Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for something they have done not just for me or even for the city of Little Rock or the State of Arkansas but for the country. They are trying to help on a project we are working on, Little Rock Central High School. In 1957, the two biggest stories in the world that year were Sputnik and Little Rock Central High School because Little Rock was the first major southern school district to try to integrate their schools to try to follow the law as laid out in Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, KS, and to try with all deliberate speed to integrate their schools. They took that charge seriously and, as we all know, the situation there got chaotic and very difficult. There has been a lot written about it. It is one of the major milestones in the history of the struggle for civil rights in this country. In September of 2007, Little Rock Central will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the desegregation crisis at Little Rock Central High. We all know the story of the Little Rock Nine--Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Minnijean Brown Trickey, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, Thelma Mothershed Wair, and Melba Pattillo Beals. We all know the story of these brave children who went into the lion's den, so to speak, to strike a blow against the old system of ``separate but equal'' that was not working, and was fair. That was not right. They showed tremendous courage not just for themselves and their personal safety, but they led by example. It is very important we as a Nation honor them and honor Little Rock for making the effort, and honor the school for all the progress they made since 1957. Little Rock Central High School now is considered one of the best high schools in America. It has been an amazing success story. It shows how things can work when the community pulls together and tries to put difficulties of the past behind them. I could talk on and on about how proud I am of the Little Rock Nine and the way Little Rock has handled the situation, but today I thank Members of this Senate for their support of S. 420. It is critical to acknowledge what happened at Little Rock 47 years ago. I thank two Members of this body specifically who really helped get this on track: first, Conrad Burns, who is the Interior Subcommittee chairman; and then the ranking member on that subcommittee, Byron Dorgan. They have both been fantastic. Their staffs have helped. They have made arrangements for us to get $733,000 in this Interior appropriations bill in order to do the design phase of the new visitor center at Little Rock Central High School. Our goal is to try to have the visitor center completed and totally constructed and up and running by the September 2007 anniversary. But we could not have done this without Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan because they have shown a great deal of leadership. Also, I must say, Bruce Evans, Ric Molen, and Peter Kiefhaber, on their staffs, have been great to work with. Another group that Senator Lincoln and I both want to thank is the Congressional Black Caucus over on the House side. They have been fantastic. In fact, they have entered a sister resolution to this, and all 38 members of the Black Caucus signed on to the resolution. They have been great. Chairman Elijah Cummings has shown some great leadership on this issue, and it has brought hope to the civil rights community for this hopefully very positive celebration they will have in 2007. The last person I want to thank, who is always there working behind the scenes trying to get things done for his congressional district, is Congressman Vic Snyder. Vic Snyder has shown great leadership in this matter, as he does consistently in everything he does. He has worked behind the scenes and he has worked with all sides. He is doing everything he can to make sure this becomes a reality, again not just for his district or the State but really for the Nation. So, Mr. President, again, I thank everyone for their help and their support in what we are trying to do at Little Rock Central High School. I happen to have gone there. I am very proud of that school. It is a great landmark in the struggle for civil rights. The people in Arkansas decided to make Little Rock Central not stand for a negative but stand for a positive, stand for progress. It is something that certainly the community but also the State has rallied around. We are very proud of what they have done at Little Rock. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise today with a note of encouragement; that is, one of the things I have noticed through the committee process, and certainly on the Senate floor, is how bipartisan--or maybe in a better sense of the word, nonpartisan--this debate has been. I think the Senate is very committed to following up on the 9/11 recommendations in the 9/11 report. I think we are approaching this in a way that is very constructive and very positive, and which we all hope and pray in the long term is very effective for our national security and for our intelligence. I know there are a number of amendments that we have still pending. I don't know exactly what is going to be offered or what will be agreed to, but my plan is to listen very carefully to all of those amendments. I think they all have value. I may vote against some of them; nonetheless, I think it is important that we have this discussion, have this debate, and show our leadership for this Nation on this very issue. There are two Members, two really great leaders, I wish to commend; that is, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman. They have done a fantastic job and have demonstrated the patience of Job through this process in their determination and commitment. They are a prime example of how this Senate can work and should work and how great things can be accomplished by working together. I think it is incumbent for us as a Senate and as a Congress to provide the tools and the structure that we need in our intelligence community to connect the dots. I think the 9/11 Commission said this in a number of ways in a number of cases. But at one point, the 9/11 Commission report said: Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. I know because I have talked to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that this body is committed to reforming itself when it comes to intelligence issues. Let me read, if I may, from the report one short paragraph found on page 105 of the 9/11 Commission Report. It says: Fourth, the oversight function of Congress has diminished over time. In recent years, traditional review of the administration of programs and the implementation of laws has been replaced by ``a focus on personal investigations, possible scandals, and issues designed to generate media attention.'' The unglamorous but essential work of oversight has been neglected, and few members past or present believe it is performed well. DCI Tenet told us: ``We ran from threat to threat to threat. . . . [T]here was not a system in place to say, `You got to go back and do this and this and this.' '' Not just the DCI but the entire executive branch needed help from Congress in addressing the questions of counterterrorism strategy and policy, looking past day-to-day concerns. Members of Congress, however, also found their time spent on such everyday matters, or in looking back to investigate mistakes, and often missed the big questions--as did the executive branch. Staff tended as well to focus on parochial considerations, seeking to add or cut funding for individual (often small) programs, instead of emphasizing comprehensive oversight projects. Madam President, my hope is when we finish this bill--it looks as though next week, realistically at this point--we will then turn to the work of reforming congressional oversight. Members on both sides of the aisle are very committed to doing that. Let me speak for a moment or two about an amendment I was able to tack on in committee. Again, I thank the leadership in the committee but also thank the entire committee because in the end, after we explained this and worked through this and walked through this, we decided this was an amendment that should be added to the bill, and it currently is in the proposed legislation. Basically, one thing the 9/11 Commission Report said is we need to have a way to evaluate our intelligence structures. It is important as we pass this reform legislation, the most significant reform of intelligence since 1947, to build into it some sort of look-back provision. That is what we have tried to do with my amendment. I am glad the committee has agreed with this and has been able to go along with this. Basically, it requires the GAO to give a report in 2 years, an independent objective look at what we have done--have we been successful? Have we failed? Do we need to take away a little bit here or add a little bit there? But an independent evaluation, nonpartisan look at exactly what we have done to make sure it is working. It is too important to not get it right the first time. For example, the 9/11 Commission found a need-to-know culture of information protection rather than a need-to-share culture of integration. The GAO review can indicate whether adequate mechanisms have been put in place to change this culture and be more productive and better, long term, for U.S. intelligence. I thank the committee for its hard work. I thank the two leaders for their hard work. I thank this entire body for approaching this challenge in a very nonpartisan way.

Mr. PRYOR. No. I was going to comment on an amendment that we adopted.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for those very kind words. Also, I would like to thank Senator Grassley. He knows I am a fan of his. We appreciate the good working relationship we have. It is time that we care for those who take care of us. What I am talking about here is, in the conference yesterday there was a provision that was separated out that deals with our men and women not just in uniform but in combat. They are not receiving, in my view, fair treatment under this tax proposal. Let me say, I am for this middle-class tax bill. I think it is a good piece of legislation. I commend the Finance Committee. They worked very hard on this. I appreciate all of their leadership. But when it comes time for the earned-income tax credit, I need to talk about that for a second because last year, in fact it was last March, I was in the Armed Services Committee and we were talking about the various benefit packages our men and women in uniform receive and it dawned on me that I am not sure anyone in our Government is connecting all the dots. So I approached Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and asked them to ask the GAO to do a review of military tax issues. Sure enough, the GAO found a glitch, an oversight, an unintended consequence, as they call it, in the Tax Code, where if soldiers are trying to claim an earned-income tax credit and are also receiving combat pay, they actually get penalized under the Tax Code. I know Congress never intended this, but it is the way it is. There are about 10,000 of our men and women in uniform today who are actually losing money on their taxes because of this unintended consequence. The amount of tax dollars they are losing is anywhere from $335 per taxpayer to $4,534 per taxpayer. As I said, this affects around 10,000 of our soldiers. We focus on the ones in Iraq, and certainly our prayers go out for those brave men and women, those heroes, but this also impacts people in Afghanistan and Bosnia and Herzegovina and other places around the globe. The way I feel about it is that so far we have lost 1,039 soldiers in Iraq. In fact, there have been more than 4,000 who have been so injured that they will be unable to return to combat. They are in harm's way for us every single day. They are putting their lives on the line, and I feel strongly that while they are over there fighting for us, we in the Congress need to be here fighting for them and for their families. Also, when you look at this and you run the GAO numbers, this is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. It is only about $30 million-- that is million with an ``m.'' We don't talk about millions very much when we talk about the Tax Code. We usually talk about billions. This is not very much money to the Federal Government, but this is real money to these people. I believe strongly that they are in harm's way every single day, and the last thing they need to worry about is getting gypped on their taxes and having an unintended consequence like this. Now that Congress is aware of this through the GAO report, I think we need to address it. I am very disappointed that in the conference yesterday they only extended it by 2 years instead of 5 years. I think this should receive the exact same treatment everything else does and be extended to 5 years. Regardless of that, I still believe that is a good piece of legislation. I thank my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. She has been a great leader on the Finance Committee. She has done so many great things. Certainly, Senator Baucus and all of the members, Senator Grassley and all these members of the Finance Committee have done great work. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Pryor pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 420 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this year marks the 50th anniversary of Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, easily one of the most significant legal decisions in American history. But today I want to talk about another anniversary that is rapidly approaching, and that is an anniversary that flows directly from the Brown decision. I am speaking of the Little Rock Central High desegregation crisis which occurred in 1957. The 50th anniversary will be here in a couple of years, 2\1/2\ years, in 2007. I come to the floor today to speak on behalf of the so-called Little Rock Nine and to share their story of determination and opportunity. I come to the floor also to urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to help fully support the planned Little Rock Central High Museum and Visitors Center and get it back on track so it will be up and running to host the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock Central High crisis. Let me remind my colleagues that it is just as important today that we spend time understanding the civil rights struggle and the civil rights movement in this country as it was in 1957. I am thrilled to have the support, the encouragement, and the assistance of the Congressional Black Caucus chairman, Elijah Cummings. As you know, Brown did not erase the hatred and the prejudice that Black families face in this country. One of the most dramatic examples of that occurred on September 24, 1957, when President Dwight Eisenhower ordered Federal troops to Little Rock, AR, to allow nine Black children to attend the all-White Little Rock Central High School. In fact, if one looks back on 1957, the two largest world news stories that year were Sputnik and the events surrounding Central High School in Little Rock. The Little Rock Nine changed the course of American history by claiming their right to receive an equal education. These students were Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Carlotta Walls Lanier, Minnijean Brown Trickey, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, Thelma Mothershed Wair, and Melba Pattillo Beals. Of her experience, Melba Pattillo Beals recalls: I had to become a warrior. I had to learn not how to dress the best, but how to get from that door to the end of the hall without dying. These are very serious times. Another one of the Little Rock Nine, Ernest Green, explains why the Little Rock Nine sacrificed their innocence for a chance at a better education. He said: We wanted to widen options for ourselves and later for our children. Well, Mr. Green went on to become the first black student to graduate from Arkansas Central High. He later served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Affairs under President Jimmy Carter and as vice president of Lehman Brothers. Without his courage and determination and those of the Little Rock Nine in 1957, those opportunities would never have been available to him. Turning opportunity into achievement is what civil rights pioneer Daisy Bates had in mind for the Little Rock Nine when she encouraged them to do the unthinkable. As a story, Little Rock Central High has all the elements of a great story, starting with the premise in the Declaration of Independence where it says all men are created equal. Those words, penned by Thomas Jefferson, resonate throughout American history, but in 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court came down with the Brown decision where it said that separate but equal is not constitutional, and we need to change our American educational system ``with all deliberate speed.'' There was a Governor in my State who was committed to States rights, and he was determined to stop any changes at Little Rock Central. There was a President who was seeing his duty as one of having to enforce Federal law even against a State's will. There was a nation torn apart by race and searching for a new and sound public policy and public philosophy for civil rights for all Americans. There was a city, a State, and a region that got caught up in the events, and the emotions ofttimes, and there were dozens of local leaders who were working at odds and at cross-purposes, many with their own personal and political agendas, some trying to build and some trying to destroy. Then, of course, in the center of the hurricane there were the nine black children, showing superhuman courage, facing incalculable odds but striking a severe blow at one of the worst injustices in American history. I recommend to my colleagues that if they want to read more about this crisis, they can read Harry Ashmore's history of Arkansas, or Roy Reed's ``Faubus.'' Both give an excellent coverage. Little Rock Central High School today is a symbol. It at the same time symbolizes the best and the worst in American history. It simultaneously stands as a living monument to our dark past and to our bright future. It also stands for progress because Little Rock Central High School has been a remarkable school since 1957. It is consistently acknowledged as one of the best American high schools that we have in this country today. In fact, I had the privilege in the late 1970s of attending Little Rock Central High School. I think I am the only Member of Congress who actually went to that school. I am very proud of being there and proud of all of the things that school stands for. Little Rock Central High was designated as a unit of the National Park Service in 1998. In fact, in 2002 more than 24,000 people visited this historic site. They expect probably 60,000 by the year 2007. Unfortunately, the interim visitors center is only 500 square feet. One can slice it or dice it however they want to say it, but it is simply too small to house the significant history there and tell all the stories. In fact, if it was jam packed, it would only have room for about 35 people. I was there for the 40th anniversary of the Central High crisis when President Bill Clinton and Governor Mike Huckabee symbolically opened the door for the Little Rock Nine. We are going to have another commemoration in 2007, the 50th anniversary of the crisis. I want to invite my colleagues to help join me in making sure we get the extra $5.8 million necessary to make this museum and visitors center a reality. The last thing I would like to say is it took nine young high school students to prove to our Nation that all men are created equal and that the rule of law is paramount in democracy of the United States. Today, children all over America have the right to learn because of the courage and sacrifice the Little Rock Nine made, and I am here today asking for my colleagues to help us all recognize what the Little Rock Nine did and acknowledge them by allowing this visitors center to be built. I am submitting a resolution as we speak, and I ask my colleagues to sign on if they would like to. Also, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be added as the first original cosponsor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Yes.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I will be brief. Earlier today, I read from 23 different letters of people from Arkansas, lawyers who practice with him, who support him. Many of these statements are inflammatory. I admit that. He admits that. He has apologized. Many of these were done 15, 20, in one case 24 years ago. I hope we will tone down the rhetoric. If Senators vote for Leon Holmes, they are not antiwoman. If Senators vote against him, certainly they are not anti-Catholic. Let us have a straight up-or-down vote. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for Leon Holmes. Over and over, people in Arkansas who know him, who repeatedly say they do not agree with him on many of these issues, think he will be a fair, impartial, and an excellent member of the bench. I ask my colleagues for their consideration.

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, we find ourselves today considering the nomination of Leon Holmes for the Eastern District of Arkansas. I have known Mr. Holmes for a number of years. In fact, I used to practice law with him. Even though I count him as a friend, I have to go back to the criteria that I use when I consider any nomination for the Federal bench. Basically, I have a four-part test that I apply. One: Is the nominee qualified? Two: Does the nominee have the necessary experience for the post? Three: Will the nominee, once he or she is on the bench, be fair and impartial? And the fourth criteria is more of a catchall: Are there other circumstances--maybe his or her temperament or maybe he or she has an agenda--is there something in their background that might prevent this person from serving? Clearly, Leon Holmes is a qualified nominee. There is no doubt about that. Also, clearly he has the necessary experience to serve as a district judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Rightly so, people can ask and should ask: Can he be fair and impartial? There is no question about the fact that Leon Holmes has been a strong advocate when it comes to the issue of life and choice. He is strongly on the pro-life side. He has been very clear about that point. For over two decades now, there is no question, there is no doubt about where Mr. Holmes stands on that important issue facing our Nation today. Let's look at that issue and let's look at some statements he made and some things we have learned about Mr. Holmes during this nomination process. First, let me say, I was attorney general in Arkansas for 4 years before I came to the Senate. As such, I can think, in 4 years of practice, of only one case of which I am aware that either my office or anybody else in the State of Arkansas handled relating to abortion and that was directly on point. The fact that he would be a judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas--we have two districts--probably would mean, given the number of Federal judges we have, given his age, it would be very unlikely for him to ever have an abortion case. Second, even if he did have an abortion case, Mr. Holmes has represented every pro-life group in the State of Arkansas--I cannot speak to all of his clients, but he has represented them and has been very involved with them. So undoubtedly he would have a conflict if any of those cases ever came before him as a judge. Mr. Holmes has a very deep conviction and a genuine passion about the issue of when life begins and whether this country should allow women the right to choose under any circumstance. It is a position that is based on much thought and much reason and even much prayer. I can say this: After reviewing his record very thoroughly in the last year--by the way, this nomination has been pending in the Senate for over a year--he has made a number of inflammatory statements, and I thought what I would do is read through a few of those very briefly so my colleagues will understand what the controversy with Mr. Holmes is all about. At one point, he wrote: Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as snow in Miami. I could go through a series of statements he made. Let me read a couple more. He, in effect, compared the pro-choice movement to some things that were going on in Nazi Germany. I think that is a fair statement without trying to get into the long background and quote on that point. Another item which has been controversial is that he wrote a piece for a Catholic newspaper in Arkansas. He also cowrote it with his wife. In this piece it says that a wife has the obligation to ``subordinate herself to her husband'' and ``to place herself under the authority of the man.'' Here, again, this is a reflection of Catholic doctrine. It is a teaching that is found in the New Testament. It is something in which Mr. Holmes and his wife both participate. When we hear statements such as that, naturally questions are raised and people ask: Is this the kind of person we want on the Federal bench? If we look at most of the statements he has made about abortion and other subjects, not every single one, but most are at least 15 years old. He has apologized during the course of this nomination process, and, for all I know, he has already apologized for this, but he has apologized on many occasions for some of the statements he has written and said. In fact, if I can read some excerpts of the responses from his questionnaire he answered before the Judiciary Committee. I am not going to try to read all this because there are way too many of them and way too long. Let me take selected excerpts. At one point he said: The sentence about rape victims-- Which I just quoted-- which was made in a letter to the editor in 1980 is particularly troublesome to me from the distance of 23 years. Regardless of the merits of the issue, the articulation in that sentence reflects an insensitivity for which there is no excuse and for which I apologize. He goes on to say in another paragraph: Let me be clear that Roe v. Wade, as affirmed by Casey, is the law of the land. As a district judge, I would be bound to follow it and would do so. In another response about when it comes time for him to consider whether he should recuse in cases, he said: I would follow 28 U.S.C. 455 and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges when making recusal decisions. He goes on to say in another paragraph: Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. As a judge, I would be bound by oath to follow that law. I do not see how a judge could follow the law but restrict the rights established by the law. In other words, he is committing over and over he is going to follow the law of the land. Again, in answer to another question: I recognize the binding force of the court's holding in Griswold and Eizenstat recognizing the right to privacy. Once again, people can have a legitimate, genuine concern and can ask questions about this point, but time and again he answers his critics. He says later: Roe v. Wade establishes that the constitutional right to privacy includes a woman's right to have an abortion. In another section he says: I do not understand that the Court in Roe v. Wade contended that the decision there was mandated by strict construction as the term is defined above. He is talking about this phrase in the question. I recognize these decisions are, once again, the law of the land. They are binding precedent on all courts. If I am confirmed, I will do my utmost to follow these and all other precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States. Then the last couple of excerpts I would like to read are these. Here again he is talking about Roe v. Wade: As a judge, I would follow every decision of the Supreme Court that has not been subsequently overruled. How many times does he have to say that? How many times does he have to say he is going to follow the law? I know Leon personally. Lawyers in Arkansas have worked with him, and they know him personally. We have a high degree of confidence that he will follow the law. Something that comes through over and over with Mr. Holmes is he has an incredibly strong reputation for high ethical standards. In fact, as a demonstration of this, at one point during the process he met with Senator Lincoln and they talked about a number of issues. If we know Senator Lincoln, we know she asked a lot of hard questions and she expected clear and definitive answers, which she got. At some point during the process, other things came to light he had not told Senator Lincoln about or that he felt, in fairness to her and out of respect for her, she should know about. So on his own volition, without being prompted by anyone or anything, on April 11, 2003--this was over a year ago because this has been pending over a year--he voluntarily wrote Senator Lincoln a letter talking about some of these statements that had come out. He says in the 1980s he wrote letters to the editors in newspaper columns regarding the abortion issue using strident and harsh rhetoric. He goes on to say almost all of these are over 15 years old. He says, in a later paragraph: As I stated in response to written questions from Senator Durbin, I am especially troubled by the sentence about rape victims in a 1980 letter to the editor regarding the proposed Human Life Amendment; and as I said there, regardless of the merits of the issue, the articulation of that sentence reflects an insensitivity for which there is no excuse and for which I apologize. . . . Here again, he is talking about something he had written over 24 years ago. If we were to apply that same standard to us, if we could think back 24 years before we ever were in office or even 24 years ago for any of us, we would probably look back on some of our statements and not be real pleased with some of the things we said. He goes on when he talks about a 1987 effort, when he was president of Arkansas Right to Life, and he says he asked a rhetorical question in the context of some columns and things that had been written and he mentioned Nazi Germany. One thing he says to Senator Leahy is: ``I did not intend to say that supporters of abortion rights should be equated with Nazis,'' and he spends a whole paragraph talking about this, trying to clarify and give the context for what he had said. He also in his letter to Senator Lincoln wrote about this article he had written in his church newspaper. He says that ``the marital relationship symbolizes the relationship between Christ and the church.'' He stated: . . . My wife and I believe that this teaching ennobles and dignifies marriage and both partners in it. We do not believe that this teaching demeans either the husband or the wife but that it elevates both. It involves a mutual self-giving and self-forgetting, a reciprocal gift of self. This teaching is not inconsistent with the equality of all persons, male and female . . . Then he goes on to talk about that. So when we look back at these statements he made 17 years ago, 23 years ago, 24 years ago in one case, Leon Holmes, by his own words, comes to this conclusion in the last paragraph of his letter. He says: Some of the criticisms directed at things I wrote years ago are just; some of them are not. I hope that my legal career as a whole, spanning the years 1982 through 2003, evidences that I am now ready to assume the responsibility of a United States District Court Judge. I certainly was not ready in 1980, nor for many years thereafter, and I do not claim that I was. . . . In other words, he is admitting he had maybe crossed a line and there are some things he wished he had not said or wished he had said differently. I will tell my colleagues about Leon Holmes. He is a very fine person. He is a very serious and very sincere Christian man. He is a husband, he is a father, and he is a lawyer. He is a man of very deep faith. In fact, his faith permeates every aspect of his life. I say that very sincerely because I know Leon. Some people might hear those words and say, listen, that means he has this rightwing agenda that when he gets on the bench he is going to do certain things and hold certain ways. Well, Leon is much deeper than that. His agenda is justice. The hallmark that really distinguishes Leon from so many other people is integrity. He is a great example of integrity. I have 23 letters. I promise I am not going to read them all. There are dozens more I could have brought with me. There is a saying in the Bible that if we do not testify about it the stones will cry out. Well, what we found in Arkansas is a swelling where the stones are crying out, except in this case they are not stones, they are people who have practiced with Leon and people who have practiced against Leon. I have personally talked with dozens and dozens of lawyers in the State of Arkansas. I have asked them: Would Leon Holmes make a good Federal judge? In almost every single conversation, there is an unequivocal yes, he would be an outstanding Federal judge. I will read some of these excerpts. Then I would like to turn this over to my colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. One excerpt is from a Federal district judge, Bill Wilson. I actually asked him to write this letter because I asked him about whether he thought Leon Holmes could be fair and impartial. As part of the explanation, Judge Wilson says before Leon was nominated and chosen for the bench, he was ``a New Deal, new frontier, great society Democrat, and unabashedly so.'' He goes on to talk about how Leon Holmes will have a detached objectivity, that he will set a standard all judges would be proud of. He concludes by saying: I have seen Leon Holmes in action on several other occasions, and he is a top-flight lawyer with the nicest sense of personal honor. I believe this to be his reputation with almost all the legal profession in Arkansas. That is my impression as well. Here is a letter from Philip Anderson. Philip Anderson may not be a household name, but Philip Anderson is the former president of the American Bar Association. He writes this paragraph: I practiced law with Mr. Holmes for many years until he withdrew from our firm two years ago. I believe that he is superbly qualified for the position for which he has been nominated. He is a scholar first, and he has had broad experience in Federal court. He is a person of rock-solid integrity and sterling character. He is compassionate and even-handed. He has an innate sense of fairness. He is temperamentally suited for the bench. He works with dispatch. In short, he has all of the qualities that one would hope to find in a Federal judge, and seldom are they found in a person so amiable and with his degree of genuine humility. In fact, I know Philip Anderson is a Democrat and was his law partner for a number of years. Here is another one. This one is from Kristine Baker of Little Rock. She is a lawyer. She goes out of her way to point out she is a Democrat. She says: I do not always see eye to eye but I respect him and trust his judgment. Above all, he is fair. She talks about his respect and his dignity, his intellect, his demeanor, his temperament, and his ability. Here we have another letter. This one is actually from Tulsa, OK. It is from a lawyer named Dana Baldwin who used to practice in Little Rock. She is a native Arkansan. She said: Despite occasional differences in my and Mr. Holmes' views on social and political issues, I can speak highly of his integrity and compassion for the law. . . . She talks about his impartiality. She talks about his commitment to follow the law. This letter is from Robin Carroll, who is a lawyer down in El Dorado, AR. Robin happens to be the legal counsel for the Democratic Party of Arkansas. He calls Mr. Holmes: . . . a brilliant and ethical lawyer. He would be a fair and impartial judge. He would be fair and impartial on every issue. Bear in mind, Mr. Carroll and Mr. Holmes have done battle in the courtroom before on election issues, and other party-type issues. Here is another one, Nate Coulter. Nate is a very fine lawyer from Little Rock. He has been on the statewide ballot twice as a Democrat. He says: . . . I am writing to endorse enthusiastically Mr. Holmes' nomination to the federal district court. He says his political views and party affiliations differ, but those: . . . do not affect my very high regard for his character and professionalism. He says they have been opposite each other in at least six lawsuits. Mr. Coulter talks about Mr. Holmes' intellectual fitness and integrity and once again, Nate has done battle with him in the courtroom. Also now we have a letter from Beth Deere. She again goes out of her way to talk about how she is a Democrat and how they do disagree on a number of issues. But she talks about his bright legal mind. Once again, she mentions the word ``integrity.'' That comes through over and over and over in these letters. Margaret Dobson says: I have met no man who respects women more. She talks about the respect she has for Leon and Leon has for others. She says he is the partner who had most supported her career growth and her rise to the level of partner. Here again she talks about Leon's political views and hers. They may disagree, but he is: . . . fair and honest and diligent. He has a commitment to follow the law. He has: . . . impeccable morals, unquestionable ethics, and supreme intelligence. She talks about how respected he is in the legal community in Arkansas. Here is one from Stephen Engstrom, who is a lawyer in Little Rock. He says: He is an outstanding lawyer and a man of excellent character. Once again, he says: Leon Holmes and I differ on political and personal issues such as pro-choice/anti-abortion. [In fact he says] I am a past board member of our local Planned Parenthood chapter. . . . But he goes on to say: . . . I am confident that Leon Holmes will do his duty as the law and facts of any given case require. Here again, I am only reading short excerpts from a few of the letters we have received on Mr. Holmes. Here is one from David Grace, who is a lawyer in Little Rock and practices in downtown. He has a very fine reputation. He says that he and I have had several cases. Some of these have been with him and some against him. . . . Leon has a powerful mind and excellent judgment. He is able to be honestly objective. . . . He goes on to say: . . . he is among the very best and most respected lawyers in Arkansas. Once again, he goes out of his way to say he disagrees strongly with some of Leon's political or social views, but they have not: . . . affected his analysis of a legal problem or his performance as an attorney. We have a law professor from the University of Arkansas Law School, where Leon was a student. This is Howard Brill. In fact, he was one of my law professors. He says: I have no doubt that he is scrupulously fair and will be so on the bench--fair to all individuals, to all groups, to all political persuasions, to all viewpoints on the issues that divide Americans. In his judicial role and temperament, he is not a partisan. Here is a letter from a lawyer, Field K. Wassen, Jr., who was Governor Bill Clinton's legal counsel. He says Leon Holmes has ``unquestioned integrity.'' Here is another one from a plaintiff's lawyer in the State. Her name is Eileen Woods Harrison. Her father was a Federal judge and she is a lifelong Democrat. In fact, at one point she was on the State Workers Compensation Commission and she was released from that post because she was considered to be too liberal on some of the issues. And lo and behold, who was hired to represent the State against her when she sued the State? Leon Holmes. She goes on in this letter to say, even though he was ``on the other side,'' he: . . . conducted himself in the most professional and ethical manner throughout my case. I gained a great respect for him throughout the course of the litigation. This isn't a lawyer who is on the other side, this is a litigant. This is a party and he is the lawyer for the other side. In fact, she closes with a Bible verse and says: ``Let Justice run down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.'' It is my firm belief that Mr. Holmes is a just and righteous man who deserves the appointment to the Federal Bench. Here is one from Bradley Jesson, from Fort Smith, a very fine lawyer who was for a short time Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court and a Democrat. He says: My opinion is this is one of the best judicial selections that President Bush has made. He says he has been with Leon in a number of cases. In some we are on the same side. In others we are on opposing sides. . . . [He's] one of the best prepared lawyers around and most courteous and most professional. . . . His legal work is among the very best I observed. . . . Leon and I frankly disagree about some issues . . . But Brad Jesson is convinced Leon will follow the law. Here is one from Jack Lavey. He is a great lawyer in the State of Arkansas. In fact, he is one of the founding members of the State chapter of the ACLU. He calls himself, in this letter, a liberal Democrat. He talks about Leon Holmes and he says: . . . his professional reputation is outstanding. He is very bright . . . and he's a very ethical lawyer. He is very honest. . . . he has always been very professional and very ethical. He says he is honest and fair. He says also he will follow the law. He says: If a Roe v. Wade issue comes before Mr. Holmes, if he is appointed as a federal district court judge, he will follow the Supreme Court's decision in that case. If I thought otherwise, I would not be writing this letter to you. He goes on to talk about him and uses words like ``fairly,'' ``honestly,'' ``ethically,'' ``in accordance with established law.'' He says: To conclude, I consider it a privilege to highly recommend to the United States Senate the appointment of Mr. Holmes as a federal district judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Here is one from Sandy McMath. He uses words like ``integrity,'' ``compassion,'' ``scholarship.'' He says: . . . he's an honorable and upright lawyer. He goes on to say they have opposed each other vigorously in a case involving ERISA, but he was at all times compassionate toward the other side's client. He treated the other client with tremendous respect. Once again, Sandy McMath, like most of these others, talks about how they are on opposite sides of the political fence, but he is confident Leon Holmes will make a good judge. Also, here is one from Elizabeth Murray. She is with the largest law firm in Arkansas, does a lot of defense work, probably insurance defense work mostly, and corporate law work. She talks about his intelligence, his integrity, and his respect for the law. She says she does not share his opinions on a variety of issues, but nonetheless she thinks he would be a good Federal judge. Jeff Rosenzweig offers his ``wholehearted support.'' He is a criminal defense lawyer. He calls himself a libertarian Democrat. I am not even sure exactly what that is, but that probably does sum up his political views. But he says: He's a person of the highest character, intelligence and judgment. He's been an outstanding advocate and if confirmed will be an outstanding judge. If there is any person in the world who will apply the law without regard to what his personal beliefs might be, that person is Leon Holmes. Time and time and time again we see that. Here is a letter from Charles Schlumberger, a great lawyer in Little Rock and a good friend of mine. He says: I am a Democrat, I am pro-choice, and I support gender equality. He goes on to say: If ever there was an individual fully qualified to serve on the federal bench, it is Mr. Holmes. He goes on to say: I am confident that Mr. Holmes will uphold his duty as jurist to follow the rule of law, without bias or deference to his personal convictions. We hear from a lawyer who now lives in Naples, FL, but used to practice in Little Rock, Jeanne Seewald. She gives her wholehearted endorsement. She talks about how respectful, courteous, and supportive he was of her personally at their old law firm when they practiced together. She says Leon is a gentleman and a scholar. He has been a faithful mentor over the years. His ethics are beyond reproach. She talks about his thoughtful and brilliant analysis of issues. I could read a couple of paragraphs out of that letter because she says so many glowing things about him. Here is one from Steven Shults who is, again, a lawyer in Little Rock--a very fine lawyer with a great reputation. He talks about how they have been on opposite sides of many lawsuits, but ``Mr. Holmes is one of the finest lawyers in Arkansas and a premier appellate advocate.'' He talks about his integrity. There is that word again, ``integrity.'' It comes through time and time again. He talks about his ``integrity, judgment, courage, compassion, intellect, dedication, patience, and intellectual honesty.'' Here again, Steven Shults is on the other side of some of these issues, but, nonetheless, he thinks he would be a very good judge. Here is one from Luther Sutter, who is a civil rights lawyer in Arkansas. In fact, he may have the largest civil rights practice in the State. I am not sure, but he is definitely among the largest. He talks about Leon Holmes being the consummate professional. He says: I assure you that in my eight years of practice, I have learned to identify ideologues who are also lawyers. Such lawyers routinely put their personal and philosophical interests ahead of what I consider to be their clients' best interests. Mr. Holmes never did that. He goes on to say: I recommend Leon Holmes to the Federal bench, with a full understanding of his politics. Personally, I do not agree with some of his political views. He goes on to talk about how he heartily recommends Leon Holmes. This is the last letter I will read. I promise because I know I am trying the patience of everyone in the Chamber right now. But this is a letter that the majority leader referred to a few moments ago from Kent Rubens who is a very good lawyer from West Memphis, AK, which is right across the Mississippi River from Memphis, TN. Kent Rubens has been a pillar of that legal community in this part of the State for a long, long time. He says: I cannot think of anyone who is better qualified legally or ethically to so serve. He uses a funny phrase that I have heard in Arkansas a few times. He says, ``I will shoot dice with him over the telephone.'' He talks about his honesty and how much integrity he has. Let me give one little bit of background. He goes on in this letter to say: I was privileged to represent a litigant who struck down the abortion statutes here in Arkansas after Roe and Doe were decided. There is no one who will argue that my views are anything other than pro-choice. This is the lawyer who actually litigated the cases in Arkansas right after Roe v. Wade and decided to strike down Arkansas' laws on abortion. He is unabashedly pro-choice, and he is unabashedly in support of Leon Holmes for this position. He says in conclusion: As someone who has represented the pro-choice view and holds the pro-choice view, I ask that you urge your Members to support his confirmation. I have read these letters and I think I have tried everyone's patience. But I will tell you this: From the people who know him best, from the people who practice with him and practice against him, from the people who have seen him up close and know him and have had personal contacts and personal interactions and years of affiliation with him in one way or another, they wholeheartedly endorse him to be on the Federal bench. Going back to my criteria, is he qualified? Yes. There is no doubt about it. Does he have the necessary experience? Yes, no question. You can look at his resume. It is not even close. He easily has the experience you want to see. Will he be fair and impartial? Is there anything else in his background that might raise questions such as his temperament? Does he have an agenda? Clearly, from his contemporaries and from his peers, the answer is yes to those questions. He has the attitude of being fair and impartial, and there is nothing in his background--no circumstance, even though he has been a staunch advocate on the pro-life side, he still has the respect and the veneration of his peers in Arkansas and even around the country from other States. I ask all of my colleagues to give him strong consideration, to wade through some of the rhetoric and look back on this with the perspective that most of these inflammatory things were written at least 10 years ago, and some as long ago as 24 years ago. I appreciate his conviction on the issue of abortion. I appreciate his compassion and his moral certitude on that question. In many cases, people do not always agree with Leon but they have a lot of respect for him. They think he would be a good judge in Arkansas. They would be proud to have him on the Federal bench. With that, I yield the floor and turn this over to my wonderful colleague from Utah.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I echo the sentiment and the words of the minority leader today. I applaud him for bringing up this initiative, the politics of common ground. When I think about the term ``common ground,'' sometimes I think about the concept of compromise. When we think about compromise, we know that means finding common ground without sacrificing your principles. One thing the distinguished Senator from South Dakota is talking about is that we all have our differences. Lord knows, we have a lot of differences just on this side of the aisle. Trying to get on one page a lot of times is nearly impossible. Certainly we have our differences in this body. That is OK. If you think about it, that is exactly the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be. They wanted Members to come here and do battle in the Senate and talk about ideas and concepts and policies that we all believe are good for our Nation. We may have different approaches on different issues, but certainly at the end of the day we should all work together, shake hands, and move on to the next issue. When I was running for the Senate, one thing I heard from people all over my State, the State of Arkansas, was: There is too much partisan bickering in Washington. In fact, they would tell me when I traveled around the State, it looks a lot like trench warfare in Washington. The two sides are dug in, shooting at each other, but at the end of the process not a lot gets done, although there are a lot of casualties. People all over the country sense that. They know that. As a Democrat in this Senate, I felt aggrieved by some things the other side has done. I have no doubt they feel aggrieved about some of the things we have done. It is incumbent upon Senators to put the past behind us, put all that aside, move forward, do what is right and do what is best for this Nation. I hope this Senate will return to the best traditions of our democracy. I hope we will find it within ourselves to wipe the slate clean and accept today as a new day, with this initiative, the politics of common ground as our guiding principle. One thing I love about the statement by the minority leader, he used words such as ``good faith'' and ``respect,'' words that we need to take to heart as Senators. He talks about ending the cycle of partisan retaliation. Is there ever a time in our history more than today that we should do that? I don't think so. We need to end that cycle of partisan retaliation. We do not only owe it to our Founding Fathers who founded this democracy--and we occupy the seats they established--we not only owe it to the history of this Nation; we owe it to our children and our grandchildren. We also owe it to the people we work for, the people who sent us to Washington, to do their work for them. There are many core principles in our democracy, principles that are indispensable. One of those principles is the idea of representation. Like it or not, the people of Arkansas sent me to Washington to represent them in this great body. Like it or not, people sent all 100 of us to represent them in this great body. I certainly hope each and every Senator will find it in their heart, find it in their mind to respect the will of the people from other States and respect the office each Senator has and the responsibility he or she has to represent his or her people to the best of his ability. To make things better in this Senate and in this Congress and in this Government, quite frankly, it has to start with the majority party. We do not know in 7 months which will be the majority party in the Senate or in the House. We do not know who will be in the White House. But it is incumbent upon us that whoever is in the majority party should lead by example. They should demonstrate their leadership by demonstrating forgiveness. We need to say no to the politics of revenge. We need to return to our first principles, turn back to the things that make this country great. We talk about respecting the rights of the minority in the politics of common ground. This body definitely, certainly, absolutely should respect majority rule but also we should respect minority rights. In fact, this body was created at the foundations of this country. This body was created to protect the minority. That is why small States such as Delaware and New Hampshire get equal representation in the Senate, as equal as much larger States such as New York and Virginia. We are all equal in this body, all 100 of us, all 50 States. I hope we will follow this politics of common ground. In essence, it can be summarized by one thing, and that is to do right. That is what we need to see more of around here. One thing I like about the minority leader's proposal is that we acknowledge we cannot change the world. We know that. We cannot raise a magic wand and make it better. My grandmother, Susie Pryor, said you cannot clean up the whole world but you can clean up your little corner. I hope today Democrats, Republicans, and Independents will take the responsibility to clean up our little corner of it. Let's clean up the Senate and return to politics of common ground. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about amendment No. 3264, which I have offered. It accomplishes three important goals. First, it recognizes and honors the dedication and sacrifice of American military personnel killed and injured in combat and the heroic efforts of our medical teams through a sense of the Senate. Secondly, it eases the stress of families who are attempting to follow the whereabouts of loved ones injured in combat by requiring the Secretary of Defense to establish a tracking system for wounded personnel. Third, it authorizes $10 million to modernize medical combat equipment to support our medics in their fight to save lives. Supporting my amendment tells the 5,138 military personnel who have been injured in Iraq that we care. It begins to address this harsh reality of war by providing the care soldiers and marines deserve and the resources combat medics need. I have heard from distraught Arkansas families--I am sure many of my colleagues have heard from families in their States--who felt left in the dark after a loved one's injury because they were not given adequate details of their condition or whereabouts. Congress can alleviate that anxiety by establishing a tracking system to keep families better informed. We can also help save lives and reduce combat injuries by ensuring that our military medical teams have the equipment they need to provide critical frontline treatment. I cannot think of a better investment. On June 14, 2004, I introduced S. 2516, the Service Act for Care and Relief Initiatives for Forces Injured in Combat Engagements Act of 2004, or, as we call it, SACRIFICE. The Record includes a full statement on the provisions of that bill. My amendment is almost identical to the SACRIFICE bill. Currently, the SACRIFICE amendment has 11 cosponsors. Many Arkansans asked me about the partisan working environment in the Senate. I want to go on record stating that the SACRIFICE amendment has had bipartisan support from Senators Sessions, Chambliss, Graham of South Carolina, Reed of Rhode Island, Nelson of Nebraska, Nelson of Florida, Dole, Cornyn, Collins, Clinton, and Lincoln. The amendment also has the support of the Disabled American Veterans and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I have been working with the cosponsors and the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee to refine the language of the amendment. I am deeply grateful for the support and assistance I have received from Members on both sides of the aisle. I want to specifically thank Rick DeBobes, Arun Seraphin, Gary Leeling, Judy Ansley, Dick Walsh, and Elaine McCusker for the many hours they have spent on this amendment and for their very precious and wise counsel. I understand there may be an opportunity for the managers to accept my amendment. I appreciate that consideration. I am also hopeful that we can work out an agreement. I thank Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their consideration of this very important issue. It is an honor for me, as a freshman Senator in my first Congress, to serve under the leadership of Chairman Warner and Senator Levin. Their aid in helping me address a problem my constituents are experiencing firsthand with such productive interaction amongst both parties is truly a testament to the dedication of the members and the staff of the Armed Services Committee. We owe that to their leadership, and I appreciate it very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise today to bring attention to the celebration of Juneteenth. Juneteenth is the oldest known celebration commemorating the abolition of slavery in the United States. This day celebrates African American freedom while encouraging self-development and respect for all cultures. Throughout our history, African Americans have struggled to achieve equality and freedom. They have endured a legacy of slavery and segregation. Through their belief in the American dream, they fought for equal rights and taught the Nation to look past outward appearances and judge a person by their character. Their undying quest to achieve freedom and equality is why I am here today: To honor the day where slaves in some southern States learned of their emancipation. On June 19, 1865, Major General Gordon Granger went to Texas to proclaim emancipation to Texas slaves. This was the first time that slaves in Texas and other surrounding States found out about their emancipation. He stated, ``The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and free laborer.'' Following emancipation, ex-slaves entered freedom under the most difficult conditions, penniless and homeless with only the clothes on their back. They began to migrate to the north and to southern States like Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma in search of better lives and a better future for their families. The descendants of these former slaves passed down a tradition of celebrating the emancipation announcement at the end of June because of it's significance for African Americans. The term ``Juneteenth'' reflects the inability of history to identify the exact date all slaves became free in this country. However, the importance of the event is memorialized in this celebration and is often observed as a time to remember the past and look to the future. The first Juneteenth celebrations were political rallies used to teach freedmen about voting. Cakewalks, baseball games, contests and parades would come to be identified as traditional parts of the celebration as well. However, from the very beginning food, family and friends played central roles in these remembrances. Many African Americans will continue this celebration through various activities in their local communities. I was honored to join Arkansans in celebrating Juneteenth in Little Rock this past weekend, and I challenge all Americans to join me in celebrating the rich history and countless contributions African Americans have made in our country, to remember the struggles for dignity and racial equality in America and to commit to fighting for equality in our schools, workplaces and in our communities.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Senate very good news about the work of some of my constituents. The Arkansas Eastman facility of Brock Service Painting Company, located in Batesville, AR, has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration as a ``Star'' site under OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program. The OSHA Voluntary Protection Program recognizes exemplary safety and health efforts demonstrated by company management and employees in a cooperative effort to promote safe and healthy practices in the work environment. As you can imagine, I am extremely proud of the accomplishments of these Arkansas workers and their managers. The significance of their achievement is underscored when you take into account that since 1982, out of 6.2 million potential sites, only 1,041 sites have been recognized for their efforts in the Voluntary Protection Program. Moreover, only 20 contractors have been selected to receive the prestigious ``Star'' award. Not only have employees of the Arkansas Eastman facility maintained a safe work environment and adhered to safe work practices, but they also have consistently exceeded the regulatory requirements established by OSHA. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, sites participating in the Voluntary Protection Program have overall lost-workday, and injury and illness rates 60 percent below their industries' averages. The dedication and hard work of these employees are credits to themselves, their company, their family and neighbors in Batesville, and the people of Arkansas. I am happy to recognize their achievements and to salute this notable accomplishment here in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber today to discuss a reality of today's world in Iraq and elsewhere that I think has not received the appropriate attention. I am referring to the thousands of men and women who have been seriously wounded in recent U.S. combat missions. The numbers wounded in Iraq have soared in recent weeks. Fatalities have risen likewise to a total of 817 yesterday. Of the latest data I have been able to find, 5,015 military personnel have been injured in Iraq, 2,049 have been able to return to action within 72 hours, and 2,964 could not, and many of these injured troops will face months, if not years, of rehabilitation. Many of these troops will suffer lifelong disabilities. I am told Walter Reed Army Hospital is close to being filled to capacity. I have been to Walter Reed twice this year, and while I talked with soldiers who were wounded in the Iraqi theater, I can tell you that coming face to face with our soldiers in a hospital ward is a sobering event. It makes you think about the costs of war and the sacrifices these men and women have made for our Nation, for each of us. Memorial Day has just passed, and I have tried to think how best to recognize the sacrifices of our wounded service men and women. I am not sure that I ever can appropriately and fully recognize their sacrifice, but I want to try. That is why I introduce today the Service Act for Care and Relief Initiatives for Forces Injured in Combat Engagement Act, or the SACRIFICE Act. The SACRIFICE Act addresses the commitment shown by our troops injured in combat and attempts to reciprocate in kind. My bill does three things. First, it would recognize the sacrifice of American military personnel killed and injured in combat and the heroic efforts of our medical teams through a sense of the Senate. Second, it would aim to ease the stress of families who are attempting to follow the whereabouts of a loved one injured by combat by establishing a tracking system for wounded personnel being transported out of a combat zone. Third, it would call for a $10 million authorization to modernize medical combat equipment, treatment, and combat care triage for our medics in their fight to save lives. Let me tell my colleagues how I came to write this bill. Arkansas is a relatively small State with a relatively high enrollment of Arkansans serving our Nation in Active Duty and in the National Guard and Reserve. In March of this year, we said goodbye to 3,000 fellow Arkansans who were deployed to Iraq as part of the 39th Infantry Brigade of the first Cavalry. It was hard for me to witness separation of families as soldiers prepared for year long war zone deployment. It has been painful to receive news of the 8 Arkansans who have fallen since the beginning of that deployment and the additional 44 who have been seriously injured and transported out of theater. In honor of this sacrifice, the first section of my bill is a sense of the Senate regarding the American military personnel killed and injured in combat and the heroic efforts of our medical teams. The second section of the bill, the tracking portion, is an easy, no- cost provision to ease emotional stress of families whose loved ones have been listed as seriously injured or very seriously injured and are being transported out of theater. As I mentioned before, 44 Arkansas members of the 39th Infantry Brigade have thus far been listed as seriously injured or very seriously injured and evacuated out of theater. Although Congress does not receive notification of the wounded, I continuously receive calls from families who are distraught and worried because of failures in the current family notification system. The Defense Department has a computer tracking system that is designed to help keep families of fallen soldiers informed of their whereabouts, but the system is not without glitches. For example, some families who have contacted my office have been distraught after hearing from military that they are not exactly sure where the soldiers were at the time. This has made it difficult for families to make plans to travel to the hospitals where their loved one are being cared for. Also, when a soldier is upgraded from seriously injured or very seriously injured to not seriously injured, the Department of the Army closes out their case in the computer tracking system, making it particularly difficult for families to keep track of their loved ones. We can and should do more for families of loved ones during such trying times. I want to recognize SPC Henry Austin Phillips of Charlie Company of the 153rd Infantry, 39th Brigade out of DeQueen, AR. For example, some families that have contacted my office have been distraught after hearing from the military that they were not sure exactly where the soldiers were at that time. This has made it difficult for families to make plans to travel to the hospital where their loved ones are being cared for. Also, when a soldier is upgraded from ``seriously injured'' or ``very seriously injured'' to ``not seriously inured,'' the Department of the Army closes out their case in the computer tracking system, making it particularly difficult for families to keep track of their loved ones. We can--and should--do more for the families of loved ones during such trying times. I want to recognize SPC Henry Austin Phillips of the Charlie Company, 1-153d Infantry, 39th Brigade out of DeQueen, AR. He did a great job in the field, and the communication problems that ensued following his injury are not a reflection of him or the military. He was proud to serve his country, and his State and country are proud of him. I know that if he could return, he would. As I understand it, this is the situation that Pam Phillips endured when her husband was wounded in Iraq, losing his lower right leg. After suffering his injury, Specialist Phillips requested that he deliver the news to Pam regarding the seriousness of his condition. He talked with Pam on Wednesday, May 19, asked her to join him as soon as possible at the Landstuhl Hospital in Germany, where Specialist Phillips understood he would be receiving critical treatment. Naturally, Pam told her husband that she would be there. I can only imagine that call but it should come as no surprise that Pam and Specialist Phillips both assumed that the Army would assist Pam in joining her husband as soon as possible. That was Specialist Phillips's wish. But that did not happen. The nature of Specialist Phillips's injuries required that he be heavily sedated following this phone call so he was unable to speak directly with his wife for several days. After talking with her husband on May 19, Pam assumed that someone in the Army would assist her in getting to Germany and advise her of her husband's health status. For the record, we do indeed provide spouses with Invitational Travel Orders to transport immediate family members of the seriously wounded. I have encountered several problems with those orders, too. However, Pam received no additional communication from the Army. Two days later, on May 21, I received a call from Arkansas State Representative Daryl Pace, Pam's brother. Regrettably, this was not the first call I have gotten from families trying to locate their loved ones who have been wounded. I have had four such calls since April. My staff and the Arkansas National Guard worked tirelessly to track down Specialist Phillips. Finally, on Monday, May 24, 5 days later, Pam learned that her husband had arrived at Walter Reed on Friday, May 21. After 5 days of sheer emotional stress, Pam finally learned that her husband was recovering, that he was OK. Here is what Daryl Pace has to say about the experience that his sister Pam went through: There's an empty channel between the field and the hospital. When nobody could find Austin, Pam was horrified that Austin's condition had deteriorated. We were left with the assumption that he was no longer with us. I ask my colleagues, can they imagine getting a phone call from their son, their daughter, their husband or their wife telling them that they had lost their leg and that they wanted my colleagues to be with them as soon as possible? Can you imagine that their loved one is in the care of the U.S. Armed Forces, but nobody in the military calls them? Nobody can answer an inquiry about their loved one's whereabouts? Again, my bill language is direct, I simply want the Secretary of Defense to put into place a uniform policy and procedure that notifies families of an injury to a loved one in combat, followed by regular updates on the health and location of the wounded member. I ask my colleagues to support me in helping families during a time of terrible tension and emotional pain by requesting that the Secretary review this matter and put into place a policy that supports families rather than burdens them. The last section of the bill aims to reduce fatalities and disability rates by providing medics in theater with tools that they need. Like many of my colleagues, I have taken note of the rising casualties and the rising wounded count. But I have also taken note of a rising number of news articles detailing the conditions that our medics must work under while treating our wounded. According to a Washington Post article on April 27, 2004: ``So far in April, more than 900 soldiers and Marines have been wounded in Iraq, more than twice the number wounded in October, the previous high.'' While half of those wounded were able to return to duty, ``The others arrive on stretchers at the hospitals operated by the 31st Combat Support Hospital. And I quote, ``These injuries,'' said LTC Stephen M. Smith, executive officer of the Baghdad facility, ``are horrific.'' The article goes on to document the struggles that the medical team confronts everyday in meeting their goal to provide ``lightning-swift, expert treatment'' and the transfer of the wounded to a military hospital. An Army survey has documented that the unit with the lowest morale in Iraq was one that ran the combat hospitals. Another article from the Washington Times dated May 5, 2004, carries the headline: ``Casualties of Iraq war can `get to' U.S. Medics.'' The article reports that in April 2004, the deadliest month for the U.S.- led coalition in Iraq, the Baghdad hospital treated more than 500 wounded Americans. The article chronicles the amazing efforts by U.S. medical personnel to save the lives of the wounded. It details the adverse conditions where ``the emergency room overflows with wounded soldiers on stretchers.'' It quotes Major Wenner, a family doctor from Fort Sill, OK, as saying that: It's not the names I remember as I go to sleep, It is the faces and the injuries. . . . My alarm goes off, and it is time to start all over again. Groundhog Day, we call it. These medics and the wounded that they tend to everyday merit immediate attention by this body for the conditions they work under and medical equipment they work with. The 212th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital is an example of our current combat support hospital system that we use in Iraq. It is basically a bunch of tents. I have had the opportunity to tour a model similar to that used by the 212th, but that was on the Capitol lawn when it wasn't in use. According to an Army Lessons Learned Report on the 212th, the reality of these medic platforms is frightening. The tents are porous and the report sites adverse conditions for medical personnel and the wounded they treat due to sand and dirt filtering through the seams, doors and floors impacting the medical team's ability to function. I think we can do better than this and in fact, so does the Army. The Army has a plan to modernize the combat support hospitals into the Future Combat Hospital Systems. Let me share with you the Army's view: The U.S. Army Medical Department has a continuing requirement to support its deployed medical forces with shelters appropriate to battlefield medical missions. Currently a combination of aged ISO Shelters and TEMPER Tents are being used at Combat Support Hospital (CSHs), and Forward Surgical Teams (FST) are using a composite of less than optimal tents. A formal Operational Requirements Document was drafted by the U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School to support an upgrade/modernization to these new platforms. With the recent changeover to the new Joint requirements process, this document will eventually roll into this new format. This Army report further states that the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command placed a requirement into the fiscal year 2006- 2011 Program Objective Memorandum for the development effort. The funding requested was $14 million for fiscal year 2005-2006 and $10 million for fiscal year 2007. However, modernization of the Combat Support Hospital System fell below the core funding capability. In another report, the modernization, conversion and recapitalization for the non-medical equipment components necessary to support the Army medical casualty care platform was recognized as a shortfall in the organizational structure in the first gulf war, Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. In other words, we have known for more than a decade that the current system does not work well in today's battlefields but we didn't fund the upgrade. We are basically putting U.S. medical personnel in a situation that makes their jobs even harder. I am not aware of any objection to this provision, except for the offset. It is not the merits, it is the money. So I ask my colleagues, what is it worth to save one soldier, one Marine? I think it is worth at least $10 million for medical equipment that has been identified as a necessary readiness requirement. I think $10 million is more than reasonable. Medical analysis suggests that each additional dollar spent on modernization of medical equipment can produce health gains, including reducing death and disability rates. Just as important, additional investments in the combat support hospital system will send a message to our doctors, nurses and other critical medical support personnel in theater. It will tell them that we recognize the tremendous job that they are doing and that we back up that recognition with real tools that will aid them in their work. Given the conditions that these medics are working under, $10 million is the least we can do. The $10 million for medical equipment and combat casualty care technologies would be funded by an offset from a defense-wide reduction in travel monies. The General Accounting Office recently found that the Department of Defense is losing millions of dollars in fraud, waste and improper papers for travel. Fixing this problem is a double victory for taxpayers and our Defense priorities. In closing, my bill SACRIFICE is a humble act that holds very important initiatives. I urge my colleagues to join me in my effort to recognize the sacrifice being made by members of the Armed Forces, to provide support for their families, and to provide the necessary tools to bring them home safely.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber today to discuss a reality of today's world in Iraq and elsewhere that I think has not received the appropriate attention. I am referring to the thousands of men and women who have been seriously wounded in recent U.S. combat missions. The numbers wounded in Iraq have soared in recent weeks. Fatalities have risen likewise to a total of 817 yesterday. Of the latest data I have been able to find, 5,015 military personnel have been injured in Iraq, 2,049 have been able to return to action within 72 hours, and 2,964 could not, and many of these injured troops will face months, if not years, of rehabilitation. Many of these troops will suffer lifelong disabilities. I am told Walter Reed Army Hospital is close to being filled to capacity. I have been to Walter Reed twice this year, and while I talked with soldiers who were wounded in the Iraqi theater, I can tell you that coming face to face with our soldiers in a hospital ward is a sobering event. It makes you think about the costs of war and the sacrifices these men and women have made for our Nation, for each of us. Memorial Day has just passed, and I have tried to think how best to recognize the sacrifices of our wounded service men and women. I am not sure that I ever can appropriately and fully recognize their sacrifice, but I want to try. That is why I introduce today the Service Act for Care and Relief Initiatives for Forces Injured in Combat Engagement Act, or the SACRIFICE Act. The SACRIFICE Act addresses the commitment shown by our troops injured in combat and attempts to reciprocate in kind. My bill does three things. First, it would recognize the sacrifice of American military personnel killed and injured in combat and the heroic efforts of our medical teams through a sense of the Senate. Second, it would aim to ease the stress of families who are attempting to follow the whereabouts of a loved one injured by combat by establishing a tracking system for wounded personnel being transported out of a combat zone. Third, it would call for a $10 million authorization to modernize medical combat equipment, treatment, and combat care triage for our medics in their fight to save lives. Let me tell my colleagues how I came to write this bill. Arkansas is a relatively small State with a relatively high enrollment of Arkansans serving our Nation in Active Duty and in the National Guard and Reserve. In March of this year, we said goodbye to 3,000 fellow Arkansans who were deployed to Iraq as part of the 39th Infantry Brigade of the first Cavalry. It was hard for me to witness separation of families as soldiers prepared for year long war zone deployment. It has been painful to receive news of the 8 Arkansans who have fallen since the beginning of that deployment and the additional 44 who have been seriously injured and transported out of theater. In honor of this sacrifice, the first section of my bill is a sense of the Senate regarding the American military personnel killed and injured in combat and the heroic efforts of our medical teams. The second section of the bill, the tracking portion, is an easy, no- cost provision to ease emotional stress of families whose loved ones have been listed as seriously injured or very seriously injured and are being transported out of theater. As I mentioned before, 44 Arkansas members of the 39th Infantry Brigade have thus far been listed as seriously injured or very seriously injured and evacuated out of theater. Although Congress does not receive notification of the wounded, I continuously receive calls from families who are distraught and worried because of failures in the current family notification system. The Defense Department has a computer tracking system that is designed to help keep families of fallen soldiers informed of their whereabouts, but the system is not without glitches. For example, some families who have contacted my office have been distraught after hearing from military that they are not exactly sure where the soldiers were at the time. This has made it difficult for families to make plans to travel to the hospitals where their loved one are being cared for. Also, when a soldier is upgraded from seriously injured or very seriously injured to not seriously injured, the Department of the Army closes out their case in the computer tracking system, making it particularly difficult for families to keep track of their loved ones. We can and should do more for families of loved ones during such trying times. I want to recognize SPC Henry Austin Phillips of Charlie Company of the 153rd Infantry, 39th Brigade out of DeQueen, AR. For example, some families that have contacted my office have been distraught after hearing from the military that they were not sure exactly where the soldiers were at that time. This has made it difficult for families to make plans to travel to the hospital where their loved ones are being cared for. Also, when a soldier is upgraded from ``seriously injured'' or ``very seriously injured'' to ``not seriously inured,'' the Department of the Army closes out their case in the computer tracking system, making it particularly difficult for families to keep track of their loved ones. We can--and should--do more for the families of loved ones during such trying times. I want to recognize SPC Henry Austin Phillips of the Charlie Company, 1-153d Infantry, 39th Brigade out of DeQueen, AR. He did a great job in the field, and the communication problems that ensued following his injury are not a reflection of him or the military. He was proud to serve his country, and his State and country are proud of him. I know that if he could return, he would. As I understand it, this is the situation that Pam Phillips endured when her husband was wounded in Iraq, losing his lower right leg. After suffering his injury, Specialist Phillips requested that he deliver the news to Pam regarding the seriousness of his condition. He talked with Pam on Wednesday, May 19, asked her to join him as soon as possible at the Landstuhl Hospital in Germany, where Specialist Phillips understood he would be receiving critical treatment. Naturally, Pam told her husband that she would be there. I can only imagine that call but it should come as no surprise that Pam and Specialist Phillips both assumed that the Army would assist Pam in joining her husband as soon as possible. That was Specialist Phillips's wish. But that did not happen. The nature of Specialist Phillips's injuries required that he be heavily sedated following this phone call so he was unable to speak directly with his wife for several days. After talking with her husband on May 19, Pam assumed that someone in the Army would assist her in getting to Germany and advise her of her husband's health status. For the record, we do indeed provide spouses with Invitational Travel Orders to transport immediate family members of the seriously wounded. I have encountered several problems with those orders, too. However, Pam received no additional communication from the Army. Two days later, on May 21, I received a call from Arkansas State Representative Daryl Pace, Pam's brother. Regrettably, this was not the first call I have gotten from families trying to locate their loved ones who have been wounded. I have had four such calls since April. My staff and the Arkansas National Guard worked tirelessly to track down Specialist Phillips. Finally, on Monday, May 24, 5 days later, Pam learned that her husband had arrived at Walter Reed on Friday, May 21. After 5 days of sheer emotional stress, Pam finally learned that her husband was recovering, that he was OK. Here is what Daryl Pace has to say about the experience that his sister Pam went through: There's an empty channel between the field and the hospital. When nobody could find Austin, Pam was horrified that Austin's condition had deteriorated. We were left with the assumption that he was no longer with us. I ask my colleagues, can they imagine getting a phone call from their son, their daughter, their husband or their wife telling them that they had lost their leg and that they wanted my colleagues to be with them as soon as possible? Can you imagine that their loved one is in the care of the U.S. Armed Forces, but nobody in the military calls them? Nobody can answer an inquiry about their loved one's whereabouts? Again, my bill language is direct, I simply want the Secretary of Defense to put into place a uniform policy and procedure that notifies families of an injury to a loved one in combat, followed by regular updates on the health and location of the wounded member. I ask my colleagues to support me in helping families during a time of terrible tension and emotional pain by requesting that the Secretary review this matter and put into place a policy that supports families rather than burdens them. The last section of the bill aims to reduce fatalities and disability rates by providing medics in theater with tools that they need. Like many of my colleagues, I have taken note of the rising casualties and the rising wounded count. But I have also taken note of a rising number of news articles detailing the conditions that our medics must work under while treating our wounded. According to a Washington Post article on April 27, 2004: ``So far in April, more than 900 soldiers and Marines have been wounded in Iraq, more than twice the number wounded in October, the previous high.'' While half of those wounded were able to return to duty, ``The others arrive on stretchers at the hospitals operated by the 31st Combat Support Hospital. And I quote, ``These injuries,'' said LTC Stephen M. Smith, executive officer of the Baghdad facility, ``are horrific.'' The article goes on to document the struggles that the medical team confronts everyday in meeting their goal to provide ``lightning-swift, expert treatment'' and the transfer of the wounded to a military hospital. An Army survey has documented that the unit with the lowest morale in Iraq was one that ran the combat hospitals. Another article from the Washington Times dated May 5, 2004, carries the headline: ``Casualties of Iraq war can `get to' U.S. Medics.'' The article reports that in April 2004, the deadliest month for the U.S.- led coalition in Iraq, the Baghdad hospital treated more than 500 wounded Americans. The article chronicles the amazing efforts by U.S. medical personnel to save the lives of the wounded. It details the adverse conditions where ``the emergency room overflows with wounded soldiers on stretchers.'' It quotes Major Wenner, a family doctor from Fort Sill, OK, as saying that: It's not the names I remember as I go to sleep, It is the faces and the injuries. . . . My alarm goes off, and it is time to start all over again. Groundhog Day, we call it. These medics and the wounded that they tend to everyday merit immediate attention by this body for the conditions they work under and medical equipment they work with. The 212th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital is an example of our current combat support hospital system that we use in Iraq. It is basically a bunch of tents. I have had the opportunity to tour a model similar to that used by the 212th, but that was on the Capitol lawn when it wasn't in use. According to an Army Lessons Learned Report on the 212th, the reality of these medic platforms is frightening. The tents are porous and the report sites adverse conditions for medical personnel and the wounded they treat due to sand and dirt filtering through the seams, doors and floors impacting the medical team's ability to function. I think we can do better than this and in fact, so does the Army. The Army has a plan to modernize the combat support hospitals into the Future Combat Hospital Systems. Let me share with you the Army's view: The U.S. Army Medical Department has a continuing requirement to support its deployed medical forces with shelters appropriate to battlefield medical missions. Currently a combination of aged ISO Shelters and TEMPER Tents are being used at Combat Support Hospital (CSHs), and Forward Surgical Teams (FST) are using a composite of less than optimal tents. A formal Operational Requirements Document was drafted by the U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School to support an upgrade/modernization to these new platforms. With the recent changeover to the new Joint requirements process, this document will eventually roll into this new format. This Army report further states that the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command placed a requirement into the fiscal year 2006- 2011 Program Objective Memorandum for the development effort. The funding requested was $14 million for fiscal year 2005-2006 and $10 million for fiscal year 2007. However, modernization of the Combat Support Hospital System fell below the core funding capability. In another report, the modernization, conversion and recapitalization for the non-medical equipment components necessary to support the Army medical casualty care platform was recognized as a shortfall in the organizational structure in the first gulf war, Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. In other words, we have known for more than a decade that the current system does not work well in today's battlefields but we didn't fund the upgrade. We are basically putting U.S. medical personnel in a situation that makes their jobs even harder. I am not aware of any objection to this provision, except for the offset. It is not the merits, it is the money. So I ask my colleagues, what is it worth to save one soldier, one Marine? I think it is worth at least $10 million for medical equipment that has been identified as a necessary readiness requirement. I think $10 million is more than reasonable. Medical analysis suggests that each additional dollar spent on modernization of medical equipment can produce health gains, including reducing death and disability rates. Just as important, additional investments in the combat support hospital system will send a message to our doctors, nurses and other critical medical support personnel in theater. It will tell them that we recognize the tremendous job that they are doing and that we back up that recognition with real tools that will aid them in their work. Given the conditions that these medics are working under, $10 million is the least we can do. The $10 million for medical equipment and combat casualty care technologies would be funded by an offset from a defense-wide reduction in travel monies. The General Accounting Office recently found that the Department of Defense is losing millions of dollars in fraud, waste and improper papers for travel. Fixing this problem is a double victory for taxpayers and our Defense priorities. In closing, my bill SACRIFICE is a humble act that holds very important initiatives. I urge my colleagues to join me in my effort to recognize the sacrifice being made by members of the Armed Forces, to provide support for their families, and to provide the necessary tools to bring them home safely.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Pryor pertaining to the introduction of S. 2516 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the Capitol today is overflowing with visitors, flags stand at half-staff, and the Nation has collectively stopped this week--all to honor a remarkable man who accomplished remarkable things during a remarkable time. President Ronald Reagan gave his life to public service and has left a legacy of leadership that will always be remembered. We remember President Reagan's strong vision for political and economic freedom which was instrumental in the fall of communism and the spread of democracy in Eastern Europe. The world held its breath as America stared communism in the face, but in the end we peacefully won over the respect and cooperation of our enemy. Less than a year after Reagan left office, Mr. Gorbachev stepped down, the Berlin Wall fell and the cold war ended. I will never forget President Reagan's historic speech on June 12, 1987, in front of the Brandenburg Gate near the Berlin Wall when he called on Mikhail Gorbachev to ``Open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' Today, the United States is working with Russia to replace tyranny and fear in Iraq with peace and stability. Of President Reagan, Gorbachev said, ``A true leader, a man of his word and an optimist, he traveled the journey of his life with dignity and faced courageously the cruel disease that darkened his final years. He has earned a place in history and in people's hearts.'' We also remember Dutch, the Great Communicator, the Gipper as a man of great optimism and humor. My kids' history books recall the dates and facts of this time, but they do not convey this Hollywood actor turned President's good-natured spirit or genuine optimism for a better tomorrow. Nor can they express his unyielding dedication and love for our country. However, I believe the outpouring of respect and affection shown by the American public this week says we will forever remember his character and personality. Finally, we remember a man who never stopped believing, never stopped advocating America's ability to succeed and prosper. He stuck to his convictions and his visions for America, whether popular or not. Ronald Reagan's initiatives didn't please all Americans and Democrats and Republicans did not always agree on President Reagan's foreign policy or domestic agenda, but he never encouraged or played the biting partisan games that exist today. Even with those people whom he had genuine ideological differences, President Reagan always showed a level of respect and acknowledged that we are all Americans and we are in this together. Years ago, President Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill used to joke that, ``between 9 and 5 we are enemies, but at 5 o'clock let's go have a cocktail together.'' To truly honor and remember President Reagan--this man of great accomplishment, optimism, and oratory-- perhaps we could find ways to work better together for a better tomorrow. I extend my deepest sympathies to the Reagan family in their time of sorrow, and I hope it is of some comfort that Americans and many others throughout the world mourn by their side. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I join the Senate community in mourning the loss of a long-time friend and colleague Robert A. Bean. Throughout his life, Bob was a hard worker, devoted to public service and a man of great integrity and character. Bob began his public service career as a congressional page at the young age of 15. Many promotions and two decades later, he continued to help the U.S. Senate run smoothly. During these years, Bob forged countless friendships with those around him and made immeasurable contributions to the community. Each and every day, Bob went above and beyond the call of duty to help Members of Congress, staff members and Capitol visitors find their way, whether it was through complex parliamentary procedure or to the nearest elevator in the Capitol. His vast knowledge of the Senate's operations was garnered from decades of public service. Following Bob's days as a page, he served in the Democratic cloakroom, and was later promoted to deputy sergeant-at-arms, deputy assistant undersecretary of legislative affairs at the Department of the Treasury, and Democratic staff director for the Committee on House Administration. Bob retired from the Hill in 2002, having accrued enough years of service to make him eligible for retirement. Too young and active, however, Bob returned to work just months later at the Jefferson Consulting Group, where he quickly made a name for himself. My dad, former Senator David Pryor, first met Bob during page school and saw in him the same quality as everyone else: a passion to help others. Throughout the years, they remained close friends. Bob traveled to Arkansas to campaign several times for my dad, and later he joined me in Little Rock on the campaign trail. Even with all his qualifications and prestige, no job was too small. I remember him canvassing in the Arkansas heat, stuffing envelopes and hammering yard signs into the ground. And no job was too big or difficult. Following my campaign, Bob helped me coordinate inauguration events and setup my office, and he helped orient a number of my staff members who were new to Washington and the Senate. His willingness to do anything for anybody at anytime is what made Bob loved by so many. Jim English, a former assistant Secretary of the Senate, said Bob was ``the kind of person who would give you the shirt off his back. He was a man with loyalty to the Senate and to his friends.'' Longtime friend Bill Norton who worked with Bob in the cloakroom and earlier as a page added, ``Bob loved Congress as an institution; those were his happiest days.'' While he took his work seriously, Bob was also known to enjoy his weekends with friends and family on the Margaret B while fishing on the Chesapeake. It was on such a day when Captain Bob was enjoying the afternoon on his boat, having just caught a 36-inch striper, when God chose to take Bob home. Bob was also a devoted family man. As good as a friend he was to us, Bob was an even better son, brother and uncle. I want to express my deepest condolences to the Bean family: his mother Margaret; brothers, John, Kenneth and Brian; sister-in-law Patti; niece Rachel and nephew Christian. Bob's commitment to service provides inspiration to us all. We will miss Bob Bean. We will remember him well. We will celebrate his life, and we will try to live up to his dedication and generosity.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln, to honor Dr. Bart Barlogie. I am pleased to have this opportunity to publicly commend Dr. Barlogie for his unyielding dedication and stalwart leadership in the field of oncology research and treatment. His hard work has led to the development of innovative and comprehensive approaches to treatment of patients with multiple myeloma, which has translated better therapies, prolonged remission rates for cancer survivors and improved the quality of life for many of his patients. Moreover, his commitment may ultimately lead to a cure for the most challenging and misunderstood of all cancers. On May 8, 2004, Dr. Barlogie was awarded the International Myeloma Foundation's Second Robert A. Kyle Lifetime Achievement Award. This award, which is being given for only the second time, recognizes the significant and revolutionary work of his professional career. This award follows an already long and distinguished line of accomplishments. Arkansas was well on its way to becoming the center for myeloma clinical research and treatment when Dr. Barlogie accepted the position of director of hematology/oncology, and director of research at the Arkansas Cancer Research Center, (ACRC), at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, (UAMS, and founding director of the Myeloma and Transplantation Research Center, MTRC, within the ACRC. His research team has developed innovative and comprehensive approaches to the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. Because of his leadership role in the area of myeloma research and treatment, he was named the first director of a newly established Myeloma Institute for Research and Therapy. During Dr. Barlogie's 15-year tenure at UAMS, more myeloma patients have been treated in Arkansas than anywhere else in the world. Yet, despite his gains in this area, myeloma continues to affect thousands. This year, approximately 15,000 Americans will be diagnosed with myeloma. Looking to the future, Dr. Barlogie envisions a satellite- based intensive training program which will reach physicians worldwide so that many of these patients treated at the institute will have access to specialized medical care upon returning to their home States or countries. Of paramount importance to Dr. Barlogie are his wife Kathleen and their three children, Britta, Eva, and Bart. He loves them dearly and credits their support for his success. They have made their home in Little Rock, AR, and have added a number of their own contributions to our community and State. We thank Dr. Barlogie for making Arkansas the center of his professional and personal life. His past and future achievements have truly helped make the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, the Arkansas Cancer Research Center, and the Myeloma Institute for Research and Therapy very respectable among the premier health care institutions in the State. More importantly, through his work, Dr. Barlogie has had concrete and positive impacts on the everyday lives of thousands of his patients. His commitment to this cause is incredible: he is saving lives and providing hope for millions more.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this week marks the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decision that ultimately ended legal segregation in schools and helped catalyze a better education for all of America's children. This landmark decision was the first significant action by an institution of national government in the struggle for equality. However, it would be naive to believe that Brown erased the hatred and ignorance that black families faced when testing their rights to a better education. One of the most dramatic examples occurred on September 24, 1957 when President Eisenhower ordered federal troops to Little Rock, AR to allow nine black children, the Little Rock Nine, to attend the all-white Central High School. Of her experience, Melba Pattillo Beals of the Little Rock Nine recalls: ``I had to become a warrior. I had to learn not how to dress the best but how to get from that door to the end of the hall without dying.'' Her act of courage, and those of the other eight students who integrated Little Rock Central, helped change history for all Americans in a tale that continues to have immediacy. Another one of those students was Ernest Green, who best explains why the Little Rock Nine sacrificed their innocence for a chance at a better education. He said, ``We wanted to widen options for ourselves and later for our children.'' Mr. Green was the first black student to graduate from Central High School. He later served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Affairs under President Jimmy Carter and now serves as the vice president of Lehman Brothers. Turning opportunity into achievement is what civil rights pioneer Daisy Bates had in mind when she helped the Little Rock Nine break down the barriers that stood between them and an equal education. Despite threats on her life and financial ruin, Daisy Bates made significant strides in the courtroom and increased public awareness through her newspaper. Mr. President, as a former student of Central High, I can tell you the impact of the Little Rock Nine is still felt in the hearts of its student body and teachers past and present. In 2007, Central High will commemorate the 50th anniversary of its desegregation crises. The National Park Service plans to build the Little Rock Central High School Visitors Center in time for this watershed anniversary, and I will be urging my colleagues to support funding for this endeavor later this year. What we know today is that children all over America have the right to learn--whether their ancestors came to America on slave ships or the Mayflower. What we know today is that we all benefit when we learn together and work together for a common purpose. What we know today is there are more black doctors, lawyers, judges and elected officials than ever before. What we know today is that there is more equality and more opportunity for all children. But what we don't know, what we still question is whether we have really achieved the inclusion, equality and diversity in our schools that the Court intended when it struck down the ``separate but equal'' doctrine and required the desegregation of schools across America. I do not believe we have met the promise of Brown yet. I am concerned that many public schools in Arkansas and around the country remain segregated by race and class, still unequal in regard to performance and resources. Today, a fourth-grade Hispanic child is only one-third as likely to read at the same level as a fourth grade white child. Only fifty percent of African-Americans are finishing high school, and only 18 percent are graduating from college. We must do better, and President Bush and the Congress can do better by keeping the promises made to parents and students when it passed the No Child Left Behind Act. We must live up to this promise, and provide every child access to a quality public education. Daisy Bates, the Little Rock Nine and countless civil rights leaders did not endure hardship and sacrifice for us to fail now. Mr. President, on this landmark anniversary, let us stand together to celebrate how far we have come. But let us also acknowledge the problems that stand in the way to a better education for all children. And let us commit ourselves to preparing our children for today's expectations and tomorrow's challenges.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to indicate my full support for the passage of this legislation, H.R. 3104, which requires the President to establish separate campaign medals for service members who participate in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. My good friend and colleague, Congressman Vic Snyder of Arkansas, has worked tirelessly to pass this measure in the House. Congressman Snyder is a man of character and conviction, and he has worked to develop a bill that rightly recognizes the service of our men and women in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This bill truly is a credit to his leadership and his ability, and once again he is demonstrating his effectiveness in the Congress. I am a cosponsor of S. 2262, the Senate companion measure offered by Senator Bingaman, who has also shown great leadership on this issue. I want to acknowledge that and thank him for championing this measure in this distinguished body. This is a solid measure. The Senate Armed Services Committee, whose chairman is in the Chamber today, Senator John Warner, my distinguished colleague from Virginia, has shown tremendous leadership over the last several months and even over the last years as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The committee has passed identical language in the Defense authorization during the committee markup. The committee also reported favorably H.R. 3104. This bill was not intended to replace the administration's Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. Instead, it complements the Global War on Terrorism Medals by providing additional separate campaign medals that would be awarded to qualified service members. As we view and read about the difficulties that our troops are facing in Iraq, we see the camaraderie that exists between people who have served in the same war. There is definitely a unique bond. Separate campaign medals for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom honor those two distinct and separate military campaigns. Separate campaign medals provide our men and women in uniform who serve in these operations with tangible acknowledgment of their duty to their country. I think this humble token of acknowledgment is the least we can do, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill. I yield the floor.