could still get an agreement and vitiate if we had to and get the trade promotion authority and trade assistance also. I might say that I understand we need to try to make progress. But we have only spent about 12 hours on this bill and really only one serious amendment has been offered. I know you, Senator Daschle, would have liked to have had more amendments offered. Certainly we assume that will occur, perhaps even still. But we have not spent much time on the trade bill itself. I would address the question--urge you to consider, even today, within the next hour, filing cloture on the underlying ATPA. We could still get progress on these other bills without prejudicing this particular provision. That is the kind of thing I think Senator McCain would like to see us do. He is pressing me to file cloture on the underlying Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act. Would you consider that as we proceed this afternoon?

Mr. LOTT. I will respond to that. I think that is what we should do. That is what I just did; I offered an amendment. But because of concern about the fact we were in morning business, I withdrew it. I think that is the way to go. Hopefully, maybe we will come to an agreement this afternoon that will allow us to move forward on all three bills. If we do not, then what I urge we do is stay on the trade bill, have amendments, and go forward. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not object--let me withdraw the reservation and speak after we have gotten the agreement.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition. I thank Senator Daschle for agreeing to this time. Obviously, the farm bill is a very important issue for our country, for our trade, and for many farmers, as well as consumers who depend on agriculture in America. There are a lot of concerns about this legislation. This is a very large piece of legislation. I think it is a 6-year program. It adds over $73 billion to farm programs, as well as not only the commodities but conservation and nutrition and food stamps. This is a huge bill. I think having adequate time to discuss the conference report is important. The ranking member on our side of the aisle, Senator Lugar, has a number of concerns which he needs to point out. I think this is a fair way to get it done. It does take away time that we could be spending on other bills but we cannot just ignore the support or the opposition to a bill of this magnitude. All things considered, this is the best way to proceed.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, sometime when the Senate is doing its best work, it is not always visible. Throughout the day, we have been having discussions that involved the managers of this legislation. They have been talking to members of the Finance Committee and communicating with the administration. It is very important that we have the straight legislation. There are a lot of different views on both sides of the aisle about exactly how this should proceed, or whether it is a good idea. There are those who say, yes, we would like to have trade promotion authority, but there must be trade adjustment assistance to go with it for those who might be displaced from jobs so they can get assistance with training and get into the next job. It is important we move forward. Everybody's options are still preserved. Senator Daschle and I have indicated to each other that there is not going to be any precipitous move. We want to take a look at the actual language. Sometimes it is hard to negotiate a moving target or when there is not a clear understanding of what is involved. We now have a document. We are going to take a look at it tonight. I hope we can begin to move forward, perhaps even with amendments tomorrow. We will go over the language, and we will be talking further with the managers of the legislation and make sure the administration has a chance to review it. I look forward to a full debate and amendment process. I do wish to add--and I know Senator Daschle is thinking it right now--this should not take place over weeks, as we experienced with the energy bill. We have some important issues, some tough issues, but once we see if we can come to agreement on two or three of these issues or get votes on a couple of these issues, we should be able to move it forward in an expeditious way. It did not work on the energy bill, but I do think this week, and hopefully by the end of next week, we will have an agreement on which we can vote. It is worth the effort, and I am prepared to put a lot of time into it. I thank Senator Daschle for agreeing to lay this legislation down so we can take a look at it. We will continue working together tomorrow.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to recognize one of the finest officers in the United States Air Force, Brigadier General Roosevelt ``Ted'' Mercer, Jr. On May 9, 2002, General Mercer will become the Commandant of Joint Forces Staff College at the National Defense University in Norfolk, VA. He will be leaving the job as Commander of the 81st Training Wing at Keesler AFB MS, a position he has held and executed with great pride, leadership, and honor. During his time at Keesler, as Commander of the 81st Training Wing, General Mercer personified the Air Force core values of integrity, service before self, and excellence in all things. Many Members and staff enjoyed the opportunity to meet with him on a variety of Air Force issues and came to appreciate his many talents. Today it is my privilege to recognize some of Ted's many accomplishments since he entered the military 27 years ago, and to commend the superb service he provided the Air Force, the Congress and our Nation. Ted Mercer entered the Air Force through the Reserve Officer Training Corps program at University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington. While there, he completed his bachelor's degree in urban planning in 1975, as well as being a distinguished graduate of the university's ROTC program. Upon graduation, he was assigned to Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, where he became proficient in Titan II missile combat crew operations, so much so that by 1980 he became an instructor in missile combat crew operations at Vandenberg. From early in his career, General Mercer's exceptional leadership skills were always evident to both superiors and subordinates as he repeatedly proved himself in numerous select command positions. He was the Commander of the 447th Strategic Missile Squadron at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota; Commander of the 45th Logistics Group at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida; and at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota he was Commander of the 91st Operations Group. In June 1998, he assumed command of the 30th Space Wing at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. As I've stated earlier, he superbly led the 81st Training Wing at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi from September 2000 until May 2002. Ted Mercer also has excelled in a variety of key staff assignments. These include serving as Deputy Director of Operations, Headquarters U.S. Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado; Vice Director of Plans, Directorate of Plans, Headquarters U.S. Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado; Chief, Nuclear Division, Directorate of Plans and Policy, Headquarters U.S. European Command, Stuttgart, Germany; and Executive Officer, Directorate of Personnel Plans, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington DC. General Mercer also served as Chief of Congressional Affairs, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters U.S. Air Force in Washington DC, and has been awarded a Defense Superior Service Medal and Legion of Merit among other decorations. We were all pleased to see General Mercer selected as Commandant of the Joint Forces Staff College at the National Defense University in Norfolk, VA. I offer my congratulations to him, his wife, Mike, and daughter, Sidnee, on this new assignment. The Congress and the country applaud the selfless commitment his entire family has made to the Nation in supporting his military career. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in expressing my heartfelt appreciation to General Ted Mercer. He is a credit to both the Air Force and the United States of America. We wish our friend the best of luck in his new command.