Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I have about 5 more minutes to complete my presentation, and then I know Senator Jack Reed has probably about 20 minutes as well to speak on the issue.

Mr. SALAZAR. I thank my friend from Virginia.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Rhode Island for allowing me to go ahead of him to deliver some remarks on the general Department of Defense authorization bill. Senator Reed has not only been a strong supporter of our military, but he has an understanding that is unique for somebody who is a West Point graduate. As we move forward with this debate on Iraq, his understanding of Iraq is second to none, given the fact that he has been with this issue from the beginning. He has made 10 trips into Iraq to understand the situation on the ground. We very much look forward to his continuing leadership and contribution to the debate. Today, I rise because I want to praise the work of Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, Senator McCain, Senator Reed, Senator Nelson, and the members of the Armed Services Committee for developing a very good, excellent product for us to consider in the Department of Defense authorization bill. As the Senate debates this week on the keystone issue of our time with respect to U.S. involvement in Iraq, we must not lose sight of the importance of maintaining a strong national defense. That strong national defense is what is at the heart of the 2008 Department of Defense Authorization Act. The bill is a strong statement of support for our men and women in uniform. It gives our military the tools it needs to confront an increasingly complex and dynamic set of threats that we face around the world. It is a bill that will help assure our military remains the best equipped, the best trained, and the best led fighting force in the world. Today, our men and women in uniform are serving honorably around the world. In the mountains of Afghanistan, they are tracking and killing al-Qaida and resurgent Taliban operatives who are resisting the move toward democracy. In Iraq, they are confronting the monumental task of stabilizing and rebuilding a country that is caught in the middle of sectarian violence and a spiraling, what many of us have concluded is an intractable civil war. In the horn of Africa, in the Balkans, and elsewhere, they are looking to bring peace, hope, and security to those war-torn areas of the world. I am immensely proud of the work of our troops both abroad and at home, for our National Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty troops protect our homeland and help us respond to the threats of hurricanes, fires, and floods. I know all my colleagues share the appreciation I have for the work of our military, and I know this shared appreciation gives us much common ground from which to work. We all agree that our military must remain the strongest and best equipped in the world, that our Nation's defense is the Federal Government's top priority, and that our military families and our veterans deserve the best our Nation can provide. Because we agree on these principles, this bill rests on a solid, bipartisan foundation, and it is a bill we must pass in Congress and let it be signed by the President. Unfortunately, in the press you won't hear much about many of the provisions that are in this bill, and we won't hear much about where we do see eye to eye and what we have a consensus on with respect to the DOD bill. You probably won't hear much about how we agree we need to expand our military, that our troops need to have more MRAPs, Strykers, and other equipment in the field immediately; that more resources are needed to protect our troops from IEDs; that our assets in space are too vulnerable to disruption or attack; that we need to continue to bolster our military warning and defense system, and so on. We won't hear much of that in the debate here in the week ahead. But the fact is this bill comes to us at a critical time in our Nation and it is one of the largest steps this body has ever taken toward strengthening our defense, refurbishing our military--which is under so much strain in these times--and making good on our promises to care for our military families and our veterans. I want to briefly illustrate the impact this bill will have by briefly describing how it will help our troops and their families in my State of Colorado. We in Colorado are proud to be the home of some of the crown jewels of our Nation's defense and homeland security. Fort Carson, Peterson Air Force Base, Buckley Air Force Base, Schriever Air Force Base, Cheyenne Mountain Air Station, and the Air Force Academy are all in my home State of Colorado, as are the headquarters for Air Force Space Command and Northern Command. I have spent a lot of time at those bases meeting with our military leaders, and the commanders there are clear about their needs and their priorities. I am pleased to report to them that the Armed Services Committee, in the bill now being considered by this Chamber, has transferred many of their priorities into the bill and will make them a reality if we can get this bill signed by the President of the United States. Those priorities include: military construction, equipment, weapon systems, and health care--those things that are important to make our military strong. The military construction authorization in this bill will help us keep on track with BRAC realignments and needed infrastructure improvements. At Fort Carson in Colorado we are in the midst of a very significant BRAC-directed expansion that will almost double the size of the Mountain Post. Two additional brigades are coming to Colorado Springs, and we are doing all we can as a community to welcome these soldiers and their families to Colorado. The bill includes $470 million in authorization for military construction at Fort Carson, some of which will go to the construction of a new headquarters for the 4th Infantry Division and a new brigade complex for the 1st Brigade, and new barracks for our soldiers. For the Colorado National Guard at Buckley Air Force Base in Denver, CO, we have added an authorization for $7.3 million for a squadron operations facility to replace an outdated structure that houses the F- 16s of the 140th Air Wing of the Colorado National Guard. On the equipment side, this bill responds to the rapidly growing needs of the services to refurbish, replace, and modernize equipment that is being worn out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing that the President's request for equipment for our troops was not sufficient, this bill expands the authority for war-related procurement by over $12 billion. I am particularly encouraged with the bill's inclusion of $4.1 billion to fulfill the military services' unfunded requirements for MRAP vehicles, whose V-shaped hulls are proving invaluable in reducing casualties from IEDs. This builds on an effort Senator Biden led in March to include $1.5 billion in the emergency supplemental. Fort Carson soldiers told me how invaluable these MRAPs are, and this funding will see to it that we get more of those vehicles into the field as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I see the majority leader on the floor, and I would be happy to yield to him, if he so chooses.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the concerns and comments from my distinguished friend, the great Senator from Virginia. He and I had the opportunity to travel to Iraq and to Afghanistan about a year or so ago. There is no one on this Senate floor that I respect any more than the Senator from Virginia. I consider him to be a colleague and a role model in the working relationship that he and the chairman of the Armed Services today, Senator Levin, have. It is, I think, an example of how we ought to do things on the Senate floor more often. The fact that we have a Department of Defense authorization bill, which is a very good bill, in front of the Senate today is a manifestation and a testament to the great work and the bipartisan spirit of Senator Warner and Senator Levin. It is with great respect I offer these comments on some of the concerns that he raised. First, with respect to the Iraq Study Group report being simply a snapshot of what was happening in December, I respectfully disagree with that assessment of what they did. It was not as if on December 15 or the day that the Iraq Study Group delivered their recommendations that they said this is a picture of what is happening in Iraq today. What the Iraq Study Group did is they took a look at the history of what had happened in Iraq. They took a look at the regional conflicts and at the dynamics that were driving the conflicts in that region and they reached a number of different conclusions which were as true in December as they are today, and which were as true, frankly, a year before December as they are today. So it was not a snapshot, it was taking an assessment of the historic conflict in the region, some of which has gone on not for 4 or 5 years but 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, in some cases, in terms of the sectarian conflict we see today in Iraq. It was out of that history that they came up with what they perceived to be the best way forward for the country in terms of how we dealt not only with the issue of Iraq but the very integrated issue of the Middle East conflict with respect to the whole future of not only Iraq but also the neighbors in that region. So it was not a snapshot, from my point of view. In our dealings with both Congressman Hamilton and Secretary Baker, as we came forward and fashioned this legislation, it was their view that this legislation was, in fact, the best way forward. It was written in consultation with input from Senator Alexander. I reached out to both Congressman Hamilton as well as Secretary Baker. This amendment was written with their best thoughts in mind on how we could faithfully implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. So I daresay that the characterizations that cochairman of the commission, Hamilton, had to say yesterday about the importance and current relevancy of this recommendation of the Iraq Study Group are still as relevant today as they were in December. In fact, Congressman Hamilton said the Baker-Hamilton Commission recommendations today were, in fact, as relevant as they were in December and that the urgency of the implementation of those recommendations, if I may paraphrase him, was even more urgent today than it was back in December as we continue to drift sideways, spiral downward frankly, in the conditions in Iraq. I do not argue it was a snapshot. It was a recommendation that came out after an indepth study by some of the best experts in the world, including our military advisers. Secondly, my friend from Virginia also says that circumstances have changed in Iraq, that the Iraqi Government may not be as functional as any of us would want the Iraq Government to be. Well, the fact of the matter is that no one has sent the clear direction by law to the Iraqi Government that support from America to the Iraqi Government and to the Iraqi people is dependent on them making progress on the ground. This legislation does that specifically, as the Iraq Study Group recommends. Thirdly, there were lots of military advisers that were involved in providing advice, counsel, and guidance to the Iraq Study Group. It included ADM James Ellis, GEN John Keane, GEN Edward Meyer, GEN Joseph Ralston, LTG Roger Schultz and hundreds of other people who were consulted for their expertise in the formulation of the recommendations that went into the Iraq Study Group. Finally, I would say that of all the debate we have had on Iraq, the fundamental reality still remains the same. There is only the one group chartered, in part because of the leadership of the Senator from Virginia, that took a comprehensive look at the situation in Iraq and the Middle East and came up with a set of recommendations that were comprehensive in nature. When you look at the bipartisan composition of that commission, they spoke on what is in the best interests of America based on the best information they were able to acquire from around the world and the best military and foreign policy experts we have. So, in my view, the Iraq Study Group recommendations are still as relevant today as they were in December. I would urge my colleagues to join us in this bipartisan effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, let me first of all say thank you to Senator Collins for her work and for her seeking a solution to Iraq and joining with the other cosponsors of this legislation. As is so often the case, Susan Collins is part of a group of people in the Senate who try to find a solution to the problems our Nation faces. So I appreciate her comments, and I appreciate her being a cosponsor of this legislation as well. I rise tonight in this period of morning business to speak in support of amendment No. 2063, which is the amendment to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. I wish to say first of all that this is probably the most bipartisan amendment we have seen to deal with Iraq. I thank Senator Alexander for his help and his leadership in terms of getting this legislation drafted. It is legislation we have been working on for a long period of time with members of the Baker-Hamilton Commission, with Secretary Baker and Lee Hamilton, and we will refer to them later on. I wish to say a particular thanks to my colleagues who have joined with us in this effort, including Senator Pryor of Arkansas, Senator Casey, Senator Lincoln, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Landrieu, and Senator McCaskill, all of whom on this side of the aisle have shown great leadership in trying to find a new way forward in Iraq. I also thank my Republican colleagues, including Senator Lamar Alexander, who has worked tirelessly on this effort for the last several months, as well as Senator Bennett, Senator Gregg, Senator Collins, Senator Sununu, and Senator Domenici for being a part of this effort, wherein 13 Members of the Senate have come together and have said that if we deal with what is the most difficult national issue we face today--and that is the war in Iraq and foreign policy in the Middle East--and how it is that we move forward to try to put together the Humpty Dumpty that has been created in that part of the world, we are going to have to do it in a bipartisan way. It is going to require Democrats and Republicans understanding that we need a new way forward in Iraq. Despite all of the debate and rhetoric we have heard on the floor of the Senate and around the country on the issue of Iraq, the truth is that there was only one group that has taken a substantive, in-depth, coherent look at the problem in Iraq and throughout the Middle East and has created a roadmap on how to salvage stability in Iraq and try to do our best to create peace in the Middle East. That is the Iraq Study Group, chaired by Lee Hamilton and Jim Baker, along with distinguished Americans who served on that Commission for the last year. Their report came out in December, not long ago. It was the only comprehensive way forward that has been laid out in a bipartisan way since we began this effort in Iraq now many years ago. Madam President, before I speak more about my amendment, I want to say thank you to Senator Levin and Senator Warner, and others on the Armed Services Committee, who worked so hard in bringing the Defense authorization bill to the floor. I admire Senator Levin and the members of the committee and the thoughtful leadership they bring to us on national security issues. I have been proud to support Senator Levin in his call for a change in the policy in Iraq. He recognized long ago that we need to chart a new course in our Iraq war policy. Now is the time. This is the place. This is the week, and next week, when we will hopefully craft that policy. I share Senator Levin's goal, which is peace and stability in the Middle East and the safe return home of our troops who are now in harm's way. As we debate this issue, I hope we will keep in mind the sacrifices our soldiers and airmen and sailors and marines are making on the ground today in Iraq. We must be ever mindful that on these fundamental issues of war and peace there ought to be an American way forward. That American way forward should not be a Democratic, a Republican, or an Independent way forward; it ought to be an American way forward because we have over 150,000 of our men and women in uniform in harm's way tonight as we debate this issue on the Senate floor. It is a personal issue. When we think about what has happened to the men and women who have died in this war in Iraq, we should all think about the weight we have on our shoulders because it is a significant weight, but it pales in comparison to the weight and the sacrifice we ask our men and women in uniform to bear every day in the fields of Iraq and Afghanistan. So it is to them, who are serving, that we owe the best policy we can develop in the Senate. In Iraq, 3,601 Americans have been killed since the beginning of the war. All of us who have gone to Walter Reed and other hospitals and visited with the brave men and women who have come home without arms and legs, those who have suffered from brain injuries and other kinds of injuries that will stay with them for the rest of their lives--there are almost 27,000 of them who have suffered those kinds of wounds in Iraq. From my State of Colorado, we have 51 people who have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war. We have another 443 who have been wounded. Just from Fort Carson alone, which is the home of many of our soldiers who served in Iraq, we have had 215 casualties from Fort Carson in El Paso County. It is to these men and women that we have a solemn obligation to make sure we develop the kind of policy they deserve to have as they fight on behalf of a mission for the United States of America. They deserve a policy that changes their role in Iraq from combat to a much more limited role, focused on training and on equipping the Iraqi forces. They deserve a policy that includes a major and new diplomatic offensive led by the United States but aimed at gathering all of Iraq's neighbors around the table. They deserve a policy that underscores the need for a comprehensive diplomatic approach, which is critical to creating the conditions necessary for a troop withdrawal so that we can bring our troops home safely and back to their families. They deserve a policy that conditions U.S. political, economic, and military support on Iraq's progress in meeting specific benchmarks. The Government of Iraq simply must take on a greater responsibility for the fate of their country. It is foremost their responsibility. These are the broad principles which I believe should guide us as we consider the various amendments to the bill. I hope we can come together across party lines--Democrats and Republicans--to support a change in strategy in Iraq. I have been pleased to join with colleagues from both sides of the aisle in crafting an amendment that I believe will result in that constructive change. Our amendment is simple. It implements the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. I believe the work of that group is a model for how we can come together in good faith. The Iraq Study Group was comprised of our finest and most experienced public servants in America, equally drawn from both political parties. They worked together for months to reach consensus on a comprehensive set of recommendations as required by the U.S. Congress in legislation that funded and created the Iraq Study Group. I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a fresh look at the group's report and consider how we can use it as part of the solution in creating a successful policy in Iraq. We will have much more to say about our amendment at a later point in the debate. But as we consider Iraq's policy, I hope we can agree that we must change course. I hope we can agree that the brave men and women serving in Iraq deserve our best effort to reach common ground. I hope we can agree on a path forward that will create a better future for Iraq, for the Middle East, and a better and more peaceful future for the United States of America. Madam President, to recap, our bipartisan amendment, which now has 13 cosponsors, would essentially do three things. First, it would require a mission change for our country in Iraq. This would be our national policy and our national law if our proposed legislation becomes law and is signed by the President. That change, as set forth in the Iraq Study Group Report and in our legislation, would remove our troops from a combat mission over to a training mission and a mission that is specifically defined to chase al-Qaida. That more limited mission is an appropriate one for us here, and that limited mission is one that I believe has the bipartisan support of most Members of the Senate. Secondly, this legislation also conditions, for the first time, the efforts of the United States of America and Iraq on the progress that is made by the Iraqi Government in terms of meeting the benchmarks identified in our legislation. It conditions, for the first time, the Iraqi Government stepping up to the plate and doing what they should be doing, which is providing the functional government that brings about security for their own people. It ought not to be the responsibility of the U.S. Government to be in the middle of policing a civil war in Iraq. Third, the legislation sets forth a comprehensive, diplomatic approach to deal with the issues not only in Iraq but also in the region. The fact is, as those of us who have been in that region over the last several years know, there are places in that region--countries that have been sitting on their hands and have not been helping bring about stability in Iraq. We also know Iran and Syria and other countries have been playing a negative role in terms of achieving the goal of stability in Iraq. At the end of the day, it will take an international effort and a regional peace plan to bring about the stability we all want not only for Iraq but for the Middle East. In conclusion, I will say this about the Iraq Study Group and their recommendations. Some Members of the Senate have characterized this amendment as not doing much. Some Members of the Senate will probably come to the floor at some point in the debate and say this legislation is too prescriptive; it tells the President too much what to do. Well, we will handle those particular criticisms. The one I wish to deal with briefly is this sense that we have gotten from some Members of the Senate that the Iraq Study Group recommendations happened a long time ago and they are no longer relevant today. I know of no one who spent as much time studying these issues of Iraq and the challenges we face there than former Congressman Lee Hamilton, the Chairman of the Commission. This is what Lee Hamilton had to say with respect to this legislation: The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group are as timely and urgent today as they were in December. Madam President, I hope that my colleagues open their hearts and their minds to the direction set forth in the Iraq Study Group Report and that they join the bipartisan effort with the Presiding Officer and the Senator from Tennessee and other colleagues who are cosponsors of this amendment to this legislation. I know my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, is on the floor. I yield to him. (Mr. SALAZAR assumed the Chair.)

Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that we have another up to 15 minutes in morning business, equally divided between myself and Senator Alexander.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise with my colleagues from Kentucky, Senators Bunning and McConnell, and especially with my good friend and colleague from Colorado, Senator Allard, to speak in support of amendment No. 2061, which will help us get back on track with the obligation of the United States to destroy chemical weapons stockpiles both in Kentucky and in Colorado and to do it in a timely and safe way. The Pueblo chemical depot in Colorado and the Blue Grass Army depot in Kentucky are home to vast scores of chemical weapons munitions that are supposed to be destroyed by 2012. That deadline was mandated by the congressionally ratified Chemical Weapons Convention. Unfortunately, the United States has been woefully behind in fulfilling these responsibilities because of consistent underfunding of a program that is essential to our national security and to the safety of nearby communities. At the Pueblo site, we have 780,000 munitions filled with over 2,600 tons of liquid mustard agent, around 8.5 percent of the original U.S. chemical stockpile. These are chemical weapons. These munitions sit in 96 huts in high security as they await disassembly and destruction. But they pose a threat not only to the communities of Pueblo and Colorado Springs in my State but to our Nation if, in fact, these chemical weapons were to somehow end up in the wrong hands. So the matter we speak about today with this amendment has everything to do with creating a strong defense for our Nation and dealing with the threats that we face in homeland security. Every year we have to come into this Chamber and fight to put money back into the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program. That is the authority that is overseeing the destruction operation both at Pueblo and Blue Grass. We had been successful in getting the administration to put $55 million back into the budget earlier this year. This, along with our joint efforts last year to keep $131 million in this program, has allowed us to actually get moving on construction of the facilities where they will destroy this agent. If you visit the Pueblo chemical depot today, you will see the contractors in Pueblo have now begun to lay the utilities and foundations for the processing facility that will treat the agent. It is a welcome sight to see the Earth finally moving. Unfortunately, though, continued underfunding is preventing construction from moving as quickly as it could and should. Because the funding stream is so weak, contractors have to inch along with the construction of the buildings. Even the DOD admits there is a need for an additional $32 million in fiscal year 2008. With that additional money, they could actually put up the walls and close the building where they will disassemble these very dangerous munitions. They will be able to build a structure where they will process the mustard agent. They will be able to move ahead with the control and support building and finalize the utility building. The amendment we offer today would fulfill this stated need of the program. It would put $49.3 million back into the program for military construction, $32 million of which will be used at the Pueblo chemical Army depot. The amendment also holds the Department of Defense's feet to the fire on destroying these weapons. It is no secret that DOD is going to miss the 2012 treaty deadline for weapons destruction at the Pueblo chemical Army depot. That is what happens when you drag your feet and fail to put adequate resources behind a program that is essential to our national security. Our amendment says if we fail to meet the treaty deadline, the Department of Defense should complete work on the destruction of the entire stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions absolutely no later than 2017. That is 10 years from where we are today. Every 6 months the Department, under our legislation, will have to report to Congress on the progress they are making, what resources are needed, and how much funding is programmed to fulfill this requirement. For those of us who have been fighting this fight for the Pueblo site, as well as Kentucky Blue Grass, the hard deadline for Pueblo is a dramatic improvement. At the current pace and with the current administration's funding projections, destruction activities there are expected to be completed sometime in 2021. That is almost 10 years past the deadline under the treaty that the United States approved for the destruction of these kinds of chemical weapons. This is absurd, especially with the DOD's own admission that with higher funding levels they could complete destruction of Pueblo a full 5 years earlier than that. There is not a single advantage to drawing the process out to 2022 or later. Construction costs only rise, and the security risks do not fade. We are obliged not only by treaty but by our responsibility to communities that neighbor these installations to do a better job. I thank Senator Allard for his leadership on this issue. I thank my colleagues from Kentucky for their hard work and leadership. The citizens of Kentucky and Colorado are watching closely. I am certain all Americans would like us to fulfill our treaty obligations by destroying these chemical weapons as quickly and safely as possible. When amendment No. 2061 comes before the Senate for a vote, I respectfully urge my colleagues to join us in support of that amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, let me first say I join with the majority leader in sending our condolences to the Johnson family and in remembering the great life Lady Bird Johnson lived and the contributions she made to our Nation. During this period of morning business we will be speaking in the following order: First, Senator Collins, and then I will follow her; following my statement, Senator Alexander; following Senator Alexander's statement, Senator Pryor; and then following his statement, if he is able to get here from another commitment, we will have Senator Nelson from Florida also speak on this issue. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of and as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2012. I salute Senator Webb and my colleagues who joined in this effort which would set a standard for how much time our troops get at home between deployments. We owe it to our troops and to our families to have a rational and reasonable troop rotation policy that allows our fighting forces to be at their best. The ever-quickening operational tempo over the last 4 years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan has stretched our military beyond reason and endangered our national security. Continuing to shorten the time our troops are able to spend at home while extending deployments is simply not a sustainable policy. It is bad for operational readiness, it is bad for retention, it is bad for morale, and it is bad for the health of our military members and their families. We must do better to protect our national security, and this amendment moves us in the right direction. In the time I have spent with our servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan, at Fort Carson and at the many military installations around Colorado, I have always found our servicemembers to be serving proudly and honorably. They rarely look at you and talk about the sacrifices they are being asked to make or of the effects that failed policies are having on them and on their families. But you can still see in their eyes the evidence of the strain that the operational tempo is placing on them and on their families. You see the strain at installations all around the country. In my State at Fort Carson where I have visited often over the last several years, the families of the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division learned earlier this year that their soldiers' tours of duty in Iraq are being extended by 3 months, so that they will stay in the theater for a total of 15 months rather than the 12 months they anticipated when they went to Iraq. The 2nd Brigade is currently today in a block-by-block battle with insurgents in eastern Baghdad. The 2nd Brigade lost 6 soldiers over the Fourth of July week, and they have lost 37 since they arrived in Iraq last October. The brigade was supposed to be returning this fall. They were supposed to be returning this fall, but now it will be winter before they might be able to come home. The 3rd Brigade, also at Fort Carson, returned from Iraq late last fall after a full year deployment. They could well be sent back to Iraq before they have the time they need here to recuperate, to train, and to prepare for a new deployment. They deserve some consistency and certainty in their deployment cycle. We see the impacts of the current operational tempo in our Guard and Reserve units as well. We have come to rely on the Guard and Reserve to an unprecedented degree in Iraq. At one point in 2005, the Army National Guard contributed nearly half of the combat brigades on the ground in Iraq. These troops, once thought of as ``weekend warriors,'' have been shouldering burdens similar to their Active-Duty counterparts and are facing the same extended deployments and the same shortened time at home. We are quickly learning about the impacts of this operational tempo on the health and well-being of our troops. The impacts and the facts here are beyond dispute. A study at Fort Carson showed that around 18 percent of returning soldiers had traumatic brain injuries. These are soldiers who have come back to Fort Carson after having served in Iraq. They need time to recover from those injuries. A recent service-wide report of the DOD's Task Force on Mental Health showed that 38 percent of soldiers, 31 percent of marines, and 49 percent of the National Guard report psychological problems following combat deployments. The prevalence of psychological problems increases with increased frequency of deployment and with longer deployments. Our troops need more time at home to recuperate and readjust with their families. Amendment No. 2012 is a sensible and much needed rotation policy for our troops. I can think of no better author for this amendment than Senator Jim Webb who has had a long and storied history of service to our country and who has an intimate understanding of the military and knowing what it takes to have a strong military for the United States of America. For our regular forces, the amendment requires that if a unit or a member is deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, they will have equal time at home before being redeployed. That is to say, if they are deployed for 6 months, they must be at home for at least 6 months before being sent back into combat. For the National Guard and Reserve, no unit or member could be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within 3 years of their previous deployment. The amendment includes an important provision that I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pay attention to. It is an important provision that allows the President to waive these limitations. The President can waive these limitations if he certifies to Congress that the deployment is necessary in response to an operational emergency posing a vital threat to the national security of the United States of America. So the President can waive the requirements of this readiness legislation we are proposing in the Chamber today. Another waiver would authorize the Chief of Staff of each branch to approve requests by volunteers to deploy. This is an amendment which supports our troops and their families who have been called upon to make ever-increasing sacrifices in the course of this war. It is an amendment which I ask my colleagues to support and which I hope we will pass on behalf of our troops and their families. I wish to conclude by simply stating my appreciation to the leaders who have put together the DOD authorization legislation which is before the Senate. The Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, is often referred to by me and I know many of the Members of this Chamber, as a Senator's Senator because he is one of those people who are here for absolutely the right reason-- their devotion to this country. His standing up for our military is something which is a great example of a Senator who puts purpose above the politics that sometimes typify Washington perhaps too much of the time. He, in his work with the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, who was also the key coauthor of this legislation, exemplifies the best of what there is here in this Senate Chamber. I just wanted to publicly state my appreciation to Senator Levin and his staff and to Senator Warner and his staff for the great work they have done on this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the immigration reform issue. Before my colleague from Illinois leaves the Chamber, I wish to say that at the end of the day, there were some profiles in courage, people of the heart but also people of the mind who wanted to do what is right for America and for America's future. I cannot think of a better colleague than the senior Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, for his passion, for his wisdom, for his courage, and for his leadership. I look forward to continuing our work together as we work on this and so many other issues that are so important, both to Illinois and to Colorado and to the Nation and to the entire world. I thank my colleague from Illinois. As I reflect on the occurrences of the last several years with respect to immigration reform, I wish to comment on several things. The first of those is a long history related to an issue that is somehow intertwined with my own life. Four hundred nine years ago, my forefathers and foremothers came to the place we now call the State of New Mexico, today known as the land of enchantment. It was in New Mexico they decided to found what was the first settlement in the Southwest and in that part of the State. They named that city the city of Santa Fe, the city of holy faith. Over the centuries following the founding of the city of Santa Fe, for the next 250 years, my family continued to farm and ranch along the banks of the Rio Grande River, from Santa Fe up to the north through communities such as those named Espanola and Chama. Then in 1848, we didn't immigrate to this country, but the border of the United States of America moved us over to the Rio Grande River to the south. It was in 1848, the Mexican-American war was ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The signing of the treaty gave the people who lived in at that time the Southwestern part of the United States the option of either becoming citizens of these United States or going back not from where they had come but back to the other side of what had been a new border that had been created in 1848. My forefathers and foremothers at the time having had 250 years of history living in the Southwest, living in New Mexico, living in the southern part of Colorado, made the decision they were going to choose the path of America, the path of the future, the path of what is now the greatest country in the world. It was a good decision. As a result of that decision, we have been now in New Mexico and Colorado for a number of generations. I am a fifth generation Coloradan. My family goes back in New Mexico for 12 generations. Going back to that history, and recognizing for the first 250 years of my family's settlement of these United States they were part of the Government of Spain, subjects of the Government of Spain for most of that time, and then for about 20 years a part of the Mexican Government when Mexico overthrew Spain in the War of Independence in 1821. So for us there is that history which ties us so much to the lands of the southwest. Now, for me, when I think about that history, and when I see what America has done for my family, I see very much an America that has been an America in progress. I look to the Civil War, where there were over 600,000 people in America who died, as Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address, to give a new birth of freedom to America. That was a statement by President Lincoln in which he believed slavery and the separation and ownership of people based on their race was something which was absolutely wrong. He was able to keep our Union together with the blood that was spilled both in the South and in the North. It was out of that great Civil War of our times that we ended up with what are now some of the more significant amendments of our Bill of Rights. One thinks of the 13th and 14th and 15th amendments that abolished slavery, that created equal protection under the laws, that made sure everybody--no matter who they are, no matter where they come from--had an opportunity in these United States. But that was not the end of the march for progress because even with the inclusion of those amendments, women were excluded and, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court, in interpreting those amendments, made the decision that the Jim Crow segregation laws of the United States of America were just fine; that it was OK for the Government of America to sanction a place where you could have schools for Blacks, schools for Whites, schools for people who were Hispanic. It was OK, in those days, for women, according to the laws of this country, not to be allowed to vote, to take a subservient and very secondary role in our society. That was after a great civil war where over 600,000 people gave their lives on the soil of our America. But yet America marched forward on a path of progress. And we did, indeed, later on adopt the women's right of suffrage that allowed women to vote in our society. Through the long civil rights movement, led by great leaders such as Thurgood Marshall, we ended up with a courageous Supreme Court in a unanimous decision of those days where Justice Warren wrote the famous Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education. In that 1954 decision by Justice Warren, what Justice Warren said in that decision is that the place of separate but equal had no place in our America. He said you cannot have a doctrine of separate but equal. That ends up branding those who are of a different color with a sense of inferiority and, therefore, under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment there was no room for segregation in the United States of America. That was a significant milestone in our march for progress in America. We have made major steps since that point in time. The passage of the Civil Rights Act, signed by President Johnson in the 1960s, ushered in a whole new era of civil rights in America. We have continued to march forward. So, today, as we look at what happened with the end of the immigration reform debate, I remain steadfastly confident and optimistic the tomorrows and the weeks ahead and the years ahead will bring about a resolution to this issue of immigration which we deal with today, and in that resolution of how immigration legislation is passed, to fix a system which is in chaos and in disorder today, what we will find is, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, change in our immigration laws will bend toward the arc of moral justice; that justice is where that arc will lead us as we deal with the issue of immigration reform. I believe very strongly we had a good bill. It was not a perfect bill. It was a bill that, obviously, had its critics, both on the left and on the right. But I think it is important for us to step back and ask ourselves what it is we were trying to do, those of us who worked so hard on this legislation. I believe, first and foremost, what we were doing is trying to address the national security issues of the United States. We were trying to do that by strengthening our borders and making sure we had enough money to be able to hire the personnel and do the things we have to do to enforce our borders and also to enforce our laws within our country. How can we sit here today in the United States of America and know there are millions of people we do not know, or what their backgrounds are, who are here illegally, how can we be satisfied that our national security is taken care of when the borders are as porous as they are today? This national security issue is an inescapable force that will ultimately lead us to have the right resolution to dealing with the issue of our broken borders. We also have a system of immigration which is simply broken. It is not working. What ends up happening is people point a lot to the border to the south, Mexico, as though that is where the issue of immigration, which has become so contentious, is rooted. Yet in reality, when you talk to the Irish who live in New York or in Chicago or other places, there are many undocumented Irish who live in those communities. There are undocumented people in this country who come from over 140 countries all around the world. Indeed, no matter how big a wall we build, no matter how tall the wall, no matter whether that wall is as big as the Wall of China, the fact is, we have a system inside of our country that is not working because about 40 percent of the people who are here in an undocumented status actually came into the country legally, and they have overstayed their visas. So we have an immigration system within our country that simply is not working. Finally, there are the moral and human issues that are at stake, including the human and moral issues with the 12 million people who live here in the shadows of our society. Our quest was to bring those 12 million people out of the shadows of darkness and pain they currently live in, into the sunlight of our society. We made it very clear in our statement that it was not a free ride. We said to them in our legislation they would have to pay significant fines, they would have to pass a background check, they would have to learn English, they would have to live through a time--to use a Catholic metaphor--a period of purgatory for up to 8 years before they would be eligible to even become citizens. For most of them it would have meant a period of up to 11 years. So this was not the free ride that was characterized by some of the opponents of the legislation. This was, indeed, tough, fair, and practical legislation that we proposed. But that legislation will not be heard on the Senate floor further for who knows how long. But at some point in time those forces that drew us together are forces which are not going to go away. We have to continue to figure out a way to fix our broken borders. We have to have the courage to stand up and ensure that fix of a broken immigration system. What we have to do is have the courage to say we are going to do something that is moral and just and humane with the 12 million undocumented workers who have toiled in our hotel rooms, in our fields, who work at construction sites, who work as chicken pluckers, as my good friend said in South Carolina, who work in those kinds of conditions every day. So I leave the end of this day with a sense of hopefulness, a sense of optimism, and with a sense that these inescapable forces that impel us forward will now not allow us to fail. We will get this job done. As we get this job done, it is also important to reflect on the fact that there have been many people who have gotten us to the point where we are today. There is a lot of work that has gone on on this issue of immigration. As Senator Reid, and I, and others have spoken about this issue of immigration, we have reminded people that since 9/11 there have been 36 hearings on the issue of immigration. There have been 6 days of committee markup. There have been 59 committee amendments. There have been now probably 25 days of this Senate debating the issue of immigration. And during that course, there have been almost 100 Senate floor amendments that we have voted on as we have moved forward with immigration reform. We will get there. But through that whole effort, there have been some tremendous people who have been profiles in courage. Some of them are newcomers to our Senate family. Some of them are Democrats who have been around a long time and who have inspired the people of America and the people who work here every day--day after day after day. Some of them are Republican. Some of them are Democrat. I want to say a word about some of these individuals. Senator Kennedy, yes, some people love him; some people hate him. But there is no person who has more of a passion and a sense of justice in America. When you think about the contributions the Kennedy family and Senator Kennedy have made to this Nation, they are one of those historic and heritage families of whom we can all truly be proud. It has been an honor for me to work with him. Senator Lindsey Graham did not have to get involved in the issue of immigration. He is up for reelection. It is not a popular issue. He comes from a tough State, South Carolina. Yet he worked every day and gave it everything he had, his whole heart and soul. He deserves a profile in courage for what he did. Senator Feinstein has labored so much because she cares about those people working in the fields. She cares so much about making sure we have a program that works for business and for agriculture. She is concerned about the human and moral issues. She partnered up with our colleague, Senator Larry Craig, to get 800 organizations behind the legislation for AgJOBS. She did an incredible job in moving us forward, along with Senator Larry Craig. Senator Bob Menendez, we heard him speak earlier on the Senate floor. He truly has added a tremendous dimension to this body, and his leadership will continue to bring us to a solution that is a fair and humane and just solution to this issue of immigration about which he cares so much. When he talks about family reunification, for him, he knows what that means in the context of immigration in a personal sense. So we need to honor and respect his perspective, which I support. Senator Reid, without his leadership, and without his bringing ``Lazarus'' up to life again on the floor of the Senate on immigration, we would not have gotten anywhere. So I thank our leader for having given us the opportunity and having stood with us on some very tough debates. He is a tough guy. He is a boxer. He knows how to fight. That is the kind of leadership America needs. Senator Leahy, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who has done such a great job in the functioning of that Judiciary Committee, helped us move this legislation forward. I thank him for his leadership. Senator Kyl, the chairman of the Republican Conference Committee--get that--the chairman of the Republican Conference Committee, was in the trenches. He was in the trenches, sleeves rolled up, trying to make this thing happen; Jon Kyl from Arizona deserves one of those profiles in courage as well; Senator McCain and his leadership. He is running for President. This is not a popular issue to take up. Some people are saying that perhaps this is an issue that might take him to a lesser standing in the polls. But I will say this about Senator McCain: He is a hero of America, and he is a hero of America because he has the courage of his convictions to stand up for those things he believes in. You think about those years he spent in captivity in Vietnam and what kind of courage was honed into his consciousness and into his humanity. He truly is a person of great leadership. Senator Specter, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a Republican who helped shepherd this legislation forward. Day after day he worked to make this happen because he knew of the national imperative we were dealing with. He also is one of those people with great courage. My colleague from Florida, Senator Martinez, worked hard for a very long time trying to get us across the finish line. For me, he is a brother. For me, when he tells the story of being a Peter Pan child, he exemplifies the dream and hope of what America is. We very much look forward to continuing our working relationship together on issues that affect America. I say to his colleague, the Presiding Officer, Senator Nelson from Florida, I appreciate his great work and hanging with us, even on what was a very tough vote at the end. I also want to say a quick word about a couple of other people who are freshmen, about whom some might say: What were they doing involved in such a big issue? But then I guess they did it because they learned and because they were doing it for all of the right reasons. Sheldon Whitehouse, my colleague from Rhode Island, I called on him and said: You need to be a part of this group. You need to be a part of it because, No. 1, you are on the Judiciary Committee; and No. 2, you were a great attorney general of Rhode Island; and No. 3, you will learn so much in working with great names such as Kennedy and Specter, Leahy, and others. So he joined us, and day in and day out he was there, laboring to get us across the finish line. Amy Klobuchar, the new Senator from Minnesota, has a way of trying to bring people together. She has a way of trying to bring people together. She labored mightily to get us to where we ended up today, with at least as many votes as we were able to get. But it is not just those who work who have the title of Senator--and I might add Senator Trent Lott also did a Herculean job of trying to get us across the finish line, and I thank him for that. But there are many people behind each of these Senators. We get the honors, we get the label of Senator, but we couldn't do it without the wonderful floor staff we have, including the Parliamentarians and the clerks and others who help us every day, but also the staffs of each of our offices. From Senator Kennedy's staff, I thank Ester Olavarria, Michael Myers, Janice Kaguyutan, Melissa Crow, Mary Giovagnoli, and Todd Kushner; for Senator Feinstein, Amy Pope and Jennifer Duck; for Senator Menendez, Chris Schloesser; for Senator Reid, Serena Hoy, Marcela Urrutia, and Ron Weich; for Senator Durbin, Joe Zogby; for Senator Leahy, Matt Virkstis and Ellen Gallagher; for Senator Graham, Jen Olson and Matt Rimkunas; for Senator Kyl, Elizabeth Maier and Michael Dougherty; for Senator McCain, Becky Jensen; for Senator Specter, Michael O'Neill and Juria Jones; for Senator Martinez, Nilda Pedrosa and Clay Deatherage. I thank all the staff who have made this possible. In conclusion, let me say I have great hope. I have great hope and I am optimistic. I am optimistic we are going to be able to deal with the great issues of our time in the 21st century. We are going to be able to figure out a way to resolve the issues in Iraq and in the Middle East, because the greatness of America depends upon us restoring the greatness of America around the world. We will move forward with a clean energy future for the 21st century, which is what we worked so hard on and what we passed in this Chamber last week. We will work very hard to address the issues of health care which affect so many Americans and their families and so many American businesses. Yes, we will continue to work on the issue of immigration. It is an issue we must resolve, and I am optimistic. I am optimistic because when I think of that generation I come from, that generation of World War II, the parents of the Presiding Officer and mine, people who lived through those very difficult times of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, people who fought in World War II, veterans such as my father who went to war, my mother who served in the Pentagon during World War II, that generation of World War II, where half a million Americans gave their lives in the name of preserving civilization and freedom; if they could take on those challenges of their time, then there is no reason why we in the Congress cannot take on the challenges of our time and restore the greatness of America and make sure that the legacy they left to each and every one of us is not a legacy we forget or that we do not pass on in an even better shape to our children. I do not want our generation to be the first generation in American history that passes on the baton to the next generation in worse condition than we inherited it from our parents. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, in my haste to thank everybody I forgot to say something about someone who has now been through three immigration battles with me in my office, and that is Felicia Escobar. Felicia will be going to law school soon. For the last 3 years she has labored mightily, putting in sometimes 100-hour work weeks to make sure we are doing the right things on immigration, and I wanted to personally thank her on the floor for her great efforts. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture as we bring this debate to a very pivotal point. As I come to the floor this morning, I am reminded of the millions of phone calls and letters that everybody has received in this Chamber. Many of those phone calls and those letters, those demonstrations have been filled with hate and with venom. They have been filled with hate and with venom. We are the United States of America because we are able to bring our Government together to function on behalf of the people of this country. So for all of those who have sent arrows in the direction of the profiles in courage who have been working on this issue for the last 2 years, I say to them: Remember the prayer of Cesar Chaves of the United Farm Workers in which he said: Help us love even those who hate us. Help us love even those who hate us so that we can change the world--so that we can change the world. Much of the venom we have seen around this issue has to do with the fact that people are afraid. People are afraid. I ask my colleagues to join us in looking forward and not being afraid because what makes people afraid today is that we have a system of chaos, a system of broken borders, a system of victimization. So how do we move forward to create a system of law and order of which we in the United States of America can be proud? How do we do that? Well, we have done our best. We have put forward a proposal that says the porous borders we have in America are not good for America. The national security of the United States of America demands-- demands--that we move forward and secure those borders. So we have done it in this legislation, and we have included the funding to be able to secure those borders. Second of all, for more than the last 20, 25 years, what has happened is that the United States of America has looked the other way as our immigration laws have been broken time after time. So for the first time, what we have done with this legislation is we have said we are going to enforce the laws. We are going to have tough employer sanctions against employers who hire those who are unauthorized to work in our country. We are even going to criminalize their conduct. So we will enforce the laws of our Nation. Thirdly, we take the 12 million undocumented workers who are here in America, and we say: You are going to pay a fine. You are going to be punished. You are going to learn English. You are going to have to go to the back of the line, and then after some time on the average of 11, 12 years, between 8 and 13 years, if you do all the things we require of you, including paying these very high fines and paying all of the processing fees required, then at that point in time, you will have an opportunity to become a citizen if you so choose. To me, that is a commonsense solution to the national security issue which is at stake in this debate. It also is a commonsense solution for a nation that prides itself in enforcing our laws. We are not like other countries around the world that don't enforce our laws, but we will be. So I say this to my colleagues on the other side: I respect you. I respect you for what you do here and for how you bring a civil debate to the issues that we deal with every day. But at the end of the day, if we don't get this done today with this cloture vote, it is going to mean the national security of the United States of America will continue to be compromised into the future for who knows how long. It will mean we will continue to be a nation that does not enforce our laws on immigration within this country, and it will mean we will have failed to develop a realistic and honest solution to the 12 million undocumented workers who labor in America every day. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this cloture motion that we have coming up. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and I thank the Chair. First, let me make a comment about the process here. On the other side of the aisle we have heard people stand up and try to use every procedural obstacle they can to kill the bill. They want to kill the bill. What this Chamber ought to be about is trying to find solutions to those huge problems that face our country, whatever those problems may be, including the issue of immigration. They have said this process is somehow unfair. Well, when I look at how much time this Chamber has spent dealing with the issue of immigration, I think there has been ample time for people to talk about and debate this issue over the last 2 years. Since 9/11--since 9/11-- the Senate has had 36 hearings on the issue of immigration--36 hearings. Since 9/11, there have been 6 days of committee action with respect to immigration. Since then, there have been 59 committee amendments on immigration. Since then, there have been 21 days of Senate debate--21 days of Senate debate on immigration, and 92 Senate floor amendments--92 Senate floor amendments. So for those who want to use procedure to kill this bill, they are wrong in making the case that they have not been heard. There has been ample time and opportunity to hear their arguments, and that has gone on time and time again. It is time we in the Senate get down to business and fix the problem of immigration for our country. Secondly, this is a good bill. It may not be a perfect bill, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This bill toughens border security. It does it by making sure that the $4.4 billion is there for border security, 370 miles of fencing, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 20,000 Border Patrol agents, and it goes on. It doubles employer sanctions to make sure we can enforce our laws here in our country through a variety of different means, and it also makes sure that we develop a realistic and tough solution to the 12 million undocumented workers who are here in America. Those who are part of a ``round them up and deport them'' crowd are being unrealistic because of the costs involved and the difficulty in ultimately fixing the problem we have. So we have come up with the right kind of solution that punishes them, fines them, puts them to the back of the line, and allows them to come out of the shadows of this society and into the sunlight. Finally, we can't forget the human values at stake in this debate on immigration. In this picture we see Army SPC Alex Jimenez. He was deployed for a second tour in Iraq. He has been missing in Iraq since May 12. We have found some other of his personal belongings. But as he is in Iraq missing in action, his wife was being questioned by ICE in our country, in America, because her immigration status was undocumented. Now, is that the American way? Is that the American way, to have one of our soldiers missing in action in Iraq, with his wife concerned about her immigration status here in the United States of America? What this demonstrates to me is we have a system of chaos and disorder here in America. We need to fix the problem. This Chamber can fix the problem. I hope we will stand behind the solution we are bringing to the floor today. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to en bloc, the preambles agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, the consideration of these items appear separately in the Record, and any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Senate to proceed en bloc to the consideration of the following calendar items: Calendar No. 214, S. Res. 225; Calendar No. 215, S. Res. 230; and Calendar No. 216, S. Res. 235.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 176, S. Con. Res. 25.

Mr. SALAZAR

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

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 256 submitted earlier today.

Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to proceed to S. 1639, the immigration reform package. This immigration reform legislation has been long in coming. Immigration has been debated on the floor in the last year for almost a month. We debated it earlier this year for several weeks. It has been the subject of multiple hearings. The fact is this national security problem is not going to go away until the Members of the Senate have the courage to stand up and deal with this issue. The legislation before this body may not be the perfect legislation everybody wants, and there are people who will find fault with the legislation, but at the end of the day, it addresses three fundamental principles we must address on immigration reform. The first of those principles is that it secures America's borders, and it does that with tough provisions in how we police the borders, the addition of more Border Patrol agents, 370 miles of fencing, 70 ground-based radar and camera towers, 200 miles of vehicle barriers, new checkpoints of entry, and so forth. Second, this law will enforce our Nation's immigration laws for the first time. For far too long, for the last 20 years, what has happened is America has looked the other way and turned a blind eye toward the enforcement of our laws in this country. This legislation has significant enforcement provisions in it that will, in fact, be enforced and funded. Third, this legislation secures America's economic future. It does it by the passage of the AgJOBS Act which is supported by more than 800 organizations, farmers, ranchers, and the agricultural community throughout our great Nation. It addresses the economic needs of America by moving forward with a new temporary worker program that will address the needs of America today in terms of jobs that other people do not want. And finally, it sets forth a realistic solution for America's undocumented workforce, and it is a far cry from what those who are on the other side of this issue will say--that it is amnesty. It is not. When we are having the people pay the kinds of penalties we have in the bill, when we have them go to the back of the line, when we put them through an 8-year purgatory, when we put them through that probationary period of time, what we are saying to them is: You have broken the law, you are going to pay significantly to get back into the line relative to the possibility of having a green card which will not come until 8 to 13 years from now. So I think we have struck the right balance here, and I would urge my colleagues to move forward and to give us a ``yes'' vote on the motion to proceed to debate this fundamental issue of national security. Finally, I would say that the moral issues which are at stake, which are at the foundation of this debate on immigration, are moral issues we cannot escape from. This Senate has to have the courage to stand up and say we are going to address those issues now.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, last Thursday night, very late in the evening, this Chamber put its arms around a new energy bill. It is an energy bill that deals with making sure we move forward with alternative fuels in a robust and real way for the future of America. It is an energy bill that says we have had enough as Americans wasting 60 percent of our energy, and we can do much better on efficiency. It is an energy bill that says it is time for us to move forward from the point in time where we have tolerated vehicles that have not had the kind of efficiency we know is technologically possible in America, so we are going to adopt new CAFE standards. It is a piece of energy legislation that says we recognize the linkage between how we use fossil fuels here in America and the global warming that is occurring around our globe. So we said we would move forward and take some new steps in the way of sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions. This is a good piece of legislation. It is a bill which we hope--I hope and I know many Members of this Senate, led by Senator Bingaman and Senator Feinstein and others, and Senator Reid--makes it to the President's desk. I wish to remind my colleagues while I have the floor for a few minutes that, in fact, this is one of the things we have been working on in the Senate for the last several years. In 2005, we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and we said to the world: We are going to start taking the concept of energy independence for America in a very real and serious way. Last year, after some significant debate on this floor, we also opened up lease sale 181 and its extensions on the gulf coast for exploration and development of our resources. This year, with the passage last week of the 2007 act, we put another layer on the cake in terms of trying to move forward to the reality of a world that embraces energy independence. We still have a long way to go. We have a long way to go with this legislation. It is my hope we don't get it caught up in a procedural quagmire, either here in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, and that ultimately we get legislation that is adopted which President Bush ultimately signs into law. It is good legislation and the kind of legislation we ought to be working on in this body. Even though there has been a lot of focus lately on the President's domestic initiative relative to immigration, the fact is that when one looks at the state of the Union and what the President said in his State of the Union Address, we as Americans are addicted to foreign oil. He said it is time for us to move forward in an aggressive and ambitious way to get rid of the addiction we have to foreign oil. We have been able to do that by embracing the committee's legislation which had that bipartisan goal in mind, that we would take some significant steps forward in this 110th Congress to deal with our overaddiction to foreign oil. From my point of view, as I talked about this issue with the people I represent, the nearly 5 million people in the State of Colorado, I am reminded of the fact that we have come a long way in this debate on energy and that we are now facing some inescapable forces which have grabbed the attention of the American public in a way they never have before. The first of those inescapable forces is national security. How can we as the United States say we are secure as a nation when we import, as we did in March of last year, 66 percent of our oil from foreign countries? Many of those countries we are importing our oil from are countries that are spawning terrorism around the world. So from a national security point of view, it seems to me that embracing the concept of getting rid of this addiction to foreign oil is an inescapable force of our time. That is why on this floor of the Senate you will see Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and progressives, coming together to say that as a matter of national security, this inescapable reality is something we must deal with. It was on that basis that several years ago the Energy Futures Coalition, led by the distinguished progressive, my colleague and good friend, former Senator Tim Wirth, who now runs the United Nations Foundation, together with a friend of his, C. Boyden Gray, one of the leading voices of conservative causes, came together and founded a piece of legislation that we are trying to get through this Senate now that is called the Set America Free legislation. We gave it another name as we went through our processes here in the Senate, calling it the DRIVE Act, and broke it up into different pieces of legislation. But at the end of the day, the Energy Futures Coalition and the Set America Free concept, the proposal they pushed forward, have been embodied and embraced in the legislation that was adopted by this body just this last week. So the national security implications of what we are doing here are, in fact, an inescapable reality and an inescapable force that will lead us to a clean energy future for America in the 21st century. Secondly, there is a major issue for us and another inescapable force we deal with in our country today, and that is the issue of our own environmental security. How will we deal with the issue of global warming? We know that is an issue we will have to deal with some more, and there will be adequate time to debate the particulars on how we might be able to move forward. This legislation, with its efforts on efficiency, with its efforts on renewable energies, including what we do with biofuels, takes us a step in that direction. In addition, the environmental security of our Nation is also addressed in that legislation because we deal for the first time in a very real way with the issue of carbon sequestration. I see my good friend from Kentucky here who often has lauded the importance of coal, and I understand why. When you are from Kentucky, you would see the importance of coal, as I do as well, being from Colorado, as does my good friend Jon Tester from the State of Montana. So the issue for us as we look at the coal resources of our Nation, where we have enough coal to supply the needs of the United States of America for 200 years, is how can we use this abundant energy resource in a manner that doesn't compromise our environment? We can do that. We can do that with the new technologies we have with respect to IGCC. We can do that as we learn how to sequester the carbon emissions from the burning of coal. It is not a new technology. It is a technology which has been around for a very long time in the oilfields of my State, the oilfields of Canada, and the oilfields of many places around Colorado, as the past oil efforts we have had in our country have been dependent upon us being able to put carbon dioxide into the ground. So this sequestering of carbon dioxide is something which has been going on for a very long time. The inescapable force of global warming and environmental security is one that is with us for a long time to come, and it is something that, in the energy legislation we passed last week, is very much addressed in that legislation. Finally, the other inescapable force is the economic reality of our Nation with respect to a clean energy economy. I think the clean energy future for the United States of America in the 21st century creates very significant opportunities. All of us know how difficult the challenge of energy is, and all of us also know there is not going to be only one answer which is going to lead us to the necessary conclusion that we need to deal with these inescapable forces; it is going to be a portfolio. It is going to have a number of different items on that menu which deal with the energy needs of our Nation and of our world. But at the end of the day, the door we have opened here with respect to a clean energy future will create millions upon millions of jobs in America. It will create millions of jobs in those areas where perhaps they have had the most difficult time in their communities, they will be creating a viable economic activity. For me, when I look at my State of Colorado, 2 years ago out on the eastern plains, part of that forgotten America, much like the farmland of America, whether it is Oklahoma, Kansas, the Dakotas, or the eastern part of my State, we had a population which was declining in huge numbers in many of our counties, rural and remote, and withering on the vine--part of that forgotten America where most people are not able to stay there because there are such limited opportunities. Yet, in a matter of 2 years since, in the State of Colorado we adopted a new renewable energy program, and we have seen things turn around in a very significant way. We have ethanol plants that are now functioning, providing jobs, and creating hundreds of millions of gallons of ethanol in places such as Yuma and in places such as Fort Morgan.

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.