Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, will my friend from North Dakota yield? I am just trying to get some order here in terms of the sequencing. I understand the Senator from North Dakota wants to go for about 5 minutes. I was wondering how long my friend from Colorado might want to speak.

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of amendment No. 3198 offered by my good friend and colleague, Senator Menendez and myself. It is a very simple amendment that addresses one of the largest national security issues of our time. It is an amendment which in its simplicity says a lot, but it is, nonetheless, short. It says that amounts appropriated under this section of the bill, for the Border Security First Act of 2007, may be used to address northern border fencing as well, wherever the greatest security needs are. Let me say that again. It says: May be used to address northern border fencing as well, wherever the greatest security needs are. It is a simple amendment and one which I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle join in and support its inclusion in this Defense appropriations bill. I want to step back just for one second and refresh our recollections on debates we have had on the issue of the overhaul of our immigration laws in our country. I think there was broad agreement that we needed to do three things in that particular overhaul. We needed, first of all, to secure the borders of America, to secure the borders of this country. Secondly, we needed to move forward and be serious about being a Nation of laws and making sure we were enforcing our laws in America, that we honor the rule of law in this country. Thirdly, we needed to deal with the realistic solution to the economic and moral issues which are a part of the issue of immigration which still so affects our country. We were not able to get that done, so the reality of it is that today we have a system which is still in chaos, a system which is in disorder, and we continue to have our national security compromised. We have broken borders in this country which must be fixed. So the amendment offered earlier today, which I proudly supported, offered by my friend, Senator Graham, was an important amendment because what it does is it invests in one of the issues that we need to address with respect to immigration, and that is border security. It is border security. I supported that amendment in the same way we supported that concept as we moved forward in our debate over immigration reform. What is unfair, frankly, about what we are doing today is focusing only on one border--only on the southern border. There is a great disparity in terms of the kinds of resources we are putting into the protection of the southern border and almost nothing in the northern border. That disparity makes no sense whatsoever when one considers the challenge we face from a national security point of view. When one considers the fact that the border between Canada and the United States is almost 12,000 miles long--11,986 miles--and there are only 972 Border Patrol agents, and when you consider that number in comparison to what we now have on the border with Mexico, where we have a 1,900-mile border, with almost 12,000 Border Patrol officers, and we have a border that is much longer in the North, for every Border Patrol officer we have in the North, we have 12 in the South to guard a much smaller border. So the question for us has to be: Are we deploying our resources to where the greatest vulnerabilities are? The GAO, at the request of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, reported to the Finance Committee in the last several weeks about the vulnerabilities they found on the northern border. They have found, through the investigators at the GAO, that there were people who could come across from Canada into the United States without ever being stopped, with radioactive materials being a part of what could be placed in those duffle bags the agents were carrying across the border. They were able to come across time and time again without anybody ever catching them. One of the questions I asked the Border Patrol agent was: What is it that the Border Patrol office does in terms of using its resources? He said: We put them where the greatest vulnerabilities are. I would say when we look at the issue of national security, we ought to be putting the resources where the greatest vulnerabilities are. There are resources, yes, we ought to be putting on the southern border, and we have done that. But we cannot ignore the reality of the northern border--the reality that there are 12,000 miles, most of which is now unguarded, where people can come across the border into the United States with impunity and bring with them weapons that would do harm to Americans on American soil. So this amendment goes a long way toward addressing that issue by saying that the money allocated here for border security should, in fact, be used where those greatest vulnerabilities are. I will end by simply stating that even in the days after 9/11, when people were looking at the issue of terrorism in the United States, it was the Canadian intelligence service that made the finding that there were international terrorist organizations active in Canada; in making that finding, they were recognizing that one of the things they needed to do for national security was to be much more vigilant with respect to terrorism in Canada. We know that since that time, we have been infiltrated in this country by a terrorist who attempted to come across the border, Ahmed Rasam, an Algerian terrorist, who came into the United States, going into Washington, with approximately 100 pounds of explosives in his trunk. With 100 pounds of explosives in his trunk, he was headed to Los Angeles International Airport. That came from the northern border. I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment No. 3198 in the interest of making sure we are securing our borders and that we are moving forward with national security that makes sense. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order be, then, that following Senator Dorgan and his comments and Senator Allard and his comments, Senator Menendez be recognized to offer an amendment, and following that, I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to reflect on the life and service of Navy Hospital Corpsman Second Class Charles Luke Milam. Luke was killed last Wednesday in a rocket attack near the town of Musa Qula, Afghanistan. He was 26 years old. Luke Milam was a giant of his generation, a man who served his country and those around him with dignity, courage, and honor. I cannot begin to paint the picture of someone so deeply respected by those with whom he served, so committed to helping others. Luke Milam grew up in Littleton, CO, the youngest of four siblings. He was smart, friendly, and athletic. He loved the mountains of Colorado and spent his time biking, backpacking, hiking, and canoeing. I do not know what inspired Luke's strong sense of virtue or what led him to join the military. Perhaps it was the service of his grandfather Charles or his brother Keith that moved him to enlist after graduating from high school. I imagine, though, that Luke's own experiences as a witness to one of the worst tragedies of our time, the shootings at Columbine High School, strengthened his resolve to bring healing, peace, and good to areas torn by violence. Luke Milam was a senior at Columbine when, on April 20, 1999, 2 shooters killed 12 people and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves. I was Colorado's attorney general when the shootings occurred. The time I spent with the Littleton community in the aftermath--sorting through the events, finding out what went wrong and then helping to rebuild--affirmed my unmatched admiration for the young people who endured one of the darkest moments of American history. So many of Columbine's survivors have gone on to do extraordinary things--it is as though they have committed themselves to overcoming the evil they witnessed by planting hope, decency, and goodness wherever they can. Luke Milam was among them. Serving as a Navy corpsman with a unit of marines--a special operations unit no less--requires great skill and courage. The corpsman is tasked with providing medical care for marines on the field of battle. It is an incredibly dangerous job that entails carrying a loaded weapon along with the tools of your trade. Some of America's most renowned heroes on the battlefield were hospital corpsmen: people such as Wayne Caron, David R. Ray, and Francis Hammond--Medal of Honor recipients who gave their lives in combat to save others. Hospital Corpsman Milam served in this tradition. He was highly decorated for his service, earning a Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, two Combat Action ribbons, two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals, two Good Conduct Medals, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Medal, and two Sea Service Deployment Ribbons. More importantly for the corpsman, though, Luke Milam earned the deepest respect and admiration of the marines with whom he served. Luke was on his fourth tour, having served three tours in Iraq. He ``felt it was his calling to help the guys around him,'' his brother Keith said. ``If there were guys in harm's way, he needed to be there to take care of them.'' Almost a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt told a Paris crowd that the model citizen is the man who is willing to take action in pursuit of that which he thinks is right. His speech draws on the same words that family and friends use to describe Luke Milam's virtues. When evaluating mankind's progress, said Roosevelt, ``it is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.'' Hospital Corpsman Luke Milam sacrificed his life for this Nation as a man who knew that his country needed him to be ``in the arena,'' helping others. He accepted the risks of his job with extraordinary professionalism and served with honor in the best tradition of the corpsman. We cannot repay our debt nor replace his loss. To Luke's parents, Rita and Michael, to his sister, Jaeme, and to his brothers, Keith and Andrew, I know that no words can describe or assuage the pain you feel. I pray that you can find comfort in the knowledge that Luke was doing something which he truly loved, that he was doing it well, and that he will never be forgotten. His country is eternally grateful. He will endure in our hearts and prayers.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, last night, we passed the Department of Defense Authorization bill. I want to comment briefly on the debate we had during consideration of that legislation related to the war in Iraq. I am frustrated that we did not reach a bipartisan consensus on a new way forward that could begin to bring an end to this conflict. When I introduced the Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act last spring with Senator Alexander and a bipartisan group of our colleagues, I was hopeful we could work constructively with the President toward the goal of having our troops redeployed by the spring of 2008. I was hopeful that we would send a strong signal--with a bipartisan group that eventually grew to 17 Senators--that we should get out of the combat business in Iraq as quickly as possible. The Iraq Study Group Report was issued 10 months ago. Its core recommendation was that we transition our military mission from combat to training, supporting, and equipping Iraqi security forces. The report said that we should condition our support of the Iraqi Government on its performance in meeting important milestones. The report contemplated that we could be out of the combat business by March 31, 2008. The report was anticipated with great fanfare. But when it came out, the Bush administration failed to embrace it. The Iraqi Government has failed to meet most of the benchmarks described in the report. General Petraeus has testified, essentially, that we should maintain our combat mission for the foreseeable future. And that March 31 date is only 6 months away. I still believe in the report. It is still relevant, and it is still important. It sets forth a comprehensive military, political, and economic strategy for bringing a responsible end to the war in Iraq. But I believe we must build upon the report and take decisive action now to redefine our mission in Iraq and set a clear course for the redeployment of our troops. Ten months after the Iraq Study Group issued its report, we have failed to begin the transition of our mission that was central to their recommendations. That transition in mission is the key to encouraging the Iraqi Government to take responsibility for the future of their country. The Government Accountability Office has concluded that the Iraqi Government has failed to take that responsibility by meeting the reasonable benchmarks set forth by the Iraq Study Group. I continue to believe that we must follow the core principles laid out in the Iraq Study Group Report. I continue to believe we need a bipartisan solution to bring this conflict to a responsible end. And I thank each of the cosponsors of our amendment, Republicans and Democrats, for their willingness to join in this important effort. They include Senators Alexander, Bennett, Coleman, Collins, Domenici, Gregg, Specter, and Sununu from the Republican side and Democratic Senators Pryor, Casey, Carper, Conrad, Landrieu, Lincoln, McCaskill, and Bill Nelson. I believe now is the time to build upon the principles set forth by the Iraq Study Group. We must begin a transition of mission from combat to training and support. We must demand more from the Iraqi Government and send a strong and unequivocal message that our commitment is not open-ended. I believe these actions are consistent with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, and I remain hopeful that our legislation can be the basis for a constructive, bipartisan solution to the war in Iraq.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, echoing off the comments of my colleagues, I go back to the Iraq Study Group--some of the best that we have in America--and the vision they set out in their recommendations, after they spent a year, saying: We have this huge problem in Iraq. What is the best way that we move forward? They came up with 79 recommendations on how we ought to move forward in Iraq. The heart of the recommendations is set forth in a letter that was sent as part of that report by Congressman Hamilton and former Secretary James Baker. What they said is this, and I quote from the report language that is also included in our legislation. It says: Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The President and Congress must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support. It was in that vein that Democrats and Republicans came together to cosponsor the legislation on the implementation of the recommendations. I thank them for having stood up, in the sponsorship of the legislation. They include Senator Mark Pryor from Arkansas, Senator Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, Senator Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas, Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri, Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota, Senator Tom Carper from Delaware. These are all good Senators who want to figure out a way forward in this issue that befuddles America today. But it wasn't just Democrats who came with us to say we have to find a new way forward in Iraq. There were Republicans who came forward and joined us. We saw Senator Lamar Alexander coming to the floor time and time again, wanting to fashion a new way forward. He was joined by Senator Bob Bennett, Senator Judd Gregg, Senator Susan Collins, Senator John Sununu, Senator Pete Domenici, Senator Arlen Specter, and Senator Norm Coleman. At the end of the day, there were 17 cosponsors for this legislation which only 10 months ago everybody would have come together and said this is the right way to go. We remember those days before the Iraq Study Group recommendations came out last December when it was highly anticipated. The President even delayed a speech and his own set of recommendations until he heard from the Iraq Study Group. Most people said this is a very thoughtful and good way forward. I wanted to come to the floor today and say a few things about the legislation. It is legislation which would have set forth a new state of law with respect to Iraq. Yes, we have had a tough time in the Congress, coming forward with legislation that can muster 60 votes in the Senate, so not much legislation has been passed with respect to creating a new direction for Iraq. Our legislation would have made it a statement of policy--which in essence is a statement of law. This is not a sense of the Senate, this is a statement of law. This would have been the law of the land with respect to the U.S. efforts concerning Iraq. I wish to review a few provisions of the legislation. The first of those has to do with the sense of the Congress that we move forward with a major diplomatic surge in the region. That is a sense of Congress because, appropriately, that belongs with the President and with the State Department, in terms of what we have to do to reassert the international involvement to bring about a long-term solution to the problem we face in Iraq. Similar to most of my colleagues who traveled to Iraq in the last few years, I always wonder: Where are the neighbors? Why aren't they more involved in dealing with the issue that is so vitally important to the populations of all those in the Middle East? Where are they? Some of them are sitting on their hands. Some of them who are not sitting on their hands are actually helping foment the violence we see in Iraq today, whether that is Iran or whether that is Syria. What we need to do is have a diplomatic surge to move forward to help bring the world together to find a solution that will work to bring about stability in Iraq. We set forth that as a sense of the Senate. In addition to the sense of the Senate, which has some 24 measures, all of which were taken out of the Iraq Study Group recommendations, we also include the statements of law. Those are the statements of policy. The first and most important of those statements of policy is in section 5 of the legislation. That section says ``it shall be''--``it shall be.'' Not it could be, not it might be, not it ought to be considered. It says: It shall be the policy of the United States to move forward to a changed mission--to a changed mission from one of combat to one of training, equipping, advising and providing support for security and military forces in Iraq and to support counterterrorism operations in the country of Iraq. So we do a mission change with this legislation. Next, also the statement of law, we call for the strengthening of the U.S. military. I think there is a broad, bipartisan consensus that what has happened in the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan is that our military has been strained. Our military has been strained because of the humongous effort that has gone into prosecuting the war in those two places over the last 5\1/2\ years. So we, in our legislation, follow the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, requiring the strengthening of the U.S. military. Third, a statement of policy with respect to the police and criminal justice system in Iraq. On several of the codels I have taken to Iraq, one of the things that is absolutely phenomenal to me is that there is not a criminal justice system that today is working in Iraq. So the bad guys, when they are caught--what ends up happening to them? Are they prosecuted in the way that we would prosecute bad guys here in the United States of America? Is there a system of courts that is up and functioning? The police system, especially the national police in Iraq, is dysfunctional. It is infiltrated by members of the militias. Those are some of the findings of the GAO, as well as some of the findings in General Jones' recent report. So one of the things we require as a statement of policy is that the police and criminal justice system in Iraq be transformed. Also in our legislation we required the statement of policy on the oil sector in Iraq. We know the Iraqis need to come up with a reformation of their law and with changes to their law that will require the equitable distribution of the oil resources in Iraq. There are other measures here that are set forth in the legislation. One that I will refer to briefly has to do with conditions and the support of the United States in Iraq. This is section 11 of our legislation. In section 11 of our legislation we say: It shall be the policy of the United States to condition continued U.S. political, military and economic support for Iraq upon the demonstration by the Government of Iraq of sufficient political will and the making of substantial progress toward achieving the milestones that are described in that legislation. So the conditioning of the U.S. support for Iraq is based on them taking on the responsibility for achieving the milestones that were set forth in the Iraq Study Group's recommendation. Those are major changes. I believe this legislation--although there is other legislation here that I have supported, including legislation that called for timelines with respect to the reduction of troops--this legislation also is very good and very substantive legislation. Let me essentially sum up what this legislation would have done. The first thing it would have done is call for the mission change. I think more and more I hear a chorus rising in the Senate, in many of the pieces of legislation that we have seen, that it is time for us to change the mission from one of combat to one of assistance; from one of combat, where we are policing a sectarian civil war today, to one of training and equipping and counterterrorism within Iraq. That change of mission is something we ought to be able to accomplish in the Senate. Second, the diplomatic surge. We know without the diplomatic surge we are not going to be able to succeed in Iraq. We know we need to have the neighborhood, the region, much more involved in trying to bring about stability in Iraq. Third, the conditioning of the U.S. support on progress and on the milestones set forth there. I think, regarding these broad agreements, we need to keep pressuring the Iraqis to move forward to adopt those, not only to adopt, implement the milestones and benchmarks they themselves came up with. Let me conclude by saying this debate is not yet over. There are still groups, numbers of Senators, who are trying to figure out whether we can bring enough of a bipartisan way forward that will help us change the mission in Iraq. I look forward to working with both my Democratic and Republican colleagues, seeing whether we can in fact achieve that end. At the end of the day, there is a lot at stake in this issue for all of us in America. When one thinks, first of all, about the fact that we are approaching 4,000 of our best, our bravest men and women who have died in this war in Iraq, and we know as a fact we have 30,000 American men and women in uniform who have been grievously injured in that nation; we know the fiscal consequence of this war is now $750 billion and rising--expectations now are that the war costs will be at $1 trillion--we as a Senate and Congress have a responsibility, in my view, to address this issue. I hope, in the days ahead, as we address the Defense appropriations legislation, as well as the supplemental which the President has requested--additional money for the ongoing effort, the so-called bridge funding--that we can revisit this issue and see whether we can come together to try to forge a new way forward in Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 10 more minutes to conclude my remarks on the Iraq Study Group.

Mr. SALAZAR. I thank my colleagues for the colloquy. I do think this debate has had an impact. I do remember well the conversations we had in the room with the President after we came back from Iraq. There was a conversation where the President said that our sending this message to the Iraqi people was a very important message, and certainly Senator Levin and Senator Warner have been a part of making sure that message is, in fact, heard. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak about the Department of Defense authorization bill, which is a very good bill that has been put together with the leadership of my good friend, Senator Levin and Senator Warner, Senator McCain, and others, who have been involved in this legislation. I come to the floor to speak in support of this legislation, and I am certain when we get to Monday we will have a resounding adoption of this bill, which is so important to our men and women in uniform across the globe. I will be supporting this legislation, but what will be missing from this legislation is legislation that crafts a new way forward in Iraq, a way forward that transitions our mission from one of combat, policing a sectarian civil war, to one which is a limited mission that I believe both Democrats and Republicans believe we should be able to attain in Iraq. It is in that context that I was proud to have been one of the participants in crafting the legislation that would have implemented the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. I thank the 17 cosponsors of that legislation for trying to help this body find a way out of the wilderness of Iraq and move forward with a bipartisan approach that would unite our Nation behind an effort that we ultimately agree must result in bringing our troops home from Iraq and maximizing the possibility for us to bring about some level of security in Iraq and defend the strategic interests of the United States in that region and around the world. But it wasn't only the 17 sponsors we had on the legislation which Senator Alexander and I crafted with the Iraq Study Group, there were also other efforts that were underway in this Chamber during the last week to try to figure out whether there was a common way forward. Senator Levin, Senator Voinovich, Senator Nelson, Senator Collins, and others were very involved in that effort, and it is not over. My hope is that as we move forward in debating what is the foreign policy and national security issue of our time that there may be a way in which we can unite the country in a common way forward.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Virginia, and I will always remember my very first trip into that war-torn country of Iraq was a trip that was led by Senator Warner and Senator Levin. It was the Levin-Warner codel that went into Iraq to try to learn more about what was happening in that country, to figure out a way in which we might be able to move forward. The Senator from Virginia is correct. I think the debate in this Chamber and in this country has been helpful to bring about a better understanding and to deliver a message to the Iraqi people that we do not have an open-ended commitment. I was proud to have been a part of supporting the Senator from Virginia as we moved forward with the legislation that included the benchmarks that are now part of our national policy and that also required the General Accounting Office to report on those benchmarks and created the Jones Commission to give us an independent assessment of the security situation on the ground. So I think there has been progress that has been made. But I would also respond to my good friend from Virginia, for whom I have the greatest amount of respect, that it is important this debate be one which we continue to have because it is the central foreign policy and national security issue of our time. Even though we all understand we live under a constitution which has divided the powers between three branches of Government, we all know from the jurisprudence of our past that the power of the President is, frankly, at its highest when, in fact, there is a relationship where he and the Congress agree on a way forward. What we have seen over the last several years is a great division in this country in terms of where many of the members of the legislative branch of our Government is and where the President is. So I think our continuing efforts to try to find a way forward in a way that the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and others have been trying to do is something we should continue to do. I do not believe it is something that at this point in time we should give up on because this issue is too important. It is too important for the 170,000 men and women currently serving in Iraq. It is too important to their families in the United States. It is too important to the fiscal consequence this war is bringing upon the United States. So I am hopeful the dialogue that has taken place in the Senate over the last week with different groups of Senators trying to find a common way forward ultimately will get us to success.

Mr. SALAZAR. Absolutely.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I wish to reflect on the life of SGT Edmund Jeffers, who died last Wednesday in a vehicle accident in Taqqadum, Iraq. Sergeant Jeffers served in the 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. At the age of 23 he was on his second tour of duty in Iraq. Eddie Jeffers grew up in Daleville, AL, just south of Fort Rucker. The son of a master sergeant, he learned the value of military service early in life. He enlisted in the Army Reserve in 2002 after his graduation, feeling the call of duty after the events of September 11. Those who knew Sergeant Jeffers describe him as a man of conviction, principle, and faith. His Christian values, his father recounts, guided his work as a soldier. They strengthened his resolve to defeat those who commit evils against innocents, and they kept alive his hope for a future of freedom and security for Iraqis. He saw the threat of terrorism as the struggle of his generation, a long war that will require sacrifice and commitment from all Americans. Sergeant Jeffers, like so many soldiers before him, documented his experiences in war with pen and paper. He kept a journal in Iraq, posted updates for his friends and family online, and shared some of his writings with the world. He was eloquent and sharp. One of his essays, entitled ``Hope Rides Alone,'' has circulated widely on the internet, and newspapers have reprinted portions in recent days. In, the essay, Eddie worried that the political debate at home was weakening our resolve to achieve success in Iraq and was driving a wedge between the country and the military. He noted that this war is being fought on the backs of our men and women in uniform, while the ``American people have not been asked to sacrifice anything. Unless you are in the military or the family member of a servicemember, it's life as usual . . . the war doesn't affect you. But it affects us.'' The political debate here in Washington, Sergeant Jeffers argued, has become a national preoccupation that is distracting our focus from our goals in Iraq. As Sergeant Jeffers notes, there is strong disagreement in this country about the course we should take in Iraq. Our soldiers, too, have many different opinions. Much of this debate is necessary and healthy for a democracy, but, as Sergeant Jeffers cautions, the discussion should neither distract us from our efforts to protect national security nor lessen our commitment to helping secure a better future for Iraqis. In the end, Iraqis ``want what everyone else wants in life: safety, security, somewhere to call home,'' Sergeant Jeffers wrote. ``They want a country that is safe to raise their children in.'' General MacArthur once said that it is ``the soldier, above all other people, who prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest scars of war.'' This was true for Eddie. Amid the chaos and violence in Iraq, Sergeant Jeffers never lost sight of the simple aspirations and the basic humanity that bind the vast majority of Iraqis. I admire Sergeant Jeffers' life and service, all the more for his courage to share his thoughts with the world. His writings are powerful and challenge us to better account for the costs of freedom and for the sacrifices that all Americans should be prepared to make on its behalf. One cannot adequately honor Eddie Jeffers' service and sacrifice. His actions need no praise to be commendable, and his writings stand alone with the force of his convictions. We are humbled by his life and saddened by his loss. To Eddie's wife Stephanie, and to his parents Tina and David, my thoughts and prayers are with you. I know of no words that can lessen the pain that you feel, but I hope that one day you will find comfort in knowing that Eddie's sacrifice will never be forgotten. He challenges us to do better by our soldiers, to never let ``hope walk alone.'' His voice is heard, and his country is grateful. He will endure in our hearts and our prayers.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, today I rise first to praise the bipartisan spirit in which the Children's Health Insurance Program came to this floor and was accepted by this Chamber on a positive vote of 68 votes saying yes to providing health insurance to the young children of America. It was one of the finer moments, it seems to me, of the last year in this Chamber, where Democrats and Republicans came together and said: Yes, we can do this for all of the right reasons. It was a circumstance where, with the leadership of Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley of the Finance Committee and Senator Hatch and Senator Rockefeller, IV, who basically were the key movers and shakers in trying to move this package forward, they said: We are going to put aside our partisan differences, and we are going to put together a package that we can make sure receives bipartisan support on the floor of the Senate. At the end of the day, that package did, in fact pass, and today and over the next several days, hopefully, we will get that legislation to the President's desk for his signature. It is my hope the President does sign this bill. It is my imploration to the President that he sign the bill on behalf of our Nation's children. Covering our kids, providing them with the kind of preventive care, with the kind of doctors and nurses that they need, will ensure that they grow up healthy and that they grow up strong. These have been the goals of our bipartisan work in this Chamber over the last many months. The Finance Committee passed that plan by a vote of 17 to 4, and we then confirmed the bipartisan nature and the importance of children's health insurance with a 68-to-31 vote. Now, with 9 million kids without health insurance around the country, 180,000 of those kids in Colorado, the President has issued a veto threat of this legislation. In my view, and with all due respect to the President, I believe the President is wrong to issue a veto threat on such a fundamentally important issue. Earlier this year, as I was traveling through Colorado, I spoke with folks in my State about the need to reauthorize the children's health insurance plan. As I did so, a school nurse told me of a boy who was injured during a football game. His family wanted to have health insurance, but with premiums increasing up to 70 percent since 2000 and amounting to for that family about $10,000 a year, that family simply could not afford health insurance. They couldn't afford to take their injured son to a doctor. All they could do was to apply ice to their son's leg and pray that somehow it would get better. It did not get better. The boy's leg, which was then fractured, grew progressively worse. It swelled to twice its normal size. In the end, with no choice left, the parents took the child to the emergency room, the most expensive place for any of our children to get care. Beyond the pain and the anguish that the child or the parents felt that day, the most frustrating part is that with the coverage provided with the legislation that we are about to adopt in this body, the child would have been able to see his doctor within a couple of hours of the injury. He would have received better care at a lower cost and with a lot less pain and a lot less frustration for everybody involved. We have all heard the stories of how the health care system is failing our children. We hear of the colds that turn into pneumonia. We hear of the earaches that develop into ear infections. We hear of other illnesses that grew worse because parents could not afford to seek medical care for their children. Nine million kids--nine million kids-- in the United States have no health insurance today. It is unconscionable that in the strongest, most prosperous democracy in the world that we cannot give our kids that basic coverage of health that they need to have a fair chance in life. Our failure to extend health insurance coverage to more kids would not only be a moral failure, but it would be a massive liability for the education and well-being of our children and for our future economic security. This is why. Uninsured children miss more school than their peers. They are six times--six times--more likely to have unmet medical needs. They are 2\1/2\ times more likely to have unmet dental needs, and one- third of all uninsured children go without any medical care for an entire year. I am proud of the work of the Senate. I am proud of the bipartisan work that went into writing this legislation to cover the 10 million uninsured children in America. This legislation provides the coverage to an additional 3.3 million children who are currently uninsured, and it also maintains the coverage for all the 6.6 million low-income children currently enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program. The bill includes significant incentives for States to enroll more children into CHIP, particularly children in rural communities, many rural communities such as the ones in my State of Colorado, where geographic distances and the lack of health insurance create barriers to enrollment. Twenty percent of all low-income children live in rural areas, and a significant number of them are uninsured. This bill will help them get health insurance. The CHIP reauthorization also allows a State to cover pregnant women. Children, we know, who are born healthy have a far greater chance of a healthy life. Healthy children save Medicaid and CHIP significant resources in reduced health care costs. It is sensible that they receive this coverage under our program. Once again I want to thank the model of effectiveness and leadership in this Senate in Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and Senators Rockefeller and Hatch for their strong leadership on this issue. They united the Finance Committee and much of this Chamber around our common goal. It is a very simple goal. It is a simple goal of helping our kids get to the doctor. This bill is a giant step forward in our Nation's steady march toward providing every child in America the chance to chase their dreams. I hope President Bush will change his mind and that he will support this bill. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today to speak briefly in connection with amendments we made to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Specifically, I wish to comment on five amendments which have been accepted which are important to the future of our military and also important to the future of military installations we have within the State of Colorado. At the outset, let me say that as we have moved forward with this legislation, I have very much appreciated the leadership of the chairman of the committee, Senator Carl Levin, and all of his staff who have worked so hard with all of us on these amendments and the hundreds of amendments so many Members have filed. I also express my appreciation to Senator McCain and to his staff, Senator Warner and all of his staff, who have also worked with us on these amendments that are so important for our Nation's defense. The five amendments I wish to briefly review are related, in part, to Colorado but also in a larger sense related to the question of how we make sure we have the best national defense and homeland security we possibly can. The first of those amendments is an amendment relating to an effort we have underway with the Secretary of the Air Force to make sure we are protecting our Air Force bases from the kind of encroachment that will impair their military mission, unless we are proactive about making sure the appropriate buffer zones are, in fact, created. In my State of Colorado, there are three Air Force bases which are very important to our Nation's defense system. They are Peterson and Schriever Air Force Bases in El Paso County, in Colorado Springs, and Buckley Air Force in Aurora, in the Denver metropolitan area. In the case of each one of those installations, which I have frequented often in my time in the Senate, I have seen the development that is occurring from one end of the base to the other and the encroachment that occurs as the urbanization moves out. I have expressed often to local elected officials in that part of the State it is important that what we do is protect those military installations so that 10 years, 25 years, or 50 years from now, we can make sure the military mission we have assigned to those bases is one that will not be compromised. Yet, as urbanization occurs and you see the subdivisions that sprout up around these bases, you have to wonder when that point in time will come where the encroachment itself will start having an impact on the mission of these military installations. We have noticed in the past--and studies have concluded, including a study from the RAND Corporation--that some branches of our Armed Services do a better job than others in terms of protecting their military installations from encroachment. The REPI program, which is a program that has now been in existence for some time, has been widely used by the U.S. Army. Indeed, in our State of Colorado, with Fort Carson, one of the things that has happened is we have seen much of the buffer-zone area that is needed to be acquired to assure that Fort Carson's military mission is not negatively impacted in the future. It is that same kind of proactiveness that we need to take on with our Air Force Bases. I recently met with Secretary Wynne to talk about the importance of us doing this not only in Colorado but around the Nation. He is in agreement that we ought to do that. He is in agreement that we ought to take a look at what more we can do to protect our Air Force installations. In my own view, in terms of what happens in my own State, we are not proactive enough. What happens is that whenever there is a developer who comes in with some kind of a program, the developer will go to the local land-use officials and seek the necessary land-use approvals to move forward, to try to get their development built. What the local government officials will do is they will look at whether the military mission is being impaired as only one factor. But it is being reactive to a force of development that is probably occurring in that entire area. It would be much better, from my point of view, if what we do with our Air Force installations is to be proactive and look out at what we can do to make sure we are protecting the mission of those Air Force Bases for the long term--for 10 years, for 25 years, for 50 years. It is my hope with this amendment, which has been agreed to, that we will be able to do that. The second amendment which I want to speak about briefly has to do with the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. The Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site is some 237,000 acres of training facility located in the southeastern part of my State of Colorado. It is a very important part of the training capacities we have at Fort Carson. Over the last several years, the U.S. Army has indicated that what it wants to do is significantly expand Fort Carson and the training facility that is located at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. Because of rumors and the information flow, which is not always accurate, at one point in time the residents of my State in southeastern Colorado had the view that what, essentially, the Army was attempting to do was to condemn what was the entire southeastern part of the State of Colorado. If that, in fact, were to have happened or if that were to happen in the future, the ranching heritage of the southeastern part of my State would be destroyed. So what has happened over time is we have had a conversation with the Department of Defense and the Secretary of the Army about the future of Pinon Canyon. There are a number of very legitimate questions that have been raised. One of those questions is whether the 237,000 acres that already encompass the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site are sufficient to be able to provide the training capacity that is needed at Fort Carson. There is a possibility that the answer to that question will be, yes; that when you combine those 237,000 acres with the nearly 100,000 acres already on the Fort Carson main campus itself, there are sufficient land needs available for its future. It may be that the answer comes back that some additional land might be needed. But if so, then it is important for the Army to tell us what additional training capacities would be acquired if they acquire this additional land. There are many questions with respect to the expansion, from my point of view, that have not been answered. I place this in the context of what the BRAC Commission found in January of 2005, where the findings of the Commission were that additional brigades would be moved into Fort Carson which are now underway in terms of being moved into Fort Carson itself; that there was enough training ground at Fort Carson to be able to satisfy the needs of our soldiers at Fort Carson. So if that was, in fact, the conclusion that we reached in January of 2005, it raises the very legitimate question as to why it is that we need to have additional land for training today. So these important questions are set forth in legislation that my friend and colleague, Senator Allard from Colorado, and I offered together in an amendment, and it was an amendment that was accepted by the Senate last night. For that I want to say thank you once again to the floor managers of this legislation. The third amendment I want to speak about briefly this afternoon is an amendment that deals with the paralympic program for wounded warriors. Today, in my State, in part because of the fact that the U.S. Olympic Committee is hosted and housed in Colorado Springs and the fact that we have a major paralympic program that takes place in the State of Colorado, there is a desire to be able to do more. There is a desire to be able to do more in large part because many of the wounded warriors we see coming back from Iraq and from Afghanistan, those 30,000 men and women who have been wounded, sometimes very grievously in this war, ought to be given every opportunity that we can possibly give them so they can live the best life they can, given the injuries they have sustained on behalf of a very grateful nation. So it is in that regard that our paralympic amendment would expand the authorities of the Department of Defense so that they, our wounded warriors, would have a greater opportunity to be involved in some of the paralympic programs that are hosted throughout the Nation. So, again, I thank my colleagues for accepting that amendment. The fourth amendment I want to briefly address this afternoon is the amendment relating to a hard deadline for the destruction of chemical weapons at the Pueblo Chemical Army depot, as well as at Blue Grass in Kentucky. This legislation is legislation that has been pushed hard on a bipartisan basis. It has been pushed hard by Senator McConnell and Senator Bunning, Senator Allard and myself. It is our hope that with the passage of this legislation, the Army will, in fact, understand, and that the Department of Defense will, in fact, understand that 2017 sets a hard deadline for us to move forward and complete the destruction of these chemicals which today provide a hazard to the communities and people who live nearby, and provide a national security threat if these chemical weapons were ever to fall into the hands of terrorists and into the hands of those who want to do us wrong in this country. So it is our hope that with this legislation, we will be able to continue to push for a 2017 deadline for the completion of the destruction of these chemical weapons. Finally, the fifth amendment I want to refer to briefly is an amendment relating to the training of helicopter pilots at high altitudes. Today, in the mountains of Afghanistan, where many of us in our congressional delegation trips into either Iraq or Afghanistan have been in those helicopters, we know the kinds of conditions they have to fly in, at some of those very high altitudes, especially in the country of Afghanistan and those borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only place where our pilots can receive the adequate training to be able to make sure they have the capacity to fly those helicopters at those high altitudes is at a site in Gypsum, CO. But today, whenever a helicopter pilot has to go into that area, into that training facility in order to be trained on how to fly their helicopters, what they have to do is they have to bring their own helicopters to the site. So what we are asking for here is for six helicopters to be stationed there at the site to be able to provide our pilots with the best kind of high altitude training for helicopter pilots that we can possibly provide as a nation. So I thank my colleagues. I thank Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Senator Warner, Senator Reid, and others who have been involved in pushing the Department of Defense authorization bill forward, and I thank them for supporting those amendments. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak on the Children's Health Insurance Program as in morning business for a period of up to 10 minutes.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Like my colleague Senator Bob Menendez, I believe it is critical to recognize the contributions that Sylvia Mendez and her family have made to the advancement of civil rights. The Mendez family's struggle for equality is a reminder to me that we must continue to fight for equal and quality education for all our children. Sadly, many young Hispanic students today attend schools that are lacking in resources, equipment, and highly qualified teachers. Nationally, Latinos are four times more likely to drop out of high school than their White counterparts and only 1 in 10 Latinos has obtained a 4-year college degree. Reforms to our education system are clearly needed to address these disparities and continue the legacy of Sylvia Menendez. Education is a critical pathway to realizing the American dream. It is what allows every child to transcend the barriers of race, class, background, or disability to achieve their potential to be what they choose in life. A wise historian once said that, ``Education is the means by which we exult our successes and remedy our failures and the process by which we transmit our civilization from one generation to the next.'' We take this moment to recommit ourselves to uphold the legacy of Sylvia Mendez and her brothers. This is what Hispanic Heritage Month is all about.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments about H.R. 3074, the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations Act of 2007, which we passed earlier today by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. This bill will make much-needed investments in aging roads and bridges around the country. It will help make the skies safer for travel. It will revitalize struggling communities with economic development grants. And it will get a roof over the heads of many of the 200,000 veterans who find themselves homeless on any given night. I want to thank Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Bond, Chairman Byrd, Ranking Member Cochran, and all the members of the committee for their work on a bill that makes such wise investments in our transportation, in our communities, and in our veterans. This summer, as Americans took to the highways with their families, traveling long stretches of bumpy roads across aging bridges on their way to their vacation destination, they were painfully aware of our Government's neglect of our transportation infrastructure over the last several years. Potholes and traffic jams can take a toll on your car and your pocketbook. A 2006 survey showed that driving on rough roads is costing the average urban motorist about $383 a year in added vehicle maintenance costs. With gas inching back toward $3 a gallon, that is an added strain on a family's budget. Beyond this economic strain, though, failing and deteriorating infrastructure can lead to tragic consequences. Roadway conditions are a significant factor in approximately one-third of traffic fatalities. The August 1 collapse of I-35W in Minneapolis was among the most tragic examples of this danger. Thirteen people died, and around 100 were injured, when the eight-lane truss bridge collapsed into the Mississippi River. The Minneapolis disaster has engineers and planners around the country taking a second look at the condition of their bridges. And what they are finding is troubling. In Colorado, nearly 7 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient and need immediate attention. 110 bridges that belong to the State need full replacement. Another 375 need rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the backlog of bridgework that needs to be done in our State is an overwhelming $758 million. In Colorado and across the country, we desperately need more resources to get this work done. I believe the Senate made a wise investment when it voted overwhelmingly in support of Senator Murray's amendment to add $1 billion in dedicated funding for the Federal Highway Administration's bridge replacement and rehabilitation program. We also must recommit ourselves to investing in our roads and highways. They are the veins of commerce that sustain our economy. Our ability to move goods and people quickly and safely is absolutely fundamental to continued growth. The American people, and the people of Colorado, understand this. When I visit a town like Gunnison, maintenance and improvements to Highway 50, which links Pueblo and the Front Range with Gunnison and the Western Slope, is at the top of the list for local elected officials. When I visit Eagle County, Clear Creek County, and Summit County, I-70 investments are front and center. And when I meet with officials in Lamar, Springfield, and Eads, maintenance of Highway 287, part of the ``Ports to Plains'' corridor, is the topic of conversation. For each of these communities, good roads are essential for economic vitality. Across the political spectrum, across a broad range of interests and professions, Coloradans understand this. Two years ago, we voted to allow the state government to retain an additional $5.7 billion in revenues over 5 years to help fund our schools and our roads. The statewide referendum passed comfortably because the Colorado business community knows that failing infrastructure is a drag on an economy. Smart investments in bridges, roads, and airports yield strong returns over the long term. The bill we passed earlier today makes these needed investments in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. It allocates $65.7 billion to transportation, including $40.2 billion for highway construction. This will allow for us to move ahead with several vital projects in Colorado. Notably, the bill includes $5 million for continued construction of a new interchange near Gate 20 at Fort Carson. The Mountain Post is accommodating two additional brigades and is growing by approximately 12,000 troops over the next 2 years. Gate 20 allows soldiers and contractors to enter the base from Fountain, Pueblo, and points south of the base. The base commander, General Mixon, sees this as a top priority and we help him fulfill it with this bill. Additionally, the bill provides $2 million for work on the Ports to Plains Highway, U.S. 287, near Lamar. This builds on the over $11 million we have invested in his project over the past 3 years to build the capacity of this major north-south commercial artery. I have driven that road many times over the past few years, and it is improving steadily. You see more trucks on that road now, and you see more goods moving to market more quickly. In southern Colorado, we have included funding to restore a road leading to one of our newest national parks, Great Sand Dunes, in my native San Luis Valley. 300,000 visitors a year come to Great Sand Dunes. It is a boon to the local economy, and the $3 million for resurfacing State Highway 150 to the Sand Dunes will help more Americans see this treasure of the American West. But the transportation portion of this bill does not simply fund new roads. It also includes forward-thinking investments in mass transit solutions to reduce the wear and tear on our highways, to save gas, and to unclog traffic jams. This bill includes $70 million for the Denver Regional Transportation District's West Corridor Light Rail Project and $70 million for RTD's Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project. Coloradans know it as T-Rex. It blends light rail and highway improvements in one of the largest mass transit projects that is underway in the United States. It is changing how people commute and where they are choosing to live. This bill keeps Denver's transportation revolution on track. Finally, I would also like to express my strong support for the funding this legislation makes available for the community development block grant program. I have heard from public officials across Colorado, and they all tell me that the CDBG program is one of the most effective Federal Government programs available to cities, towns, and rural communities in our State, and across the Nation. Last year, Colorado alone received nearly $40 million from the CDBG program, with several towns and cities receiving in excess of $1.5 million apiece. While the President's budget would have cut this funding by 20 percent, the underlying legislation restores those cuts and provides $3.77 billion for the program. We should not be slashing funding for one of our most effective and efficient tools for energizing communities and improving housing infrastructure. This bill does the right thing and restores this program. I am proud of the bill that we passed--it sets the right priorities and makes smart investments in our transportation infrastructure and in our communities. I want to again thank Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Bond, the Appropriations Committee, and their staffs for their work on this bill. I hope it is signed into law.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to reflect on the life and service of a fallen Coloradan: PFC Dane Balcon of Colorado Springs. Private Balcon graduated from Sand Creek High School in 2006, joined the Army, and was deployed to Iraq in July with the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, out of Fort Hood, TX. Private Balcon was killed last Wednesday alongside CPL William T. Warford, III, of Temple, TX, when a roadside bomb exploded near their vehicle. Dane Balcon was 19 years old. Private Balcon was looking forward to a long career in the military. Since he was 3 years old he dreamed of being a soldier, of following the path of service that his father, John Balcon, and his mother, Carla Sizer, chose. Dane was eager for the opportunity to serve in Iraq, and was dismayed when his unit's deployment was delayed. He knew that the longer he was at Fort Hood, the longer another soldier would have to stay in theater. ``Every day I stay at Fort Hood,'' he told his mother, ``someone is away from their family.'' He wanted to get into the fight and lift his weight, so that the weight on others might be lifted. Dane's loss has left a hole for his community, his friends, and his family that no words can ever fill. At Sand Creek High School, Dane's friends remember a young man dedicated to his future in the military. He joined the ROTC program, was in the drum line, and had a voracious appetite for learning the soldier's craft. His charm won him widespread admiration and friendship. His habit of playing his drumsticks alongside an imaginary chorus during the school day exasperated his teachers, but his jokes would gain their smiles, and his heart would earn their respect. When he deployed in July, their thoughts and prayers, like those of his classmates, friends, and family, were with him. The values that led Private Balcon to enlist and to serve on the battlefields of Iraq are the values that have guided American soldiers for more than two centuries. ``Duty, honor, country,'' GEN Douglas MacArthur told young soldiers at West Point in 1962, ``these are the words that dictate what a soldier wants to be, can be, and will be. . . . They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for action; not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have compassion on those who fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the past; to be serious, yet never take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness; the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength.'' PVT Dane Balcon, who dreamt of serving his country and of devoting his life to its protection, embodied this creed. He donned the soldier's uniform at the first opportunity, he showed his bravery on the battlefield, and he perished in service. Duty, honor, country, GEN MacArthur's ``hallowed words'' characterize Private Balcon's sacrifice. They are the values of America's great soldiers, the giants to whom we owe our freedom. Theirs is a debt we cannot repay. To Carla and John, I cannot imagine the sorrow that you are feeling with the loss of your son. I hope that in time your grief will be salved by your pride in your son's extraordinary dedication to service. Dane served the Nation with honor and dignity. His sacrifice will never be forgotten. Chief Warrant Officer Scott Oswell Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on the life, service, and sacrifice of CWO Scott Oswell, who died on July 4 when his helicopter went down in Mosul, Iraq. Chief Oswell was on his second tour of duty in Iraq, piloting OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopters with the 4th Squadron, 6th U.S. Air Cavalry out of Fort Lewis. He was 33. Scott grew up the son of an Army officer and was a stoic servant of the greater good. He joined the Marines soon after graduating from Air Academy High School in Colorado Springs, CO. He later transferred to the Army, where he became a helicopter pilot and, in 2006, earned his instructor rating. At his funeral at Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver, friends and family spoke of Scott's devotion to his family and to his service. He was ``family man'' to his wife, Cheri, and to his three children, Caitlyn, Amanda, and Ian. He was a patient ``big brother'' to the pilots he taught. And he was a brave soldier to those with whom he served in Iraq, willing to risk his life to defeat an enemy or to lift others to safety. For his service to his country and his unit, and for his death on Independence Day on a mission to save another, Chief Oswell will always be remembered as a patriot. But he is also a patriot in a larger sense. Frances Wright, one of America's most famous lecturers, reminds us that patriotism is a virtue that characterizes an individual's dedication to the public good, to the preference of the interests of the many to the interests of the few, and to the love of liberty. ``A patriot,'' she told an Indiana crowd on July 4, 1828, ``is a useful member of society, capable of enlarging all minds and bettering all hearts with which he comes in contact; a useful member of the human family, capable of establishing fundamental principles and of merging his own interests, those of his associates, and those of his Nation in the interests of the human race.'' Chief Oswell wore his patriotism with humility. He did the job, and he did it well amid the perils of war. At Scott's memorial service, a fellow soldier recalled how they flew out to examine a suspicious flicker of light along a supply route to Baghdad. Finding an insurgent with a rocket-propelled grenade in hand, Chief Oswell hovered within the enemy's range, committed to preventing an escape. ``This guy is not going to get away,'' he said. Even with the best training and preparation, keeping calm and composed in difficult circumstances demands something more from an individual. Chief Oswell had what it takes. His friends recall that on missions he would often sing popular children's songs. He was steady and stoic. CWO Scott Oswell sacrificed his life for this Nation as a patriot, in service to something larger than himself. He accepted the great risks of being a pilot with a smile and used his talents and temperament to teach others what he had learned. His extraordinary courage is a lesson to us all, a debt we cannot repay, a loss we cannot replace. He was a father, a teacher, a pilot, and a patriot. We are humbled by his service and his sacrifice. To Chief Oswell's wife Cheri, to his children, Caitlyn, Amanda, and Ian, and to his parents, Barry and Nancy, I know that even now, no words can fill the hole left by Scott's death. I pray that you can find comfort in knowing that he was always, and will remain always, a true patriot. He will endure in our hearts and prayers.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in this Chamber, on the Republican side and the Democratic side, to vote yes on this amendment. In February of this year, the Army announced that it wanted to acquire an area the size of Rhode Island in the southeastern part of my State. I am not opposed to the possibility of expanding the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, but what we are asking for in our amendment is that we have a 1-year timeout for us to study the training capacity needs of the Army. If my colleagues care about private property rights, vote for this amendment. If they care about the ranchers of America and the ranchers of southeastern Colorado, I ask for a ``yes'' vote. And if they care about national security and making sure we are fiscally responsible in how we invest our money, vote yes on this amendment. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for up to 2 minutes of that time, followed by Senator Brown for the remainder.

Mr. SALAZAR. What is the pending business and the amount of time?

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Colorado for his views on this amendment. I also thank him for the work we do together in support of our military installations which we consider to be part of the crown jewel of the Nation's defense and homeland security, and we often work on those matters together. I will take exception with respect to a characterization concerning my amendment in that there is some inconsistency between what we did in the 2005 BRAC recommendations, which we all supported, and this particular amendment. The fact is, the BRAC, in its findings, said we would move the additional brigades into Fort Carson, that there was sufficient capacity to provide all the training that was required there at Fort Carson, and that is because Fort Carson has over 100,000 acres on its own site and 235,000 acres of additional land. Now the Army wants to acquire land that is going to make the Army's holdings at Pinon Canyon greater than the size of the entire State of Rhode Island. My question is, What has changed from January of 2005 until today? What has changed is that all of a sudden the Army has decided that it needs all this additional land. I go back to my initial argument, which is, if we care about private property rights, if we care about the ranchers in southeast Colorado, if we care about national security and making sure we are investing taxpayer dollars wisely, then it is important we do a timeout, which is all that my amendment does. I urge my Republican and Democratic colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak about an amendment we will be voting on in probably an hour and a half. It is amendment No. 2662, which has to do with the expansion of a training facility in my State of Colorado called the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. It is a training facility associated with Fort Carson. In February of 2007, a few months ago, the U.S. Army made an announcement it would move forward with an effort to acquire an additional 400,000 acres-plus of land in my State to add to this training facility. What I am asking my colleagues to do today is to join with me and a vast bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives in saying we need a timeout before we move forward. I ask my Democratic and Republican colleagues to join us in supporting amendment No. 2662. I say to everyone in this Chamber and to those who are listening, if you care about private property rights, you will support this amendment. If you care about ranchers and farmers in America, including those who make a living in southeastern Colorado, you will support this amendment. If you care about being wise in terms of how we spend taxpayers' dollars in expanding our military facilities, you will support this amendment. I wish to make a few remarks about its history, to put this into perspective. First, the Army in 1982 acquired 235,000 acres for the training facility now known as Pinon Canyon. That facility has been used since 1982. It is an integral component of the training capabilities for Fort Carson, CO. In 2005, the BRAC Commission, in its recommendations which were approved in the Senate, recommendations which I supported, added additional troops to Fort Carson. The findings of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission said that Fort Carson had sufficient training facilities to provide all the training that is needed for our troops stationed at Fort Carson. So the first question to be asked by all those who are going to be impacted by this 400,000-acre expansion is whether that amount of land is sufficient to carry on the training purpose required at Fort Carson. That question simply has not been answered. If the Army moves forward with the expansion of the additional 400,000-plus acres, we will have a Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado that will have 1,235 square miles. That is an area that is bigger than the size of the State of Rhode Island. Yet what the Army has proposed to do is acquire that land through condemnation or whatever necessary means to move forward with an unjustified need for an expansion of Pinon Canyon. I am not saying we ought not look at whether we need to have additional training facilities at Fort Carson. We certainly should take a look at that. But until we get the answers as to what has changed from January of 2005 until 2007 that requires the expansion of this training facility so we have a training facility the size of Rhode Island-plus, it is important we ask questions of the Army. I ask my colleagues to join us in moving forward with a timeout, with a 1-year moratorium on the EIS process which the Army has proposed, and during that 1 year we can ask some very important questions that will be important to those who will be most affected--the residents of southeastern Colorado. We need to ask those questions as well for the men and women in uniform, whom we train at Fort Carson and around our country, to be sure we have appropriate and adequate training facilities for them. Those are questions that do need to be asked. The Department of Defense authorization and appropriations bills will be coming up, and I have proposed and will introduce legislation that will be cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Allard, where we get those questions answered. When we have those questions answered, then we can make a thoughtful decision about how best to move forward in a manner that, first, enhances and protects the national security of the United States; No. 2, make sure we are protecting the private property rights of the ranchers who have lived in this area for sometimes three and four generations; and No. 3, the investments we make with respect to any expansion of Pinon Canyon are investments that make sense from a fiscal point of view. I ask my colleagues, when we get to amendment No. 2662 in about an hour, that they vote in support of this amendment. I conclude by saying there are two values that have driven me in my discussions on this issue of the expansion of Pinon Canyon over the last several months. The first of those values is we need to make sure we are providing the necessary training facilities for our soldiers at Fort Carson and those who will train at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. We need to make sure we are doing that, and we have a set of questions that need to be answered in that regard. Second, we need to be sure we are protecting private property rights. When one thinks about the fact that in these 400-plus acres, there are many ranchers who have been there for three and four generations, ranchers who have come to me with tears in their eyes, who talk about the fact that their wife is buried on their ranch and that they took the ranch from their father and their mother and from their grandparents, it seems to me that if there is an opportunity for us to make sure we are protecting private property rights, this is a time for us to say we are going to protect the private property rights of those ranchers. I say to my colleagues, I am not asking for the death knell to be put on any proposed expansion by the Army. All I am asking is that we have a 1-year timeout, a 1-year delay so we can get these fundamental questions answered on how we move forward with Pinon Canyon. I urge my colleagues to please support amendment No. 2662 when we vote on it in about an hour. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in support of my amendment and the position on the Pinon Canyon issue from Otero County, a resolution from Huerfano County, Las Animas County, Colorado Counties, Inc., LaJunta, the Bent County Commissioners, Baca County Commissioners, the Club 20, Action 22, Crowley County, as well as Alamosa County.

Mr. SALAZAR. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 2642, an act making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008. Let me say at the outset, the leadership of this committee has done a tremendous job in bringing forward legislation that hopefully will receive the strong bipartisan support of this body. I am especially thankful for the great work of Senator Jack Reed and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Senator Tim Johnson and his staff for having moved forward in developing a package that, at the end of the day here, will hopefully receive the support of most of the Members of this Chamber. This legislation is important for us as we move forward to try to make sure we are doing everything we can for a strong America. This is important for us, for our military, for our men and women in uniform, and for our veterans. It is essential legislation which we must pass and which we all hope the President will sign into law. With respect to military construction, the bill provides $8.9 billion-plus for our Active-Duty construction efforts and $929 million for the National Guard and Reserve construction. This includes key projects around the country for the Army National Guard. This is a significant improvement over what the President requested for the National Guard. It will be part of making sure we have a strong military for America. Second, the legislation fully funds the 2005 recommendations of the BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Account. That BRAC recommendation which was approved by this Senate and by the Congress now 2 years ago is an important document that charts the way forward for the American military. This legislation will fully fund the recommendations of that legislation. Third, with respect to Veterans Affairs, I am proud that this legislation will provide $87.5 billion for the VA. That is an increase of almost $3.6 billion over what the President requested. That increase will go to veterans health care and make sure our PTSD and mental health issues and TBI issues that we are seeing in great numbers as we are involved in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan--that we are providing the right kind of care to our veterans. I am appreciative of the national issues that are embraced in this legislation that will allow the funding to move forward and to make those projects a reality. I wish to comment on a few provisions in this legislation that are important to my State of Colorado. I must say, as we worked on these matters over the years, it has been my honor to work closely with Senator Allard as we worked on important projects for our veterans and for our military in my State. I wish to mention the Fitzsimons VA Hospital. There is $61 million in this legislation for Fitzsimons. Today in Colorado, the VA hospital in Denver is in very rough, shoddy condition. Our veterans deserve better. Over the last decade, there has been an effort in Colorado to try to establish a VA hospital that can become one of the crown jewels of our national health care. We are fortunate today that, under the leadership of MAJ Andy Lobb and others, we have found a site at what is the old Fitzsimons Army hospital which has been turned over to the city of Aurora and to an authority that is rehabilitating that site. At that site today, we have already located the health facilities and hospitals for the University of Colorado. We are about ready to open a brand-new children's hospital at this center. The VA hospital is the next move in the creation of what is going to be a crown jewel for health care and for biotech in the Rocky Mountain West. The Fitzsimons VA Hospital is very much a part of that program, but at its core it is making sure we in America are standing up and giving to the veterans of our country the health care services they deserve. Next, Fort Carson. Fort Carson is a very important military installation in my State and helps us protect our Nation. Many of the men and women who serve and have trained at Fort Carson are now serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan. There is $470 million in military construction funds for Fort Carson. That amount of money will accommodate the arrival of an additional 12,000 Active-Duty and 18,360 Active-Duty family members who are currently moving to Fort Carson. I am very proud of the inclusion of that amount of money in this legislation because it will allow us to warmly welcome the soldiers who are coming to Fort Carson, as well as their families, with the kinds of facilities they deserve. Schriever Air Force Base is part of our national defense. As I say, Colorado is blessed to be the crown jewel of the Nation's homeland defense and national security. We do that through many of our military installations, including Schriever Air Force Base. It is part of the air and space integration program. It is the place where we have our Air Force Space Command. It will receive $24.5 million for construction of the facilities that are needed there. The U.S. Air Force Academy, located since the 1950s in El Paso County in Colorado Springs, is one of our Nation's premier institutes in training the future military leaders of our country. It is an installation of which I am very proud. This legislation includes $15 million for upgrades to the academic facilities at the U.S. Air Force Academy. The National Guard and Reserves station at Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora, CO, is an important part of the Army installations in our State. This legislation will add $7.3 million to replace the outdated squadron operations facility that houses the F-16s of the 140th Air Wing of the Colorado National Guard. This is important legislation, and I am proud to be a supporter of this legislation. We also will be speaking at a later time this afternoon or this evening on several other amendments I want to bring forth which are important amendments to the future of the State of Colorado but also very important to the future of our Nation's military and assuring that our military has the appropriate training facilities. We will be speaking to an amendment I will be calling up in short order. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.