Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 60 be star-printed with the changes at the desk.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to remember a Coloradan lost to us in Iraq. Army PFC Jeffrey A. Avery was just 19 years old when he was lost to this life late last month in Muqudadiyah, Iraq. Jeffrey attended Coronado High School in 2005 and went on to attend Pikes Peak Community College, where he was studying criminal justice with the hopes of becoming a police officer. He enjoyed the outdoors and would spend his summers in California with his grandparents. But instead of these pursuits, Jeffrey decided to answer his Nation's call. In Iraq, Specialist Avery served as a military police officer, training for his future. At the time he was killed, he was manning a checkpoint, helping to keep others safe from harm. President John F. Kennedy once said, ``Every area of trouble gives out a ray of hope, and the one unchangeable certainty is that nothing is certain or unchangeable.'' Private First Class Avery embodied this hope with his service to our Nation. He chose to put himself into the area of trouble and to assume the responsibility of hope for millions of Iraqis and Americans. He will be missed by all those around him, and he and his family will remain in our prayers. Corporal Christopher Degiovine Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to remember a fallen Marine Cpl Christopher Degiovine of Lone Tree, CO. Corporal Degiovine lost his life late last month in Fallujah, Iraq. He was just 25 years old. Christopher Degiovine was a native of Essex Junction, VT, and had made Colorado his home for only a few months. He majored in criminal justice at Champlain College, where he graduated in 2005, and was looking to pursue a career in law enforcement. After moving to Colorado, Christopher Degiovine answered his Nation's call and joined the Marine Corps in December 2005. He was excited about the opportunity, and proud to be serving his Nation. He was promoted to corporal a year later, and had only just been sent to Iraq when he was killed. Christopher Degoivine's life was one of extraordinary promise cut far too short. His patriotism compelled him to a higher calling, and for that every American is humbled and grateful. His service to each of us and his sacrifice on behalf of all us is a debt we can never repay. Matthew 5:9 reminds us: ``Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.'' Corporal Degiovine was one of these very peacemakers, and his place will always be reserved in our hearts. He and his family will remain in my prayers, and those of the Nation, tonight and always. Corporal Wade Oglesby Mr. President, I rise to reflect on the memory of Army Cpl Wade Oglesby, of Grand Junction, CO. Corporal Oglesby was killed late last month in Taji, Iraq. He was only 28 years old and was looking forward to returning home and joining the Mesa County Sheriff's Office. Wade Oglesby's life was not an easy one. He was a young man who had to grow up far too soon. His father left his family when Wade was just 5, and his mother relocated the family from Denver to the city Grand Junction, on the other side of the Great Divide. As a sophomore in high school, Wade Oglesby's mother Linda fell terribly ill, and Wade left high school to care for his dying mother. After she passed on, Wade stayed with his younger sister Samantha until she became an adult. August 2004 was a turning point for Corporal Oglesby he found his ``true calling in life,'' as his family said. He joined the Army and found a place that he belonged. Wade's brother Richard observed that Wade ``was a soldier long before joining the Army.'' In the Army, Corporal Oglesby found his mission. He was proud of his service to his Nation. It makes perfect sense that serving his country fit so naturally to Corporal Oglesby's character: he had spent his whole life in selfless service to those around him whom he loved. Helping and protecting others came naturally to him, and the Army carried him on his way. One newspaper in my home State reported that Wade Ogelsby's motto in life was ``float on.'' Even as his life became heavy as a young man, Corporal Oglesby found a way to ``float on'' and to continue moving forward. To his sister Samantha and brother Richard: As you mourn the loss of your brother, know that our Nation mourns with you the loss of another exemplary soldier and American. He will live on our memories for his courage, service, and sacrifice.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes against the Gregg amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, the floor managers of this bill, Senators Kennedy and Specter, in urging our colleagues to vote against the Gregg amendment. There is broad agreement among all Members who have been working on this reform package that we need to secure the border. Indeed, when you look at what Secretary Chertoff has said we need to do to secure the border, he has said we need to do a number of different things which we have incorporated in this legislation. We call for 18,000 Border Patrol agents. We call for 370 miles of fencing, 200 miles of vehicle barriers, 70 ground-based radar and camera towers, 4 unmanned aerial vehicles, new checkpoints and ports of entry, and a host of other things. Those numbers were not just picked out of the sky and put into this bill; those are the numbers the Secretary of Homeland Security said we need in order to secure the borders. He has been a constant presence in the fashioning of the immigration reform proposal that is before the Senate. The Gregg amendment essentially would derail the triggers that have been set up and is inconsistent with what we have heard from the Department of Homeland Security. I join Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter and my colleagues in urging a ``no'' vote on the Gregg amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, if there is no further business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned, following the remarks of Senator Sessions.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May 24; that on Thursday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that at the close of morning business the Senate resume consideration of S. 1348, the immigration bill.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that the consideration of these items appear separately in the Record; and that any statements related to the measures be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

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. 161, S. 1352; Calendar No. 162, H.R. 414; Calendar No. 163, H.R. 437; Calendar No. 164, H.R. 625; Calendar No. 165, H.R. 988; and Calendar No. 166, H.R. 1402.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today Senator Allard and I introduced the ``Rocky Mountain Science Collections Center Act of 2007,'' a bill to establish a secure collections facility and education center for archeological, anthropological, paleontological, zoological, and geological artifacts and archival documentation from throughout the Rocky Mountain region at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, Colorado. Our bill would authorize $15 million, subject to appropriations, for the Secretary of Interior to provide grants to pay the Federal share, 50 percent of the cost of constructing appropriate, museum-standard facilities to house the collections of the Museum. Since its founding in 1900, the Denver Museum of Nature & Science has been the principal natural history museum between Chicago and Los Angeles and has educated more than 70 million visitors. The Museum holds more than a million objects in public trust. Together, the Museum's collections, library, and archives provide the foundation for understanding science and the natural and cultural history of the region and serve as the primary resource for informal science education to Colorado school and general audiences. The Museum is a world leader in creating opportunities that allow the general public to participate in authentic collection based scientific research. The majority of the collections that the Museum maintains in perpetuity are acquired through federal authorization, are cared for on behalf of Federal agencies, or are controlled by federal legislation. Of the more than 840,000 items in the Museum's collection, more than half were recovered from federally managed public land. Construction of on-site collection facilities, exhibition facilities and an education center for the Museum will provide a secure facility for the collection and ensure that it is accessible to members of the public, universities and research scientists alike. The Federal cost share will help pay for construction as well as the costs of design, planning, furnishing, equipping and supporting the Museum. For the benefit of my colleagues, here is a summary of the bill's provisions: Section 1. Short Title. The Rocky Mountain Science Collections Center Act of 2007. Section 2. Findings. Recites several of the findings of Congress, including the size and breadth of the collections held by the Denver Museum of Nature and Science and the finding that significant portions of these collections were recovered from public lands managed by various Federal agencies. The Denver Museum of Nature and Science is the federally designated repository for these collections and as such is governed by various Federal statutes and regulations in carrying out its trustee responsibilities. Section 3. Definitions. The term ``Museum'' in the Act refers to the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. The term ``Secretary'' in the Act refers to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Section 4. Grant to the Museum. This section provides that the Secretary may provide grants to pay for the Federal share of the cost of constructing appropriate, Museum standard facilities to house the collections of the Museum. The Federal share reflects the continuing Federal ownership of the artifacts and other scientifically significant materials held by the Museum in a trust responsibility. This section authorizes the use of any grant funds for construction, design, engineering, plans, equipment, furnishing and other services or goods in furtherance of the construction of the Collections Center. Subsection 4 (b). Application. The subsection provides an application process whereby the Museum provides the Secretary with the necessary documentation and information to assure the Secretary that grant proceeds are expended for the intended result. Subsection 4 (c). Matching Funds. This subsection requires the Museum to provide a match for any amounts granted under the section and allows the Museum to use cash, in-kind donations and/or services in satisfaction of the match requirement. Subsection 4 (d). Authorization. The Act authorizes $15,000,000 to be appropriated to the Secretary in carrying out the Act; such funds to remain available until expended.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today Senator Allard and I introduced the ``Rocky Mountain Science Collections Center Act of 2007,'' a bill to establish a secure collections facility and education center for archeological, anthropological, paleontological, zoological, and geological artifacts and archival documentation from throughout the Rocky Mountain region at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, Colorado. Our bill would authorize $15 million, subject to appropriations, for the Secretary of Interior to provide grants to pay the Federal share, 50 percent of the cost of constructing appropriate, museum-standard facilities to house the collections of the Museum. Since its founding in 1900, the Denver Museum of Nature & Science has been the principal natural history museum between Chicago and Los Angeles and has educated more than 70 million visitors. The Museum holds more than a million objects in public trust. Together, the Museum's collections, library, and archives provide the foundation for understanding science and the natural and cultural history of the region and serve as the primary resource for informal science education to Colorado school and general audiences. The Museum is a world leader in creating opportunities that allow the general public to participate in authentic collection based scientific research. The majority of the collections that the Museum maintains in perpetuity are acquired through federal authorization, are cared for on behalf of Federal agencies, or are controlled by federal legislation. Of the more than 840,000 items in the Museum's collection, more than half were recovered from federally managed public land. Construction of on-site collection facilities, exhibition facilities and an education center for the Museum will provide a secure facility for the collection and ensure that it is accessible to members of the public, universities and research scientists alike. The Federal cost share will help pay for construction as well as the costs of design, planning, furnishing, equipping and supporting the Museum. For the benefit of my colleagues, here is a summary of the bill's provisions: Section 1. Short Title. The Rocky Mountain Science Collections Center Act of 2007. Section 2. Findings. Recites several of the findings of Congress, including the size and breadth of the collections held by the Denver Museum of Nature and Science and the finding that significant portions of these collections were recovered from public lands managed by various Federal agencies. The Denver Museum of Nature and Science is the federally designated repository for these collections and as such is governed by various Federal statutes and regulations in carrying out its trustee responsibilities. Section 3. Definitions. The term ``Museum'' in the Act refers to the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. The term ``Secretary'' in the Act refers to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Section 4. Grant to the Museum. This section provides that the Secretary may provide grants to pay for the Federal share of the cost of constructing appropriate, Museum standard facilities to house the collections of the Museum. The Federal share reflects the continuing Federal ownership of the artifacts and other scientifically significant materials held by the Museum in a trust responsibility. This section authorizes the use of any grant funds for construction, design, engineering, plans, equipment, furnishing and other services or goods in furtherance of the construction of the Collections Center. Subsection 4 (b). Application. The subsection provides an application process whereby the Museum provides the Secretary with the necessary documentation and information to assure the Secretary that grant proceeds are expended for the intended result. Subsection 4 (c). Matching Funds. This subsection requires the Museum to provide a match for any amounts granted under the section and allows the Museum to use cash, in-kind donations and/or services in satisfaction of the match requirement. Subsection 4 (d). Authorization. The Act authorizes $15,000,000 to be appropriated to the Secretary in carrying out the Act; such funds to remain available until expended.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, let me first begin by making some acknowledgments as we move forward on this debate on immigration reform for our country. First, to the majority leader, Senator Reid, for having kept the feet to the fire in this Chamber so that we finally will have an opportunity to move on to one of the most important national security issues that our Nation faces today. I appreciate his efforts and his leadership to help lead our country in a way where we deal effectively with this very difficult and contentious issue of immigration reform. I also thank the President of the United States, President Bush, and his Cabinet Secretaries Chertoff and Gutierrez for the work they have done now over the last 3 months as we have tried to put together a comprehensive immigration reform proposal that will work for our country. I thank my colleagues in the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, who have come together in good faith to try to deal with this very important issue. I know we have a long week ahead of us as we move forward with the immigration debate on the reform proposal in the Senate. I am confident at the end of the day the national security of this country will require us to move forward with passage of legislation that will bring our Nation into the 21st-century reality of the immigration challenges that we face. As I approach this debate and I have worked on this legislation over the last 4 years--I am mindful of several things: First, that this is not a new debate; this is a debate where last year, for 1 month, we spent 1 month of the time of the Senate on this floor dealing with the very same issues that we are going to deal with again. So for those on the other side who might say this is coming upon us too fast, I will simply remind them of two things: First, we spent an entire month dealing with immigration reform last year, and we were able to get a bipartisan consensus to vote a bill out of the Senate last year. And, secondly, we were given very ample warning by Senator Reid when he said to all of us that this was an important issue that we would be working on in the last timeframe remaining before the Memorial Day break. So here we are now. The time has arrived. We must not let our country down. We must move forward and deal with immigration reform in a way that makes the most sense. Now, as I approached this issue, I asked myself the following question: What is the aim? What is the aim? Well, the aim is about the national security of the United States. How is it that we are going to provide a greater amount of security to the United States of America? In my view, the bipartisan legislation that has been put together is a tough law-and-order bill and a real bill, a realistic bill that provides realistic solutions. It is not a bill that is liked by those who want essentially not to have any progress on immigration reform because they would rather the debate go on not 2 years, not 5 years, but 10 or 20 years. It is not about satisfying them. This issue, from our point of view, is making sure the national objectives are objectives that we are able to address. Let me talk to you to let you know what it is that is on my mind. First, we need to secure our borders. As a nation, we have a sovereign right to make sure our borders are secure. As a nation that is very concerned--rightfully so--about the threat of terrorism, it is important we know who it is that is coming in and leaving our country. We need to know our borders are, in fact, secure. Second, we need to know the laws within our country are being enforced. For far too long on the issue of immigration, our enforcement mechanisms have looked the other way. That has allowed a system of lawlessness and illegality to continue. We need to have a system of laws that will, in fact, be enforced. That honors a fundamental value of our Nation, which is that we are a nation of laws. For us simply to look the other way is not the American way. This bill will accomplish that. Third, we need to secure the future of America's economic realities and challenges. We do that with a process that will penalize those who are here illegally. We will have them pay fines that will put them at the back of the line, that will require them to learn English and to remain crime free. Then if they survive a purgatory of, on average, 11 years, at that point in time they would be eligible for a green card. So for those on the other side who might say this is an issue of amnesty, they are wrong. When you have to march through that kind of pain and pay the fine and do the time for having violated the law, it is far from anything that anyone ought to be labeling as amnesty. Let me spend a few minutes talking about each of the components; first, securing America's borders. It is true that there are about half a million, maybe 600,000 people who come across our borders illegally every year. What we have done in the legislation we crafted together is we have required that there be a set of triggers that have to be met with respect to securing our borders. We will require that there be 18,000 new Border Patrol officers helping us secure our borders. We will require 370 miles of fencing to make sure that in those areas that are vulnerable on our border, those areas are secure. We will require 200 miles of vehicle barriers in other places to make sure that that border is secure both on the south end as well as the northern. We will require 70 ground-based radar and camera towers so we can keep watch on the entire border. We will require seven UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, to make sure we know what is happening across our borders, and we will require new checkpoints for ports of entry. When this legislation is introduced, passed, and when this legislation gets implemented, as it will be, one thing we can tell the American people is we will have a secure border. Securing our borders is not enough, because the other aim has to be enforcing our laws within the interior of the country. Some people say it is all of the illegals across the southern border that has led to the current reality of 12 million undocumented workers. The fact is, many of the people who are undocumented workers entered this country through legal means. They simply overstayed their visas. Time and time again, it is estimated that probably more than one-third of those who are here illegally actually came into this country legally. We need to create a system that will make sure that at the end of the day, we are enforcing our laws against those who are here illegally. How have we done that? We have done that in a variety of ways in this legislation. We increase the detention capacity to 27,500 beds daily. We add 1,000 new I.C.E. investigative personnel. We add 2,500 Customs and border protection workers. We require reimbursement to State and local communities that detain criminal aliens. We create a new employer verification system. We require 1,000 new worksite compliance personnel. I could go on and on with respect to how this legislation will create interior enforcement on immigration that will be effective. Finally, the third thing this legislation does is secure America's economic future. It secures America's economic future through the adoption of a program which Senator Craig and Senator Feinstein and 67 of us have cosponsored, the AgJOBS Program, because we know that across America our farmers and ranchers are suffering because they have not had the labor they need. We also have included in this legislation the President's new temporary worker program. It is a program that will allow employers to match up with employees on a temporary basis, to create circularity with respect to those workers who will come into this country. Finally, it will create a realistic solution for America's undocumented workforce, the 12 million or so people who are here. That will be accomplished by requiring them to pay significant penalties and fees. We will make sure that as they move forward in the process, they also go to the back of the line so they don't get any advantage over those who enter the country legally. We will require them to return home prior to the time they apply for a green card. We will require them to learn English, and we will require them to remain crime free. Let me conclude by urging my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed. The time is now for us to deal with the immigration reform issue which is so difficult and so contentious. At the end of the day, this bipartisan proposal which we have put on the table will allow us, first, to secure our borders. It will allow us to make sure we are enforcing our laws. Lastly, it will deal in a realistic and humane manner with the economic realities that face our businesses and workers in America today. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for less than 1 minute.

Mr. SALAZAR. I come to the floor today with my distinguished colleague and friend, the Senator from Tennessee, to talk about a new way forward in Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that legislation which we have put together working with the Iraq Study Group entitled, The Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, back in December when the Iraq Study Group first came out with its recommendations, the recommendations were heralded by many people around the country as a new way forward--a new way forward for us to deal with this very difficult and impractical problem in which we find ourselves in Iraq. Those recommendations--some of which have been implemented and some of which have not--I believe still create the centerpiece for how we can find a bipartisan way forward for how we deal with the Iraq issue. I have walked around with the report of the Iraq Study Group for the last 4 months. I am very much appreciative of the fact that the people who put together the report were some of the best statesmen and women we have in the United States of America: James A. Baker, Lee Hamilton, Lawrence Eagleburger, Vernon Jordan, Ed Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon Panetta, William Perry, Charles Robb, and Alan Simpson. Those are some of the best and brightest people we have in America and who are working on one of the most difficult issues that confronts our country today. So it is in the vein of their work that I come to the floor today with my colleague from Tennessee to suggest that their recommendations create the opportunity for us to provide the basis for some agreement among Democrats and Republicans on how we might move forward in dealing with the very difficult national security issue we face in Iraq. As we debate this issue here in Washington, with veto pens and dueling press conferences, I come back to the reality of our brave American men and women and the dangers they face every day in the streets of Baghdad and al Anbar Province and in countless other places in that Nation which today we find in turmoil. It is for them, for our men and women in uniform, we must find common ground. It is for them we must bridge our differences here on the Senate floor to create a path to success in Iraq. It is for them we must develop a policy that is worthy of their sacrifices and the sacrifices of their families. I come to the floor today with my colleague from Tennessee to offer my view on how we can reach our common goal and how we can work to heal the deep divisions this war has caused here at home. Not since the Vietnam war has the American public been so divided. I am concerned that the bitterness and the harshness of this debate is a debate that clouds good judgment on one of the most fundamental issues we deal with in the Congress: the issue of war and peace. It is important for us to remember that no matter how contentious this debate may become, every Senator shares the same goal, and that goal is peace and stability in the Middle East and a safe return home of our troops. While we may disagree on the best path to that end, we must continue to work together for a constructive change in our policy. It is important to remember what binds us together as a nation is something we must honor so we will not be torn so far apart that we cannot bring our Nation back together. The Iraq Study Group report, I believe, embodies the best wisdom we have seen as to how we ought to move forward with the issue of Iraq. I believe the work of the Iraq Study Group is a model for how we can come together in good faith. The group, as I have said before, is comprised of some of the finest and best public servants we have in America. They worked together for months and they did it in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical way. They are from both parties. That group and their work consulted over 250 officials and experts, including senior leaders of the Government of Iraq, the United States Government, and key coalition partners. They received advice from more than 50 distinguished scholars and experts in a variety of fields. I am honored, therefore, to join Senator Lamar Alexander in appealing to our colleagues in the Senate to take a fresh look at the group's report and to consider how we can use it as our guide to create a successful policy for the war in Iraq. The group proposed a new diplomatic offensive--a new diplomatic offensive--to deal with the problems of Iraq and the region. I am pleased that recently the administration has moved forward in embracing some of the recommendations set forth in that ``new diplomatic offensive.'' The report provided a roadmap for transitioning our troops from a combat role to the training, equipping, advising and support of the Iraqi military. The Iraq Study Group recommended how we can strengthen and restore our own military, which has been put under such strain by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the report details new policies for the Iraqi police and criminal justice system, the Iraqi oil sector, and for improving economic and security assistance programs in Iraq. Finally, the Iraq Study Group recommended specific milestones for the Government of Iraq to meet. They include establishing a fair process for amending the constitution, revising de-Baathification laws, ensuring the equitable sharing of Iraqi oil revenues, holding free and fair provincial elections at the earliest possible date, and enacting legislation to ensure the rights of women and the rights of all minority communities in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group concluded that with the implementation of these policies, all United States combat forces could be out of Iraq by the first quarter of 2008, except those necessary for protecting personnel and infrastructure, for training, equipping, and advising of Iraqi forces, for conducting targeted counterterrorism activities, and for engaging in rapid reaction and special operations. Senator Alexander and I intend to propose legislation that will effectively embody this comprehensive set of recommendations. Our bill would state the sense of the Congress that the Iraq Study Group's recommendations should be implemented and that the President should formulate a comprehensive plan to do so. It would require the establishment of policies and plans that implement the core recommendations of the group. And it states that the United States should condition political, military, and economic support on the Iraqi Government making substantial progress in meeting those milestones detailed in the report. The Iraq Study Group did not set a deadline for the redeployment of our troops, and neither would our bill. But the group did, and our bill would, state the policies and actions that can and should lead to the successful and rapid conclusion to this war. I believe we all share that goal. I believe the distinguished members of the Iraq Study Group have given us the means to achieve it. I don't believe the report of the Iraq Study Group should simply become another study on the shelf that gathers dust. I will conclude with two remarks. First, here in Washington, DC, it seems there is a lot of poison in the air, and most issues are decided on a partisan basis. It is my view, as a Senator from Colorado, that the issues of war and peace, when we have our men and women in uniform in harm's way, should not be decided on the basis of Republicans versus Democrats. No matter what has happened in Iraq up to this time, and no matter what kind of finger-pointing will take place in terms of the wisdom or lack of wisdom on how the war has been prosecuted, the fact is, we are there now. Also, we have 140,000 men and women in harm's way. For us in the Senate, I believe it is our responsibility to come together, as Democrats and Republicans, to fashion a new way forward to success. I believe this new way forward to success has been laid out by the Iraq Study Group, which didn't just look at this for an hour or a day or two but spent a year, under the authorization of the Congress, and they came up with what they thought was the best way for the United States to move forward in Iraq. I am hopeful both Democrats and Republicans will join Senator Lamar Alexander and myself as we move forward with the introduction of this legislation, which we hope to do after the Memorial Day recess. Finally, I think the working relationship Senator Alexander and I have on so many issues, including land and water conservation and other areas, is the kind of bipartisan spirit we can bring to so many issues that face us today. But of all the issues, the one that cries out the most for unity today is the 800-pound gorilla issue of the war in Iraq. I am very pleased and honored that Senator Alexander has joined us in this effort today. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his eloquence in his statement and his plea for Americans to come together as we move forward on the biggest issue that faces our country today, Iraq. I appreciate the hard work he has put in, together with my staff and working with the Iraq Study Group, to come up with language that is included in the legislation. I also thank the chairperson of the Environment and Public Committee, Senator Boxer, for arranging for us to spend some time this morning discussing our bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 157, submitted earlier today.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, on Monday my colleagues, Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, Senator Thomas and I introduced legislation, S. 1116, the More Water, More Energy, and Less Waste Act of 2007, to facilitate the use of water produced in connection with development of energy resources for irrigation and other beneficial uses in ways that will not adversely affect water quality or the environment. The bill is similar to one that has been introduced during this Congress in the House by Representative Mark Udall, H.R. 902, More Water and More Energy Act of 2007. The bill's purpose is to help turn what is today an energy-industry problem into an opportunity. The development of energy resources frequently results in bringing to the surface water from underground sources. Energy producers seek to minimize the waters that are produced during extraction operations, but inevitably waters are produced and they must either be treated before being released to the surface or returned to the ground. In a few cases, the waters are clean enough to be used for livestock watering, irrigation or other beneficial purposes. Especially in the water-short West, increasing the amount of water that can be used without adversely affecting water quality or the environment can increase water supplies for irrigation of crops, livestock watering, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. Everyone will benefit from increased supplies of useable water, even if the supplies are temporary in nature, provided that the new water is of good quality and will not adversely affect the environment now or in the future. Our bill would do two things: First, it would direct the Commissioner of Reclamation, the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to conduct a study to identify the technical, economic, environmental, and other obstacles to, one, reducing the quantity of produced water and, two, increasing the extent to which produced water can be used for irrigation and other purposes, without adversely affecting water quality or the environment, during or after energy development. The study would consider the legislative, administrative, and other actions that could reduce or eliminate those obstacles and the costs and benefits associated with reducing or eliminating those obstacles. Results of the study are to be reported to Congress within a year after enactment. Second, it would provide grants for at least five projects to demonstrate, one, ways to optimize energy resource production by reducing the quantity of produced water generated or, two, feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of processes to increase the extent to which produced water may be recovered and made suitable for use for irrigation, municipal, or industrial uses, or other purposes without adversely affecting water quality or the environment. The bill directs these pilot plants to be located in each of the Upper Basin States of the Colorado River, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico, and in at least one of the Lower Basin States of the Colorado River, Arizona, Nevada or California. This is to assure that, together, the projects would demonstrate techniques applicable to a variety of geologic and other conditions. Under the bill, the Federal Government could pay up to half the cost of building each plant. However, no more than $1 million would be paid for anyone project, and no Federal funds would be used for operating the projects. In the water-short West, the produced waters are a virtually untapped resource, and the benefits of using them for irrigation and other purposes could be substantial. It is estimated that up to 18 million barrels of produced waters are generated each year from oil and gas operations. Finding ways to minimize the waters that are produced during oil and gas extraction and then putting to beneficial use those waters that are produced, is a win/win for everyone. However, there are significant hurdles that must be overcome before produced waters can be used as a water resource in ways that do not adversely affect our water quality or harm our environment. The study required in our bill will bring our country closer to using this important untapped resource. For the benefit of our colleagues, here is a summary of the bill's provisions: Section by Section Summary of the ``More Water, More Energy, Less Waste Act of 2007''--S. 1116 Section One--provides a short title (the ``More Water, More Energy, Less Waste Act of 2001''), sets forth several findings regarding the basis for the bill, and states the bill's purpose: ``to optimize the production of energy resources by minimizing the amount of produced water, and by facilitating the use of produced water for irrigation and other purposes without adversely affecting water quality or the environment, and to demonstrate ways to accomplish these results.'' Section Two--defines terms used in the bill. Section Three--requires the Secretary of the Department of Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, the Director of the United States Geological Survey, and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, to conduct a study to identify (1) the technical, economic, environmental, and other obstacles to reducing the quantity of produced water; (2) the technical, economic, environmental, legal, and other obstacles to increasing the extent to which produced water can be used for irrigation and other purposes, without adversely affecting water quality or the environment; (3) the legislative, administrative, and other actions that could reduce or eliminate those obstacles; and (4) the costs and benefits associated with reducing or eliminating those obstacles. Results of the study are to be reported to Congress within a year after enactment. Section Four--provides that, subject to appropriation of funds, the Interior Department is to provide financial assistance for development of facilities to demonstrate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of processes to increase use of produced water for irrigation, municipal or industrial uses, or other purposes without adversely affecting water quality or the environment. The section specifies that assistance shall be provided for at least one project in each of the Upper Basin States (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico) and one project in one of the Lower Basin States (Arizona, Nevada or California). Assistance to any facility cannot exceed $1 million and cannot be used for operation or maintenance. The section specifies that assistance under this bill can be in addition to other federal assistance under other provisions of law. Section Five--requires the Interior Department to--(1) consult with the Department of Energy, EPA, and appropriate Governors and local officials; (2) review relevant information developed in connection with other research; (3) include as much of that information as Interior finds advisable in the report required by section 1; (4) seek the advice of people with relevant professional expertise and of companies with relevant industrial experience; and (5) solicit comments and suggestions from the public. Section Six--specifies that nothing in the bill is to be construed as affecting--(1) the effect of any State law, or any interstate authority or compact, regarding the use of water or the regulation of water quantity or quality; or (2) the applicability of any Federal law or regulation. Section Seven--authorizes appropriation of--(1) $1 million for the study required by section 1; and (2) $7.5 million to implement section 4.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rural Veterans Healthcare Improvement Act of 2007, with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, and my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Burr, Murray, Grassley, Wyden, Collins, Pryor, Enzi, Lincoln, Snowe, Kerry, Bingaman, Smith, Baucus, and Dorgan. Over the last two years my colleagues have heard me speak repeatedly about the challenges that are facing rural America. In the America where I grew up--the America of farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and generations of close-knit families--it is getting more difficult to make a living, to access affordable healthcare, and to provide opportunities for kids to learn and grow. The challenges facing veterans in rural communities are particularly grave. For generations, men and women from rural America have devoted themselves to the cause of freedom without hesitation and in numbers greatly beyond their proportion of the U.S. population. Yet we consistently overlook the unique challenges these men and women face after they return home to their families and friends in the heartland of America. When it comes to the VA healthcare system, we fail our Nation's rural veterans by not doing more to ensure they can access the high-quality health care they have earned. We owe them much better. Over and over, I hear from veterans in my state about obstacles to care. In northwest Colorado, veterans must brave three and four hour drives on winding mountain roads to reach the VA hospital in Grand Junction. In northeast Colorado I have heard from a veteran who must travel 500 miles round trip just to get a simple blood test at a VA hospital. I think most of my colleagues would agree with me that this is ludicrous. I wish I could say these are isolated circumstances. Unfortunately, they are not. Because of gaps in the network of VA hospitals and clinics, we hear stories like this all the time. Every day, veterans from rural communities throughout the country are forced to put off crucial treatment because they live too far from VA facilities and can't get the care they need. As a result, rural veterans die younger and suffer from more debilitating illnesses--all because our system is not equipped to address their needs and provide care accordingly. A 2004 study of over 750,000 veterans conducted by Dr. Jonathan Perlin, the Under Secretary for Health at the VA, consistently found that veterans living in rural areas are in poorer health than their urban counterparts. Last year, we took an important first step in improving care for rural veterans. Thanks to the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we were able to create the Office of Rural Health within the VA. The Office of Rural Health is charged with working to reduce the wide disparities between care for rural and non- rural veterans by developing and refining policies and programs to improve care and services for rural veterans. Because nearly one in every four veterans is from a rural area, the creation of this Office of Rural Health is crucial if we are to live up to our promise to provide all of our Nation's veterans with high-quality services. The bill we are introducing today, the Rural Veterans Healthcare and Improvement Act of 2007, builds on last year's work by giving direction and resources to the Office of Rural Health and by making healthcare more accessible to veterans in rural areas. The bill tasks the Office of Rural Health with developing demonstration projects that would expand care in rural areas through partnerships between the VA, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Department of Health and Human Services at critical access hospitals and community health centers. The bill also instructs the Director of the Office of Rural Health to carry out demonstration projects in partnership with the Indian Health Service to improve healthcare for Native American veterans. In addition, the Rural Veterans Healthcare Improvement Act of 2007 establishes centers of excellence to research ways to improve care for rural veterans. The centers would be based at VA medical centers with strong academic connections. The Office of Rural Health would establish between one and five centers across the country with the advice of an advisory panel. The Rural Veterans Healthcare Improvement Act includes two key provisions that will help veterans in rural areas reach healthcare facilities. First, the bill establishes the VetsRide grant program to provide innovative transportation options to veterans in remote rural areas. The bill tasks the Director of the Office of Rural Health to create a program that would provide grants of up to $50,000 to veterans' service organizations and State veterans' service officers to assist veterans with travel to VA medical centers and to improve healthcare access in remote rural areas. The bill authorizes $3 million per year for the grant program through 2012. Secondly, the bill increases the reimbursement rates for veterans for their travel expenses related to VA medical care so that they are compensated at the same rate paid to federal employees. Finally, our bill requires the VA to report to Congress on the assessment it is conducting of its fee-based healthcare policies. We need to improve the VA's fee-based healthcare policies to be more equitable and efficient in helping veterans in rural areas get the care they deserve. With almost one-quarter of our Nation's veterans living in rural communities, and with the obstacles they face in accessing high-quality care, it is evident that we need to do a better job of making sure they receive the care they deserve. The creation of the Office of Rural Veterans Healthcare was a first step, and this legislation will move us further down the path toward improved care. I want to again thank my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, and my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester, for their efforts on this bill. We have a strong group of 17 Senators from both sides of the aisle behind this bill so far. I know that each and every one of my colleagues deals with veterans' issues and feels a deep sense of gratitude towards the brave men and women who have fought for our freedom. I hope we can join together to move this legislation through Congress and send it to the President for his signature. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rural Veterans Healthcare Improvement Act of 2007, with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, and my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Burr, Murray, Grassley, Wyden, Collins, Pryor, Enzi, Lincoln, Snowe, Kerry, Bingaman, Smith, Baucus, and Dorgan. Over the last two years my colleagues have heard me speak repeatedly about the challenges that are facing rural America. In the America where I grew up--the America of farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and generations of close-knit families--it is getting more difficult to make a living, to access affordable healthcare, and to provide opportunities for kids to learn and grow. The challenges facing veterans in rural communities are particularly grave. For generations, men and women from rural America have devoted themselves to the cause of freedom without hesitation and in numbers greatly beyond their proportion of the U.S. population. Yet we consistently overlook the unique challenges these men and women face after they return home to their families and friends in the heartland of America. When it comes to the VA healthcare system, we fail our Nation's rural veterans by not doing more to ensure they can access the high-quality health care they have earned. We owe them much better. Over and over, I hear from veterans in my state about obstacles to care. In northwest Colorado, veterans must brave three and four hour drives on winding mountain roads to reach the VA hospital in Grand Junction. In northeast Colorado I have heard from a veteran who must travel 500 miles round trip just to get a simple blood test at a VA hospital. I think most of my colleagues would agree with me that this is ludicrous. I wish I could say these are isolated circumstances. Unfortunately, they are not. Because of gaps in the network of VA hospitals and clinics, we hear stories like this all the time. Every day, veterans from rural communities throughout the country are forced to put off crucial treatment because they live too far from VA facilities and can't get the care they need. As a result, rural veterans die younger and suffer from more debilitating illnesses--all because our system is not equipped to address their needs and provide care accordingly. A 2004 study of over 750,000 veterans conducted by Dr. Jonathan Perlin, the Under Secretary for Health at the VA, consistently found that veterans living in rural areas are in poorer health than their urban counterparts. Last year, we took an important first step in improving care for rural veterans. Thanks to the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we were able to create the Office of Rural Health within the VA. The Office of Rural Health is charged with working to reduce the wide disparities between care for rural and non- rural veterans by developing and refining policies and programs to improve care and services for rural veterans. Because nearly one in every four veterans is from a rural area, the creation of this Office of Rural Health is crucial if we are to live up to our promise to provide all of our Nation's veterans with high-quality services. The bill we are introducing today, the Rural Veterans Healthcare and Improvement Act of 2007, builds on last year's work by giving direction and resources to the Office of Rural Health and by making healthcare more accessible to veterans in rural areas. The bill tasks the Office of Rural Health with developing demonstration projects that would expand care in rural areas through partnerships between the VA, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Department of Health and Human Services at critical access hospitals and community health centers. The bill also instructs the Director of the Office of Rural Health to carry out demonstration projects in partnership with the Indian Health Service to improve healthcare for Native American veterans. In addition, the Rural Veterans Healthcare Improvement Act of 2007 establishes centers of excellence to research ways to improve care for rural veterans. The centers would be based at VA medical centers with strong academic connections. The Office of Rural Health would establish between one and five centers across the country with the advice of an advisory panel. The Rural Veterans Healthcare Improvement Act includes two key provisions that will help veterans in rural areas reach healthcare facilities. First, the bill establishes the VetsRide grant program to provide innovative transportation options to veterans in remote rural areas. The bill tasks the Director of the Office of Rural Health to create a program that would provide grants of up to $50,000 to veterans' service organizations and State veterans' service officers to assist veterans with travel to VA medical centers and to improve healthcare access in remote rural areas. The bill authorizes $3 million per year for the grant program through 2012. Secondly, the bill increases the reimbursement rates for veterans for their travel expenses related to VA medical care so that they are compensated at the same rate paid to federal employees. Finally, our bill requires the VA to report to Congress on the assessment it is conducting of its fee-based healthcare policies. We need to improve the VA's fee-based healthcare policies to be more equitable and efficient in helping veterans in rural areas get the care they deserve. With almost one-quarter of our Nation's veterans living in rural communities, and with the obstacles they face in accessing high-quality care, it is evident that we need to do a better job of making sure they receive the care they deserve. The creation of the Office of Rural Veterans Healthcare was a first step, and this legislation will move us further down the path toward improved care. I want to again thank my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, and my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester, for their efforts on this bill. We have a strong group of 17 Senators from both sides of the aisle behind this bill so far. I know that each and every one of my colleagues deals with veterans' issues and feels a deep sense of gratitude towards the brave men and women who have fought for our freedom. I hope we can join together to move this legislation through Congress and send it to the President for his signature. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions 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 ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 160 submitted earlier today.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, 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, without intervening action or debate.