Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. I thank my friend from Missouri, and I look forward to the leadership that was shown by the Intelligence Committee in terms of Senators Rockefeller and Bond bringing Republicans and Democrats together to fashion the legislation that is before us. In addition to that, I think we have an opportunity to work with Senator Leahy and the members of the Judiciary Committee to figure out the best way of moving forward to achieve the ultimate goal, which is to make sure we are protecting America. So I very much look forward to working with my good friend from Missouri and getting that done. I don't think any Member in this Chamber would argue the fact that we need to update and extend FISA. The technologies available, surveillance methods that are now being used, and the threats that we face have changed dramatically since Congress first enacted FISA a long time ago--in 1978. Think of the attacks of the last years. September 11 illustrated in the most tragic and bloody and horrible way the great threat that extremist groups can pose to the United States. The attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania brought the spectre of terrorism to our front door. In many ways, the innocence of America was lost on that day. But September 11 is not the only terrorist attack that we or our allies have endured in recent years. In 2002, a bombing in Bali killed 202 people and wounded 209. In 2004--this is after 9/11--the bombs on the trains in Madrid killed 191 people and wounded over 2,000 people. And in 2005, we saw the attacks on London's underground commuter train, killing 52 and injuring 700. I could go on with a list of violent incidents that have been caused because of terrorism around the world. The State Department reports that the number of incidents of terrorism worldwide has grown dramatically in recent years. Between 2005 and 2006, the number of incidents rose from 11,153 to 14,338. Three-fourths of those incidents--that is three-fourths of 14,338 incidents--resulted in death, injury, or kidnapping. All told, terrorism has claimed the lives of more than 74,000 people around the world in only the year 2006. That is 74,000 people, most of them innocent members of our human race, who have been killed by the scourge of terrorism around the world. Americans understand that our intelligence and surveillance capabilities are absolutely essential to preventing these types of attacks. Our Government needs to have the power and the tools to listen in on those who are plotting an attack on the United States and our interests. They need to be able to monitor the e-mails of a terrorist suspect. They need to be able to track people, and they need to be able to track those vital networks. They need to be able to respond quickly and decisively on information that is collected to make sure that we protect the innocent from harm. Americans want a government that can and will fulfill its primary responsibility--the responsibility of keeping its citizens safe from attack. But we also want to make sure we have a government that will not abuse the power entrusted in it. We want a government that honors the rule of law and upholds the cherished values of our Constitution. We want a government that protects the privacy of law-abiding citizens, and we want a government that is worthy of respect, not fear. Without a doubt, the events of September 11 demanded an expansion of our intelligence-gathering capabilities. We needed to take emergency action to ensure the security of Americans over the short term. But rather than work within the authorities provided by Congress, the President and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft built their own program--the terrorist surveillance program--out of the view of Congress, out of the view of the public, in the darkness, and without oversight of the courts. They built it on their own based on some assumed authority. The administration hid the fact that it was implementing its program in a manner that overstepped the authorities that Congress had provided under law. It hid the fact that it could target Americans for surveillance without a warrant. There was no mention to the American people that their communications could be spied upon without a warrant or without any other kind of protection from the courts. It hid the fact that it was grabbing more power for the executive branch than our Founding Fathers would have ever thought wise in their quest to protect the civil liberties and freedoms of America. We need to move, in my view, beyond the thinking that characterized the formation of this unlawful terrorist surveillance program within the executive branch, and we have indeed made some progress together in moving forward in a new direction. We have consolidated the information that our intelligence agencies collect, we have implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in this Congress, we have created the Department of Homeland Security, and we are now ready to bring FISA up to date with our technology in the threats we face. Over the last few days, the administration has presented the American people with a false dichotomy. They claim we have to choose between protecting our national security on the one hand and protecting our civil liberties. That is a false dichotomy. As a former attorney general, I can tell you that we can do both. We can have a surveillance program that gives our law enforcement the tools it needs to protect America and at the same time we can make sure that we are protecting the civil liberties of the citizens of our country. The bill before us places some simple but highly effective safeguards on the Government's surveillance program, and we should be thankful for this legislation in that regard. These safeguards will in no way impede our efforts to defeat the terrorist networks and prevent attacks on Americans. If an intelligence agency gets actionable information, it can establish surveillance immediately; no waiting for a warrant, no redtape, no delay. The agency will simply have to seek a retroactive warrant once surveillance has begun. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue as in morning business for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the Chair. The bill before us places some simple but highly effective safeguards on the Government's surveillance program. These safeguards will in no way impede our efforts to defeat the terrorist networks and prevent attacks on Americans. I want to highlight a few provisions of the bill that the Intelligence Committee reported, and which are at the center of our debate this week. These provisions require the FISA Court and Congress to play a greater role in overseeing the Nation's surveillance program. I should say a greater role and an appropriate role in overseeing the Nation's surveillance program. First, the FISA reauthorization will require the FISA Court to review the administration's procedures for determining that the targeted surveillance is reasonably believed to be outside the United States. Second, the FISA Court must review the procedures for minimizing the identities of and information about Americans incidentally detected during the surveillance of foreign targets. Third, the court must approve or disapprove the targeting of Americans overseas under this new authority on an individual basis, based on its review of whether there is probable cause to believe the person is an agent of a foreign power. Fourth, the bill includes a 6-year sunset to allow Congress to evaluate how the new authorities are carried out, and to ensure abuses do not occur before authorities are extended further. The threats and technologies are changing so fast that Congress will need to update the legislation during that time. Finally, the bill requires the intelligence community to conduct an annual review and requires detailed semiannual reports to be submitted to the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees concerning collections authorized under the bill, including instances of noncompliance. These provisions represent a dramatic improvement to our Nation's international surveillance program, and I am pleased they are the foundation of the bill. But we can do more to strengthen the bill and do better to enforce the rule of law. I support Senator Cardin's amendment, which I cosponsored, to have a 4-year sunset for the bill rather than 6 years. If we learn of problems in the program, if the technologies continue to change or if the threat changes, we should have the opportunity to change the law. Over the coming days, we will also debate how to handle the question of immunity for companies that participated in the warrantless surveillance program from 2001 until 2007. In my view, if a company was knowingly acting in violation of existing law, the courts should review their actions to determine if there was wrongdoing. If, however, the Attorney General or an intelligence agency approached that company, and the company clearly tried to follow the law and act in good faith, it should not be held liable. That is why I am cosponsoring Senator Feinstein's amendment which establishes an independent process for reviewing whether a company should receive immunity. Under this amendment, the FISA Court would follow a three-step process for determining whether a lawsuit has merit. Senator Feinstein has proposed a smart and fair solution to this very difficult problem. The FISA reauthorization has become unnecessarily politicized, in my view. We are fully able to strengthen our Nation's international surveillance capabilities while protecting the privacy of Americans. I hope the Members of this Chamber can put the rhetoric and threats aside and move forward to assure that America is, in fact, protected, both in terms of threats against them in violence from terrorists and at the same time that we protect their civil liberties. I hope we can pass the FISA bill soon. I hope the President will do what is right and sign it. The Senator from Alaska. (The remarks of Senator Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 2570 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today in honor of MAJ Andrew Olmsted, who was killed on January 3 in an attack near Sadiyah, Iraq. Major Olmsted was assigned to the 1st Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division out of Fort Riley, KS, but he and his wife, Amanda Wilson, lived together in Colorado Springs, CO. Andrew was 37 years old. He was the first American casualty in Iraq of 2008. Major Olmsted was a proud soldier whose sense of duty took him to Iraq--whose commitment to his fellow soldiers earned him their deepest respect--and whose compassion put him in the line of fire the day he died. Andrew was also an exceptionally talented writer. He shared his experiences and perspectives in Iraq with the world on blogs, including one he wrote for the Rocky Mountain News entitled ``From the Front Lines.'' The thousands of readers who followed Andrew's deployment had the privilege of his frank, thoughtful, stirring, and often humorous take on the war, the Army, and politics. For a writer and reporter as gifted as Andrew, it is hard to find the words to properly honor his life and his sacrifice. I would rather let him speak for himself and reflect on his memory by sharing with my colleagues portions of Major Olmsted's final posting. He asked a friend to post this on his blog in the event of his death. In its eloquence, power, humor, and tragedy, it is one small way in which we may remember the mark that Andrew made on our world: This is an entry I would have preferred not to have published, but there are limits to what we can control in life, and apparently I have passed one of those limits. . . . What I don't want this to be is a chance for me, or anyone else, to be maudlin. I'm dead. That sucks, at least for me and my family and friends. But all the tears in the world aren't going to bring me back, so I would prefer that people remember the good things about me rather than mourning my loss. (If it turns out a specific number of tears will, in fact, bring me back to life, then by all means, break out the onions.) I had a pretty good life, as I noted above. Sure, all things being equal I would have preferred to have more time, but I have no business complaining with all the good fortune I've enjoyed in my life. So if you're up for that, put on a little 80s music (preferably vintage 1980- 1984), grab a Coke and have a drink with me. If you have it, throw ``Freedom Isn't Free'' from the Team America soundtrack in; if you can't laugh at that song, I think you need to lighten up a little. I'm dead, but if you're reading this, you're not, so take a moment to enjoy that happy fact. . . . I suppose I should speak to the circumstances of my death. It would be nice to believe that I died leading men in battle, preferably saving their lives at the cost of my own. More likely I was caught by a marksman or an IED. But if there is an afterlife, I'm telling anyone who asks that I went down surrounded by hundreds of insurgents defending a village composed solely of innocent women and children. It'll be our little secret, ok? I do ask (not that I'm in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes. I went to Iraq and did what I did for my reasons, not yours. My life isn't a chit to be used to bludgeon people to silence on either side. If you think the U.S. should stay in Iraq, don't drag me into it by claiming that somehow my death demands us staying in Iraq. If you think the U.S. ought to get out tomorrow, don't cite my name as an example of someone's life who was wasted by our mission in Iraq. I have my own opinions about what we should do about Iraq, but since I'm not around to expound on them I'd prefer others not try and use me as some kind of moral capital to support a position I probably didn't support. Further, this is tough enough on my family without their having to see my picture being used in some rally or my name being cited for some political purpose. You can fight political battles without hurting my family, and I'd prefer that you did so. On a similar note, while you're free to think whatever you like about my life and death, if you think I wasted my life, I'll tell you you're wrong. We're all going to die of something. I died doing a job I loved. When your time comes, I hope you are as fortunate as I was. . . . Those who know me through my writings on the Internet over the past five-plus years probably have wondered at times about my chosen profession. While I am not a Libertarian, I certainly hold strongly individualistic beliefs. Yet I have spent my life in a profession that is not generally known for rugged individualism. Worse, I volunteered to return to active duty knowing that the choice would almost certainly lead me to Iraq. The simple explanation might be that I was simply stupid, and certainly I make no bones about having done some dumb things in my life, but I don't think this can be chalked up to stupidity. Maybe I was inconsistent in my beliefs; there are few people who adhere religiously to the doctrines of their chosen philosophy, whatever that may be. But I don't think that was the case in this instance either. As passionate as I am about personal freedom, I don't buy the claims of anarchists that humanity would be just fine without any government at all. There are too many people in the world who believe that they know best how people should live their lives, and many of them are more than willing to use force to impose those beliefs on others. A world without government simply wouldn't last very long; as soon as it was established, strongmen would immediately spring up to establish their fiefdoms. So there is a need for government to protect the people's rights. And one of the fundamental tools to do that is an army that can prevent outside agencies from imposing their rules on a society. A lot of people will protest that argument by noting that the people we are fighting in Iraq are unlikely to threaten the rights of the average American. That's certainly true; while our enemies would certainly like to wreak great levels of havoc on our society, the fact is they're not likely to succeed. But that doesn't mean there isn't still a need for an army (setting aside debates regarding whether ours is the right size at the moment). Americans are fortunate that we don't have to worry too much about people coming to try and overthrow us, but part of the reason we don't have to worry about that is because we have an army that is stopping anyone who would try. Soldiers cannot have the option of opting out of missions because they don't agree with them: that violates the social contract. The duly-elected American government decided to go to war in Iraq. (Even if you maintain President Bush was not properly elected, Congress voted for war as well.) As a soldier, I have a duty to obey the orders of the President of the United States as long as they are constitutional. I can no more opt out of missions I disagree with than I can ignore laws I think are improper. I do not consider it a violation of my individual rights to have gone to Iraq on orders because I raised my right hand and volunteered to join the army. Whether or not this mission was a good one, my participation in it was an affirmation of something I consider quite necessary to society. So if nothing else, I gave my life for a pretty important principle; I can (if you'll pardon the pun) live with that. . . . I write this in part, admittedly, because I would like to think that there's at least a little something out there to remember me by. Granted, this site will eventually vanish, being ephemeral in a very real sense of the word, but at least for a time it can serve as a tiny record of my contributions to the world. But on a larger scale, for those who knew me well enough to be saddened by my death, especially for those who haven't known anyone else lost to this war, perhaps my death can serve as a small reminder of the costs of war. Regardless of the merits of this war, or of any war, I think that many of us in America have forgotten that war means death and suffering in wholesale lots. A decision that for most of us in America was academic, whether or not to go to war in Iraq, had very real consequences for hundreds of thousands of people. Yet I was as guilty as anyone of minimizing those very real consequences in lieu of a cold discussion of theoretical merits of war and peace. Now I'm facing some very real consequences of that decision; who says life doesn't have a sense of humor? . . . But for those who knew me and feel this pain, I think it's a good thing to realize that this pain has been felt by thousands and thousands (probably millions, actually) of other people all over the world. That is part of the cost of war, any war, no matter how justified. If everyone who feels this pain keeps that in mind the next time we have to decide whether or not war is a good idea, perhaps it will help us to make a more informed decision. Because it is pretty clear that the average American would not have supported the Iraq War had they known the costs going in. I am far too cynical to believe that any future debate over war will be any less vitriolic or emotional, but perhaps a few more people will realize just what those costs can be the next time. This may be a contradiction of my above call to keep politics out of my death, but I hope not. Sometimes going to war is the right idea. I think we've drawn that line too far in the direction of war rather than peace, but I'm a soldier and I know that sometimes you have to fight if you're to hold onto what you hold dear. But in making that decision, I believe we understate the costs of war; when we make the decision to fight, we make the decision to kill, and that means lives and families destroyed. Mine now falls into that category; the next time the question of war or peace comes up, if you knew me at least you can understand a bit more just what it is you're deciding to do, and whether or not those costs are worth it. ``This is true love. You think this happens every day?''-- Westley, The Princess Bride ``Good night, my love, the brightest star in my sky.''-- John Sheridan, Babylon 5 This is the hardest part. While I certainly have no desire to die, at this point I no longer have any worries. That is not true of the woman who made my life something to enjoy rather than something merely to survive. She put up with all of my faults, and they are myriad, she endured separations again and again . . . I cannot imagine being more fortunate in love than I have been with Amanda. Now she has to go on without me, and while a cynic might observe she's better off, I know that this is a terrible burden I have placed on her, and I would give almost anything if she would not have to bear it. It seems that is not an option. I cannot imagine anything more painful than that, and if there is an afterlife, this is a pain I'll bear forever. I wasn't the greatest husband. I could have done so much more, a realization that, as it so often does, comes too late to matter. But I cherished every day I was married to Amanda. When everything else in my life seemed dark, she was always there to light the darkness. It is difficult to imagine my life being worth living without her having been in it. I hope and pray that she goes on without me and enjoys her life as much as she deserves. I can think of no one more deserving of happiness than her. ``I will see you again, in the place where no shadows fall.''--Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5 I don't know if there is an afterlife; I tend to doubt it, to be perfectly honest. But if there is any way possible, Amanda, then I will live up to Delenn's words, somehow, some way. I love you. Mr. President, our thoughts and prayers are with Amanda, Andrew's parents, and all of his family. May they soon find comfort and respite from their grief. May we always remember Andrew for his life, service, and sacrifice. And may countless others have the blessing of reading his words. Staff Sergeant Justin R. Whiting Madam President, I rise today to honor the memory of SSG Justin R. Whiting, a Green Beret with the 3rd Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group, out of Fort Campbell, KY. On January 19, Sergeant Whiting was leading a convoy through the streets of Mosul, Iraq, when a bomb exploded near his vehicle. He was killed at 27 years old. Sergeant Whiting was born in Belton, TX, but at a young age moved to Hancock, NY, where he developed a love for the great outdoors. Justin was an avid hunter who reveled in the rugged landscape near the Delaware River. Those who knew him describe Sergeant Whiting as an adventurer. It was this virtue, coupled with his deep-seated love for his country, which led him to join the Army just 2 months after his high school graduation. In the Army, he chose the most difficult path he could pursue, that of becoming a Green Beret. The Special Forces soldiers I know are the pride of our country. All at once, they are soldiers, intelligence officers, diplomats, tacticians, linguists, trainers, and advisors. They are at the tip of the spear of our national defense. The Green Beret that they wear, said President Kennedy, is ``a symbol of excellence, a badge of courage, a mark of distinction in the fight for freedom.'' Sergeant Whiting was on his third tour in Iraq, on a mission to help bring security and stability to a region torn by violence and tragedy. Every day, he and his unit put themselves in harm's way to give Iraqi citizens a chance at a society governed by the rule of law, free from the threats of sectarian strife, terrorism, or autocratic rule. He served bravely and was highly decorated. Among many other honors, he earned the Bronze Star, one of the highest awards given for combat service, for his bravery and selflessness. For those of us who did not know Justin personally, it is difficult to know what inspired his extraordinary sense of duty or what fueled his courage on the battlefield. Alexander Hamilton, a Founding Father and an Army officer, explained that ``There is a certain enthusiasm in liberty that makes human nature rise above itself in acts of bravery and heroism.'' I imagine that Justin found his strength in many sources--friends, family, and fellow soldiers--but I imagine that he, too, was motivated by an enthusiasm for liberty and a passion for justice. In his life, he consistently chose the path that was most challenging so that he could offer our country his highest service. He was a true patriot. To Justin's mother, Estelline, to his father, Randall, to his sister, Amanda, and to his brother, Nathan, our thoughts and prayers are with you. I hope that in time, your grief will be assuaged by the pride you must feel in Justin's service and by the honor he bestowed upon his country. May we never forget his service and his sacrifice.

Mr. SALAZAR

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

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise in strong support of S. 1200, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 2007, which will reauthorize, improve, and expand necessary health care services and programs for the Native American population. I thank Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Murkowski of the committee for their leadership on this legislation. I also thank my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, for their leadership and contribution. The work we have done in the last year and the debate we will have this week is a debate that is long overdue. It has been 16 years since Congress conducted a comprehensive review of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 16 years since we addressed the persistent health disparities in Native American communities across the Nation. This bill is vital to millions of Native Americans across the country, including the 52,000 Native Americans who reside in my State of Colorado. Colorado is home to two sovereign American Indian nations: the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Southern Ute Tribe. They are located in the southwestern part of Colorado. But as we must remember--and my colleagues have alluded to this in this week's debate--the majority of Native Americans across this country, including in Colorado, do not live on the reservations. In Colorado, members of 35 different tribal nations live in the urban, suburban, and rural communities of my State, from Durango to Denver. It is hard for us in this Chamber and in America to overstate the contributions of Native Americans to our economy, our society, our culture, and our history. In my State, the Utes are the oldest known continuous residents of Colorado. The earliest Ute tribes traveled along the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains before settling in Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. In western Colorado, they hunted, gathered, and worked the lands, often moving with the seasons to better climates to better their possibilities of livelihood. The Spanish arrived in the Southwest--in Colorado and New Mexico--in the late 1500s--in the 1630s and 1640s--and in the beginning, they became the trading partners for the Utes, exchanging tools for meats and fur. What followed that chapter is a set of very sad chapters in Colorado and the United States. It was a set of sad chapters characterized by violence, retaliation, and tragedy, much of it at the hands of the Federal Government. Over the next few decades, under pressure from the Federal Government, the Utes would enter into agreements to establish reservations, but this included giving up very large sections of their land. While a small part of that land was ultimately returned to the Utes in the two reservations that were set up in Colorado and the one that was set up in Utah, the modern-day reservations are the result of various Government actions, encroachment by settlers, and mining interests that ultimately limited the two tribes in Colorado to a small percentage of the reservations that were originally contemplated for the Ute Indians before the existing reservations were established. The issues confronting Native American communities today are inextricably tied to this history. The Federal Government's responsibility to Native American communities is likewise tied to this very difficult and painful history. But this week, under the leadership of Chairman Dorgan, we hope to write another chapter into this history. We hope to take another step toward making good on the Federal Government's promise to improve health care for Native Americans. The health care statistics for Native American communities do not lie, and they are troubling. They should be troubling to all of us here in America. The infant mortality rate is 150 percent greater for Native Americans than that of Caucasian infants. Native Americans are 2.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes. Life expectancy for Native Americans is 6 years less than the rest of the U.S. population. Suicide rates--suicide rates--for Native Americans are 250 percent higher than the national average. The health care disparities we see throughout the country are also evident in my State of Colorado. In 2006--that was not too long ago-- 5.5 percent of Native Americans died from diabetes, more than twice the rate of the general population. In the same year, 3.9 percent of Native Americans died from chronic liver disease, compared with 1.6 percent for the general population. For many Native Americans, access to health care is the biggest challenge they face as human beings. I have heard countless stories of individuals, Native Americans in my State, who are sick or are in pain and have to drive hundreds of miles to receive any kind of treatment. When they get there, after having driven sometimes 9 hours, they will find that the clinic cannot provide them the treatment they seek. Those services, they learn, are in hospitals located hundreds of miles away. Access problems affect not only Native Americans on reservations that span hundreds of miles but Native Americans living in urban areas as well. For the 25,000 Native Americans living in Denver, CO, today, there is only 1 health care facility that is available to meet their health care needs. That is the Denver Indian Health and Family Services facility. This facility is funded by the Indian Health Service program through funding allocated through title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which provides funding for urban health centers for Native Americans. The Denver Indian Health and Family Services began providing health care onsite to Native Americans living in the Denver metro area in 1978. The majority of its patients are single parents, making an average of $621 per month--$621 per month. That is a total of approximately $7,400 a year. That is not a lot of money for any family. When a patient needs specialized treatment, however, they often have to travel 6, 7, 8, 9 hours to places such as Rapid City, SD, or Albuquerque, NM. This is a long trip for anyone, particularly if they are sick or injured. The U.S. Government has a longstanding and solemn responsibility to the Native American population of our country. That responsibility is set forth and recognized in treaties, statutes, U.S. Supreme Court cases, agreements, and in our U.S. Constitution. It is a trust responsibility that flows from Native Americans' relinquishment of over 500 million acres of land to the United States of America. Native Americans see the reauthorization of this health care bill as part of the U.S. Government living up to its end of the bargain with tribal governments. And they are right. The disparities in health care between Native Americans and the general population is a real problem, and it is one Congress has a responsibility to address. I am proud of the bill we are considering today because it takes major steps toward reducing the health care disparities that persist in Native American communities. Although appropriations for IHS have traditionally fallen far short of the actual health care needed in Indian Country, the focus on preventive care in current reauthorization legislation will make more efficient use of the Indian Health Service's limited resources. Difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified health professionals have long been recognized as a significant factor impairing Native Americans' access to health care services. The programs authorized in this bill will help recruit Native Americans into the health care profession. Additionally, this bill provides for health education in schools, mammography and other screenings for cancer, and helps cover the cost of patient travel to receive health care services. Additionally, this legislation removes barriers and increases participation and access to Medicare and Medicaid Program benefits. Title V of this legislation would also fund programs in urban centers to ensure that health services are accessible and available to Native Americans living in cities across the country, such as Denver, CO. Key programs include immunization, behavioral health, alcohol and substance abuse programs, and diabetes prevention, treatment, and control. In addition to reauthorizing and expanding existing programs, this legislation will ensure that Native Americans are able to take full advantage of new technologies and new Federal programs that have emerged since the last reauthorization, including Medicare Part D and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Indian health programs should work hand-in-glove with these new programs and new resources. Native Americans in the United States of America deserve access to a 21st-century health care system. I again thank my colleagues, Senator Dorgan, the chairman of the committee, and Senator Murkowski, for their bipartisan leadership on this very important legislation and for their tireless leadership for Native American communities across the country. I hope my colleagues will support this bill. We need to get this bill to the President's desk as soon as possible. In conclusion, as we look at the United States of America, we see an America that is an America that has a covenant about being an America in progress. We see it in a number of different ways--in the ways which we have treated women and other racial or ethnic minorities. But there is a sad and painful story to this America in progress that is particularly poignant when you look at how we, as the United States of America, have treated the Native American communities of our Nation. So this is an issue in my mind that is a fundamental issue of civil rights. It is a fundamental issue we must resolve in order to be able to uphold this covenant of America that makes us an America in progress. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening, in the closing hours of the year 2007, to make a few comments. First, at the beginning of this year, the beginning of this Congress and the first year, I believe, we have been a Congress of robust achievement, which has made significant change, and that we must also continue to be agents of change in the future because additional change is needed. We have done some good things for this country. There is much more change we need to do. We have made change in moving forward and seeking a new direction in Iraq and holding the administration accountable on that issue. There is more we have to do in achieving that new direction in Iraq. We have made significant change in terms of moving forward toward energy independence. There is more work we need to do to achieve real energy independence. We moved forward in crafting the best farm bill, in my view, in several decades. We need to get that farm bill across the finish line. We made progress in the Senate dealing with health care issues, including passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program. But we somehow need to get that over the President's veto pen and start addressing the other issues relating to health care and health care reform. We have made progress in the arena of education, with passage of the Higher Education Authorization Act and providing financial aid to students across the country and the passage of the Head Start Program. But we now know we still need to move ahead and make more progress and be agents of change with respect to No Child Left Behind. We have made significant progress in the Wounded Warriors Act, providing the resources we need to take care of our nearly 25 million veterans in America. We need to make sure we stay on top of those issues with 1\1/2\ million veterans returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. It is important that we not lose sight of the Nation's promise to take care of our veterans. There has been a lot of good work done, but there is still more work ahead. We must, in this Senate Chamber, figure out a way to continue to be agents of change to bring about change in the direction of America. I want to comment on a couple of the subjects I touched on. First, Iraq. Iraq remains the major national/international foreign policy issue of the United States. The Presiding Officer, the senior Senator from Michigan, has helped lead us from the wilderness in which we found ourselves with respect to the war in Iraq to move forward to what I consider to be a different level of debate today in America. For the first 6 years of this administration, they essentially controlled all of the cards. It was only with the change in leadership in the Senate and in the House of Representatives that, today, there is accountability that is occurring with respect to the war in Iraq. The senior Senator from Michigan, the very distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has really led us in the search for trying to find that new direction for Iraq. It was the Senator from Michigan who conceived of the fact that we needed to move away from having our troops in a combat mission over to the more limited missions of counterterrorism, force protection, border security, and moving forward in the more limited presence in Iraq, and sending, as he has so often said on the floor of the Senate, an unmistakable message to the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people that it is they who have to get Iraq together. It is not up to us in America or to our troops on the ground to resolve the political problems Iraq faces today. That unmistakable message the Iraqis have received would not have been received had it not been for the leadership of Senator Levin, Senator Reid, and others in this Chamber who stood up and said we need to have a new direction in Iraq. There may be some around the country who are saying: Well, what has happened, because we are still in Iraq and the money is still being provided to our troops? But there has been a significant change that has occurred. We know last night, for example, on the vote that occurred with respect to the funding of our troops in Iraq, the $70 billion provided to our troops was provided to make sure our troops are not without money as they carry out the mandate of the Commander in Chief. But it was not the $196 billion that was requested by the President of the United States. It was an installment. It is the first time we get to a point where there is this kind of sequential funding. That will allow the Congress and the Senate, under the leadership of Senator Levin, the Presiding Officer, to continue to move forward to try to seek a new direction in Iraq and to continue to hold the administration accountable with respect to its efforts on the ground in Iraq. Yes, when I look at the issue of Iraq, from my perspective and involvement, I believe we have made significant progress in terms of creating a new direction and a new momentum in Iraq. I appreciate the effort of the chairman of the Armed Services Committees in that debate. I appreciate his leadership and for inviting me and others to go with him to Iraq a year or so ago, along with Senator Warner. We were on the ground meeting with Iraqi officials, as well as our military leadership, to make sure we had the best information as we move forward with the issue on Iraq. Secondly, I wish to comment on energy. For me, the issue of energy is one of the most important signature issues of the 21st century. I don't think we can do anything that is any less important. This is of monumental importance not only to the people of America but to our entire globe and all of civilization. The legislation we passed this year, which the President signed today, is legislation that is important because it moves us forward in terms of getting a higher level of efficiency with respect to how we use oil, with respect to how we use electricity in our homes and buildings, and with respect to how we deal with carbon sequestration, to begin dealing with global warming. But there is more work we must do to move forward with an energy package that is something that is doable here among all of us in this Congress. We need to make sure the jet engine powers this clean energy economy into the 21st century, created out of the Finance Committee, which lost by 1 vote--we had 59 votes in the Senate to get that package adopted--and that we get that across the finish line in the years ahead. The automobile companies in our country need to have that financial assistance included in that finance package for them to be able to make the transition that is so important to get the higher efficiencies we are asking them to make. There is still a significant amount of work we must move forward with when we deal with energy. In my view, the inescapable force that ought to bring us together, Democrats and Republicans, progressives and conservatives, ought to be the issue of national security. It ought to be the issue of the environmental security and the economic opportunity we have for our Nation. I hope our successes on energy this year are the beginning of a foundation that will continue to build in the years ahead. Thirdly, on the farm bill, I am very proud of the work Senators Harkin, Conrad, Chambliss, Grassley, Baucus, and others accomplished in that effort. It is interesting to note that 78 Senators voted for that farm bill just last week. That is more U.S. Senators voting for that farm bill than any farm bill in the last quarter century. If the Presidential candidates had been here, we would have had 82 or 83 votes for that farm bill. It is a very good bill on what we do in our investments in nutrition and conservation and renewable energy, in all of those things which are important to making sure we have food security in America. It is my hope that, as we move forward into a conference with the House of Representatives, that legislation can move forward to the President so it can be signed into law so that we can make sure we maintain the food security of America and that we also open a new chapter for American agriculture as rural communities and agriculture help us grow our way to energy independence. On health care, it is a tougher issue, it is a tough issue, where there has not been significant concern or any concern, frankly, from this administration with respect to dealing with this crisis bankrupting so many American businesses and causing pain to so many American families. When we think about the statistics, the fact is almost 50 million Americans today don't have health insurance. In Colorado, almost 20 percent of the population of the State doesn't have health insurance. It is a crisis in America. Yes, the White House has not seemed to really want to move forward with any kind of change with respect to health care that will address the pain occurring across America. We tried to make some movement in that direction by providing health insurance to 10 million children in America. If we are going to deal with health insurance, it seems we need to start providing that insurance to the most vulnerable, the children of our country. Yet twice the President vetoed the bills passed out of this Chamber and out of the House. It is my hope that we can return to deal not only with children's health insurance but other health insurance issues that are on the table. Fifth, I come from a family--just like the Presiding Officer's family--who very much has recognized the importance of education. We very much see that the American dream is made possible through opening up those opportunities to come about through education. I remember growing up on our farm, where my father would come around the table, and as we were gathered around the table with the kerosene lamp--because we didn't have electricity and a telephone at the ranch-- he would say he was a poor man and there was not much he could leave us in terms of a legacy of wealth or a very large ranch. But the one thing he would say to those eight children gathered around that table was that he wanted them to get a good education. He would say: If you get a good education, which you will get because I will insist on it, that is something I prefer to give you over anything else in life in terms of riches because an education is something no one can ever take away from you. Mr. President, until this year, there had been, in the last 6 years, a policy of disinvestment in education in America. Through the leadership of Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, the higher education programs we reauthorized and funded will provide financial aid and educational opportunity to millions in America. To my own small State of Colorado, about $560 million of additional financial aid will be made possible to the young people who are seeking a higher education. The passage of the Head Start Reauthorization Act is another investment in our young people. I come from a background of having served my State as attorney general. During the time I was attorney general, I was one of the participants and cochairs of an organization called Fight Crime: Invest in Children. We had a simple agenda. We were crime fighters, law enforcement, and attorneys general, but we realized it was important for us to keep kids out of trouble in the first place. So, as a consequence, our agenda was simple: invest in early childhood education and in afterschool programs. I think the investment we are making in Head Start and the reauthorization of that program is part of that agenda, and I very much appreciate the leadership of the Senate in getting that done. Finally, returning to an issue in which Senator Levin, Senator Akaka, Senator Murray, and others have been so much at the point of the spirit in leading us to a new level of investment and protection of our veterans, this bill, which we approved last night, which is now being considered in the House, which will move forward to the President, will, for the first time, invest in veterans health care at a level that the independent budget of the veterans service organizations have recommended. It is the first time that we have met those funding levels. The Wounded Warriors Act, which is included in that legislation, will open up a whole new chapter of taking care of those who serve our country. I appreciate the leadership, again, of those who have been involved in that effort. When I look back at what we have done in 2007 in the Senate and the Congress, yes, it has been a year of robust achievement, but it is also a fact that there is much change that is still needed. I look forward to working with the Presiding Officer and with the rest of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, in achieving that change that is so much needed. Let me quickly, also, as we move forward to this holiday season, say thank you to the troops who are overseas and to their families for their service and for their sacrifice. As we think about that service and that sacrifice, it is important for us to take stock that this is a real sacrifice. The statistics today, December 19, 2007, do not gloss over the reality of war and the horrors and sacrifice of war: Total Americans killed in Iraq, 3,896; total Coloradans from my State killed in Iraq, 54; total soldiers from Fort Carson in Colorado Springs who have been killed in Iraq, 226; total Americans killed in Afghanistan, 468; total Coloradans killed in Afghanistan, 8; and the number of wounded over 30,000; the number of wounded in Iraq alone 28,711; the number wounded in Afghanistan, 1,840. For those of us who have visited Walter Reed, as most of us have, we see the horrors of war with our wounded warriors. It is important that we honor them. It is important that we remember them. It is important that we pray for them in these times and we pray for their families as well. Mr. President, finally, I say thank you to the leadership in the Senate, especially to majority leader Harry Reid, the man from Searchlight, NV. As he said earlier, even today in some of our meetings, he was a Capitol policeman. He never, frankly, thought someday he would be elected to Congress and then be elected to the Senate and much less to serving as the majority leader essentially in charge of this institution, and yet he is there today. I am very proud of his work, as are all the rest of my colleagues. Through some very difficult times and difficult procedures, he has led us to have the robust achievements we have been able to accomplish in 2007. I am very proud of the fact that he is in charge as the leader of the agent of change as we move forward into the new year. Mr. President, I thank you for your time. I thank you for your leadership and example in the Senate. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 wish to join my colleagues in their accolades for what has happened here today. This is a historic move forward, especially when you look at the votes we have for this legislation, because it is such a good piece of legislation. We had Republicans and Democrats coming together saying this is a new way forward for America, for food security, for energy security, for nutrition and all the rest of it that is good in this legislation. I wish to thank everyone who has been involved, from Ranking Member Chambliss's leadership, to the chairman of the committee, Tom Harkin, and all his staff, who have been so tireless and so patient with us as we have moved forward with this effort. It is always important, because there are so many staff involved in this effort, to say thank you, and I wish to thank my staff: Brendan McGuire, Tommy Olsen, Grant Leslie, and Steve Black, and to others who have been with me working on this legislation now for 2\1/2\ years. Also, I wish to thank the staff of Senator Harkin, Mark Halverson, and Susan Keith, for their great work and leadership, as well as Senator Conrad's staff, Jim Miller and Tom Marr. Without them, it would have been very difficult to get finalization on this legislation. Thanks also to Senator Chambliss's staff, Martha Scott, who had a wonderful job of making sure we put all this together and Vernie as well. Thank you. I think it is important also for us to put this in the context of what has happened in the Senate. We ought to be very proud of what this Chamber has done under the leadership of Senator Reid, who, coming into this week, had a very tough agenda. When you think about it, the American people should be proud of the Senate today because we have passed a historic energy bill, which is a giant step forward in terms of our quest for energy independence, and we have passed a Defense authorization bill, to make sure we have the right strength in our military forces who will defend our country and our homelands and our world. Today, passing the farm bill, we have taken a huge step, making sure we lead the world in terms of security. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

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

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about an event that happened earlier this evening, and that is the passage of the Energy bill with a great bipartisan vote in the Senate. In my view, this is the signature agenda of the 21st century. I am very proud of the work that went into fashioning that bill by the Energy Committee, the Commerce Committee, as well as a package we attempted to get in there by the Finance Committee. At the end of the day, this package which moves on to the House and then to the President for his signature will do some historic things for the clean energy economy for America. The first thing it will do is make sure CAFE standards are up to where they should have been a long time ago, with much more highly efficient vehicles in our country as our national fleet will be in a position to have the kind of oil savings that will lead us to energy independence and help get rid of the addiction on foreign oil that currently compromises the foreign policy of the United States. Second, we will start addressing the issue of global warming by making sure we look at a national carbon assessment, the sequestration program that will help us capture and store carbon as part of the remedy to deal with the problem of global warming. Finally, moving forward with renewable fuels, many of us recognize it is rural America that is going to help us grow our way to energy independence, and the 25-25 resolution that is included in the energy legislation sets out a national vision for us to get to 25 percent of our energy coming from renewable energy resources. I know there were many people who worked on this legislation. I thank and commend all of those who were involved in putting it together. On my staff, in particular: Steve Black, who had been very involved in the crafting of the 2005 Energy Policy Act; Suzanne Wells, who has been a fellow in my office and worked on this issue for almost as long as Steve Black; Ben Brown, a new fellow in my office; Tracy Ross, a young employee in my office who was part of this energy team, along with Brendan McGuire, Grant Leslie--a whole host of others--Jeff Lane in my office also was involved. I also thank the staff of the committees because I know the staff members of both the Energy and Commerce Committees worked day and night to get us a good energy package. I would be remiss if I did not say something about Russ Sullivan and the great staff of the Finance Committee, headed by our chair, Max Baucus. The Finance Committee functions completely on every cylinder and is a stellar committee, a group of staff members that makes us very proud and serves as a role model for the rest of the committees in the Senate. It is a historic night for us with the passage of the energy legislation. As we move closer toward the passage of the 2007 farm bill, I also commend all of my colleagues who have worked so hard in trying to get us to a procedural way forward to get us to the completion of this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I had understood that the order we were following would be to consider Alexander amendment 3553 with 10 minutes of debate time. If I can get 10 minutes before turning to the other amendments. That is how I had come here to the floor to deal with the issue of 3553. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the order of continuing on 3553?

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, if I could ask my friend from Tennessee to note the absence of a quorum for a minute so we might talk about how we might move forward.

Mr. SALAZAR. Will the Senator from Tennessee yield for a question?

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Alexander amendment No. 3553. I do so with some regret because he and I have worked on so many matters together in a bipartisan spirit. But on this particular amendment, he is simply wrong for two reasons. First and foremost, the amendment would strike a blow against what we are trying to do to create a new clean energy future by crippling our attempts to move forward with a new agenda on wind power. Second, it would bring the Congress into an intruding position on matters that ought to be about land use at the local and State level, in the traditions of this country. So for those two reasons, I am going to ask my colleagues to join in opposition to the amendment. The small wind power microturbine tax credit we are proposing as part of the farm bill brought forward in a bipartisan way from the Finance Committee is a provision that enjoys tremendous bipartisan support. On the Republican side, Senators Smith, Craig, Murkowski, and Coleman have all been champions of the small wind energy tax credit; on the Democratic side, Senator Sanders, Dorgan, Feinstein, Kerry, Wyden, Stabenow, and Johnson have all been supporters and cosponsors of the underlying legislation, S. 673. That group of Senators shows the kind of bipartisan support we have for small wind power in America. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter sent to Senator Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley from a number of organizations, including the Tennessee Environmental Council, in support of this tax provision.

Mr. SALAZAR. The Alexander amendment, the way it would strike out the small wind tax credit provision of this legislation, would cripple the wind power potential for our country in a way that is not healthy as we embrace this agenda. We are dealing with technology that has been around for a long time. Certainly, as we are moving forward with the hope and vision that 25 percent of our energy from this country comes from renewable energy resources, we know there are many components of that portfolio. One of them is wind. Tremendous wind power is being developed around our country, and I will speak about that. But we know we can do much more with small wind microturbines. Here is what they would look like on a farm. This is a picture of a farm that shows an old-style windmill, windmills such as we have seen out on the plains and the prairies for generations. It used to be for many years the only way we could generate power to pump water for cattle out on the range. These windmills were converted over to become electrical generators. Now with the new technology being developed at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory through their wind technology center, we have developed new wind microturbines that can produce a good amount of energy with very small turbines in place. This picture shows some of those wind turbines in operation. The amendment of the Senator from Tennessee would essentially say we are going to limit where we can allow these small wind microturbines to go up. For example, if you happen to have a rural residence such as this residence, which is typical of many places throughout the West, this residence which could power its domestic electrical needs off of a wind turbine in the way this house does would not be allowed to do so. The $4,000 tax credit would not be allowed to provide the electrical generation needs we want to accomplish for that house. Another example is this rural residence which is out on a hillside. The rural residents of this house, out on a hillside, would not be able to take advantage of the tax credit we are providing in this legislation. It goes beyond just rural residences out there in the country. In addition to that, when we think about industrial or business places of use, this shown in this picture is an example of a Wal-Mart, which is located outside of Denver, CO, in Aurora, CO, where Wal-Mart has embraced using renewable energy to power much of its facility. One of the sources for that wind power for this Wal-Mart in Aurora, CO, is a wind turbine, a small wind microturbine. Our legislation would provide the tax credit to allow this kind of a wind microturbine to be incentivized to go into that place. So what my friend attempts to do here, in my view, would unnecessarily narrow what we are trying to do, which is to expand the places where we can use wind power in the form of small wind-power turbines throughout the United States. So I hope on that basis alone my friends in the Senate will vote in opposition to his amendment. Second, what we are trying to do here is incentivize the creation of small wind-power turbines for the people and for the businesses of this country. The amendment which my friend has proposed in part is based on his concern that he does not want to see a lot of wind turbines in urban or suburban areas. He does not want us to go back to places such as Knoxville or Oak Ridge, TN, and go to those communities and say we somehow are enabling those wind-power turbines, those small microturbines, to go up in those communities. That has never been a province of the Senate. The province of the Senate has been to set out national policy. It is up to those local communities and cities and counties and States to determine what their local land use policy is going to be. Nothing we do in the Senate ultimately is going to disrupt or interrupt whatever they may be doing at the local level in terms of their local land use ordinances. We have seen, most recently with respect to what has happened with the South phone tower dispersion, is that throughout the country it is still very much controlled by what happens at the local land use level. I urge my friends to vote in opposition to Alexander amendment No. 3553. I would finally say, on the whole concept of wind, on which we have a genuine policy disagreement, there is indeed tremendous opportunity for us to do much more with wind. In my State alone, 2 years ago, before we passed the 2005 Energy Policy Act, there was almost zero electricity being generated from wind power. Today, my State is on the verge of producing 1,000 megawatts of power from our wind-power facilities that have been constructed throughout the State. Now, 1,000 megawatts of power may not seem like a lot to a lot of people, but I think it is a lot. It is a lot for the State of Colorado. Mr. President, 1,000 megawatts of power is the equivalent of the amount of electrical power that will be generated from three coal-fired powerplants--that is three coal-fired powerplants. We are able to do that with our large wind- power generators in my State. We ought to be able to deploy the technology we have for small microturbines to allow people who want these small microturbines to generate the renewable electricity for their places of business. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on Alexander amendment No. 3553. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to vote no on the Alexander amendment. The Alexander amendment would essentially strip out what came out as a bipartisan supported amendment from both the Finance Committee and the Agriculture Committee. It is a step in the right direction in terms of moving forward with small wind microturbines that are very essential to our renewable energy future. This is something which is part of our whole renewable energy agenda. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Alexander amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak generally about the importance of the farm bill. I wish to speak about three aspects of the bill. The first has to do with rural America, which is a part of what I have called ``the forgotten America'' since I came to the Senate nearly 3 years ago. Second is to speak briefly about the importance of the conservation provisions which are included in this historic legislation. And finally, I wish to speak generally about some of the renewable energy provisions that are laid out in this bill. First, with respect to what we see happening in rural America, as we see on the chart behind me, there is a lot of red and a lot of yellow. Those are counties, some 1,700 counties in the United States of America, which have actually declined in population between the years 2000 and 2006. What happens around this country, as we look at the macroeconomic statistics that affect the United States of America, everybody says that all is hunky-dory and things are going very well. The fact is, for a long time when we look at places in rural America, there are counties and communities that continue to decline in their economic well-being, and the very vitality of rural America is threatened. When the vitality of rural America is threatened, the food security of this Nation is also threatened. That is why when we have legislation such as the legislation before us, the farm bill, we see Democrats and Republicans coming together, many of us from rural States, many of us wanting to be champions of rural America which we believe is so important, we see Democrats and Republicans coming together to say this is a bill which is critical for our future and a bill we must have. When we look at those red parts of the United States that are on this map, they are counties, and the people who live there are suffering. Some of them are small counties, some of them are huge counties from a geographic point of view. What we will find in those counties will be people who are hard workers and who on average make less than $10,000 per capita than their counterparts who happen to live in the bigger cities. That is a $10,000 differential in terms of their per capita income. What we will find in those counties is also a disparity in health care. There is less health care available to people who live in those counties than people who happen to live in the larger metropolitan areas. We also find a higher cost of living with respect to the prices paid for fuel and a whole host of other items in many of these rural communities. So I hope, as we work before the Christmas break, that we can understand this legislation is very important to the forgotten America. For me, what I like to do when I travel around the 64 counties of my State, is I like to go to many of these places out in rural Colorado where I know communities and counties are suffering. We have 64 counties in my State of Colorado. It is a large State, not much different than South Dakota in many ways. There are many places where one can drive down the main streets of these communities that were thriving a few years ago and now see half of the main street boarded up, and we see the pains of an economy that is suffering. The next picture I am putting up is a picture of Merino, CO. Merino, CO, as we can see, is a town in my State which is not having the best of economic times. I would say at least half, perhaps three-fourths, of the main street in Merino, CO, today is either for sale or has many of its commercial establishments boarded up in the way that is depicted in this picture behind me. It is not only Merino; it is lots of other places. When you get out into the eastern plains on our major interstate corridors and the town of Brush, CO--here is the town of Brush, CO. Again, this is the main street of Brush, CO, with one of its important buildings for sale. If this was the only building on the main street of Brush, CO, that was for sale, one would say that happens all the time; we often see real estate for sale. What happens is, when we go into the main street of Brush, CO, there is a huge percentage of the buildings on that main street that today are for sale. This is a typical picture of community after community across nearly a thousand counties of the United States of America. I hope one of the statements we can make together as Democrats, led by Senator Reid, and as Republicans, led by Senator McConnell, is that we do care about this forgotten America and that we are willing to invest in this forgotten America through the passage of this farm bill. Secondly, I wish to speak about the conservation provisions of this farm bill. All of us who have followed the history of farm programs and the history of conservation in the United States of America know there is no greater champion for conservation than Senator Tom Harkin. He has been a champion of the conservation programs in this farm bill from day one. This farm bill before the Senate today reflects very significant additional investments in conservation. As my friend from South Dakota said earlier in his comments when talking generally about the farm bill and what it has done for hunters, he said there were 10 million pheasants in the State of South Dakota. That is an incredible contribution for people in our country who love to hunt. The Presiding Officer is a great hunter. I am sure he would love to go to South Dakota and get some of those 10 million pheasants. The conservation programs contribute greatly to the quality of life in America. For my life, much of it spent as a farmer and as a rancher, I have always said that farmers and ranchers are some of the best environmentalists because they truly understand the importance of fighting for land and for water. They know that at the end of the day, unless they take care of the land and water they depend on, next year their livelihood is going to be taken away from them. So they know they have to take care of their soil. They know they have to take care of the water. They know they have to take care of that place which is the very essence of their livelihood. This farm bill is a historic farm bill in terms of conservation because it invests more in conservation, in all the traditional programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, the grasslands program, and a whole host of other programs that will let us make sure we continue to protect the land and water of America. In this picture behind me, we see one of the conservation programs funded under the EQIP program in my State of Colorado. It is an irrigation line ditch to make sure that water is not being wasted in the arid part of my State. For those of us from the western part of the United States, we know that water truly is the lifeblood of our community. They say in Colorado that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. That is because we know how precious the commodity of water is in the arid West. Programs such as this conservation program under the EQIP program make sure we are being as efficient as possible in how we use water in our communities. It goes beyond how we use water for irrigation, which is what is depicted in that picture, but it is also making sure we are helping ranchers with water tanks and cross fencing so we can make the most use of our resources. Here is a picture of an EQIP project which has put in livestock water tanks and also has put in cross fences in the northern part of my State. It is another example of one of our conservation programs. The next picture is of a wetland reserve program near Nathrop, CO. This is a picture of a wetland which was restored under the WRP that has been included in this farm bill and has been significantly enhanced. We know the importance of wetlands not only to wildlife but also to water quality. This wetland, which shows the Rocky Mountains with its snow in the background, is one of those wetlands that has been made possible through the investments we are making in the farm bill. Finally, in the conservation area, there is also a tremendous amount of training that takes place. This picture behind me is of farmers getting together, going through a training seminar in Colorado to learn more about how they can take care of their farms. It is a very successful program which is not only a program underway in my State but also in many other States around the country. I wish to spend a few minutes talking a little bit more about the energy parts of this bill. I wish to talk about how important it is to my State. When we look at what has happened with the energy challenges we face in this country, I do believe that is one of those areas where this Congress has made significant, positive action over the last several years. We started it through the passage of the 2005 Energy bill, which was led by Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman. I had the privilege of sitting on that committee through many hearings that ended up with the 2005 Energy Policy Act we passed in the Senate. Last year, we passed another Energy Policy Act that opened up lease sale 181 in the gulf coast and created the Land and Water Conservation Fund which is a very important program. This year we have an additional opportunity to move forward with passage of new energy legislation which we are all hoping happens maybe as early as this week. In my State, a lot has happened in the last 2 years. When we look at all the different aspects of renewable energy, we have done more in Colorado in a very short period of time than I have seen happen with almost anything else that has come to my State. All of us probably in this Chamber would like to claim that our respective States are becoming the renewable energy capital of the United States. In my State of Colorado, it is happening in a lot of different ways, in part through the national legislation we passed in the Congress and in part through the initiative of the voters of the State of Colorado through the passage of an RPS which was adopted by the voters in 2004. This is a picture of a wind farm located in Prowers County in Lamar, CO. It is one of several wind farms which have sprouted up across my State in the last several years. Some people may say these wind farms are important, but how much are they doing? In my State, by the end of the year 2008, our hope is that we will have about 1,000 megawatts of power being produced from these wind farms that have sprouted up throughout the eastern plains and northern Colorado. And 1,000 megawatts of power, for those who happen to be watching today, if we want to put that in layman's terms, is approximately the amount of electricity that would be generated from three coal-fired powerplants. Well, in my State of Colorado, 2\1/2\, 3 years ago, there was almost zero electrical generation coming from wind. Today, we are on the verge of approaching a thousand megawatts of electrical power from wind. So we are just beginning to tap that potential. And it is not just from Colorado. I know in the plains of both Dakotas, as well as in Wyoming and a whole host of other States, the State of Texas and others, we see wind energy becoming a very integral part of the portfolio for renewable energy for our future. This farm bill creates significant incentives for us to continue to enhance our efforts with respect to wind power. Here is another quick example of a smaller set of wind turbines that are now up and functioning in the State of Colorado. We have included in this legislation amendments that will allow for a credit to be provided for what we call small wind microturbines. Those are microturbines that will produces less than 50 megawatts of power. Actually, that is less than 50 kilowatts of power. And with those small microturbines there will be enough electricity generated from these small wind generators to be able to provide the energy that is needed at a farm or a small industrial park or those kinds of smaller uses. So there is a whole future, which is a very positive future, on wind energy that is being embraced in this legislation. And as we have spoken about energy on the floor this afternoon, we also have spoken about ethanol and cellulosic ethanol. Several years ago--it was less than 3 years ago--after having been sworn in with my colleague from South Dakota, I went back to Colorado and said: There is a lot of excitement from many of my colleagues about ethanol and about the future of biofuels in America. I want to go and visit an ethanol plant somewhere in my State of Colorado. I was told at the time that we did not have ethanol plants in my State of significant size. Well, that has changed dramatically just in the last 2 years, in part because of the passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Today, we produce over 100 million gallons of ethanol a year. We are at 100 million gallons of ethanol per year. The picture behind me is a picture of an ethanol plant in Sterling, CO. When I went there 2 years ago, there was nothing but an empty field outside of the town of Sterling. The town of Sterling is located in a place that is part of that America that struggles to keep going forward. I went back a year later and what is now a $50 million ethanol plant has been constructed there. It is an ethanol plant that has produced jobs for the local community. There are over 20 workers who work at this ethanol plant all the time. It has been good for the farmers because they have an alternative market for their corn which they bring to this ethanol plant. It has been good for the cattle feeders because they take the feedstock after the ethanol has been taken, then they feed it to the cattle in Sterling, CO. So this ethanol plant is only one of four ethanol plants that we now have throughout the State of Colorado, and it is our hope in the years ahead that we will have many more of these kinds of plants that we will actually see in construction. But as we know, through the testimony we had in the Energy Committee, the testimony we have had in front of the Agriculture Committee as well, there are limitations as to how much ethanol we can actually produce through these kinds of plants, where that ethanol is derived from corn. That is why these advanced biofuels and how we move forward with this renewable fuels standard is so essential. That is why in the RFS that we included in our energy legislation we recognized that there was a 15-billion-gallon limitation that would be coming from these kind of ethanol plants. And, therefore, when we talked about the advanced biofuels, we meant we would get 21 million gallons of advanced biofuels from cellulosic ethanol. And that truly is where the future for America is, in my view, Mr. President, relative to making sure we are able to grow our way to energy independence for our country. We are now at a point where we are asking our colleagues to come and offer amendments. We have had a number of amendments that were offered and are pending from last week. We have also had a number of amendments which have been offered and are pending here today, and we would invite our colleagues to come down and speak about the farm bill and to offer any amendments they might have. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3596 to Amendment No. 3500 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a pilot program under which agricultural producers may establish and contribute to tax-exempt far savings accounts in lieu of obtaining federally subsidized crop insurance or noninsured crop assistance, to provide for contributions to such accounts by the Secretary of Agriculture, to specify the situations in which amounts may be paid to producers from such accounts, and to limit the total amount of such distributions to a producer during a taxable year, and for other purposes)

Mr. SALAZAR. Reserving the right to object.

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

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

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, we do not have an objection with respect to the amendment which was offered by the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I know there are colleagues on the Democratic side who have amendments they wish to offer. I would be happy to offer those amendments on their behalf, if they would call the cloakroom and let us know. That way we can start getting this list of amendments winnowed down to a workable number. We are on the floor and will be on the floor ready to do business. If they want to come to the floor to offer their amendments, they should do it now. If they want to call the cloakroom and let me offer them on their behalf, I will be happy to do so. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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