Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise to support the effort we have on the floor to address a national health care imperative, which is providing health insurance to 10 million young people in our country today. For me, when I come to this Senate every day and speak on behalf of the millions of people in my State of Colorado and around the country, I think about the biggest issues we are faced with, the biggest challenges of our time, the imperatives of the 21st century, and there are three in my mind. First is the questions we face in terms of foreign affairs and how we protect America and homeland security. We will have other occasions where we will deal with the fundamental issue of protecting America and making sure our homeland is secure. We took significant steps last week in that direction when we adopted the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The second issue is how we move forward and embrace a clean energy economy for the 21st century. With the committees that have reported legislation, including the Energy Committee, which adopted bipartisan legislation here, we took a step forward with that international imperative. The third issue that I think is an imperative of the 21st century is how we take the health care crisis we have--a system which is not working for the people today--and fix it. Today and this week is an opportunity for us, the Senate, to take a very major step toward making sure we are moving toward addressing the complex issue of health care and providing health care insurance to the 10 million children of America who, without this program, would wake up after September without the health insurance that provides them with an opportunity to live a healthy American life. So this legislation is very important for us to move through this body. I say also at the outset that we would not be here today had it not been for the bipartisan efforts of Senators Baucus and Grassley, in the leadership in the Finance Committee, joined by Senators Rockefeller and Hatch. The four of them moved this legislation forward today in the framework that gives us the great possibility of receiving an overwhelming bipartisan vote as we move this legislation out of the Senate. By all measures, we know our health care system is in crisis. We have 47 million Americans without health insurance today, and 9 million of them are kids. In Colorado, 20 percent of our population--1 in 5, or 780,000--lacks health coverage; 180,000 of those people in my State of Colorado are children. These are middle class citizens who are getting squeezed by the ballooning costs of health care. Two-thirds of Americans and 70 percent of Coloradans without health insurance work full time. They play by the rules, but still find coverage out of reach. For those who are able to afford health insurance, the picture is also grim. Health insurance premiums for family coverage have risen by over 70 percent since 2000. An employer-sponsored family coverage plan now costs nearly $10,000 a year. This is a huge chunk of a working family's income. Our health care system is in dire need of triage. We must start with those who are most vulnerable, our children, and see to it that they have the health care coverage they deserve. Covering our kids, providing them preventive care from doctors and nurses, ensuring that they grow up healthy and strong--this has been the focus of our health care work over the last several months in the Senate Finance Committee. This week we bring the bill to the floor with the hope that we will pass it swiftly and with broad, bipartisan support, so that we can give 10 million more kids the opportunity they deserve to live up to their potential. The reason we focus our first reforms of the health care system on our children is simple: every American child deserves the opportunities that come from a healthy start in life. The fact that 9 million of our kids--180,000 in Colorado--have no coverage is simply unacceptable. It is a massive liability not just for the health of our kids, but for their education and for our future economic security. The impacts of a lack of health coverage are clear: uninsured children are 6 times more likely to have unmet medical needs; uninsured children are two and a half times more likely to have unmet dental needs; one-third of all uninsured children go without any medical care for an entire year; uninsured children are less likely to do well in school due to absences from unmet health needs; and uninsured children are more likely to seek care from hospital emergency rooms, which are often the provider of last resort, the most costly venue for care, and the least equipped to provide the type of preventive and comprehensive follow-up care children need. As sobering as these statistics are, the stories of families and health care providers are even more compelling. Earlier this year, at Senator Baucus' suggestion, I traveled to Greeley, Fort Morgan, Fort Collins, Steamboat, Silverthorne, Grand Junction, Durango, Alamosa, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, and Denver to meet with health care providers, State officials, children's advocacy groups and families interested in the reauthorization of the Children's Health Plan. I heard harrowing tales about delayed health care that caused children's health to worsen. One school nurse told me of a boy who injured his leg during a school football game. Because his family could not afford to take him to a doctor, they applied ice to his leg and prayed it would get better. Unfortunately, the boy's leg, which was fractured, grew progressively worse, swelling to two times its normal size. The school nurse told me of the pain and anguish the child endured because his parents could not afford an expensive doctor's visit. I heard countless other stories of colds that turned into pneumonia, of ear aches that developed into ear infections, and of other illnesses that grew worse because parents could not afford to seek medical care for their kids. These families eventually had to take their kids to the emergency room for treatment, the most expensive venue for care, and one which typically doesn't provide the type of preventative or comprehensive follow-up care that our kids need. For millions of children and their families, for our hospitals, clinics and health care providers who can no longer shoulder the burden of uncompensated care, the time has come to provide health insurance to children in need. I am proud of the work that we have done on this bill in the Finance Committee. It will cover 10 million uninsured children. It is a huge step toward providing coverage for every uninsured child in America, and we have done it with overwhelming bipartisan support in committee. Unfortunately, the President seems to have a different perspective. He has already issued a veto threat. I believe he is wrong. For the sake of our children we must reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program, and we ask the President to help get it done. CHIP has become a critical resource to us in Colorado and nationwide, providing health care coverage to children who would otherwise go uninsured. I believe that it is our moral and economic obligation in Washington to invest in our children's healthcare, as our investment today, will pay off tomorrow. The President should embrace this proposal for children across the country, and I strongly urge the President to help us get it done. I want to take a moment to talk about what the bill does, because the veto threat implies a deep misunderstanding about its benefits. On the broadest scale, the bill before us provides insurance coverage to 3.3 million children who are currently uninsured, while maintaining coverage for all 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 onto CHIP, particularly children in rural communities where geographic distances and the lack of health infrastructure create barriers to enrollment. Twenty percent of all low-income children live in rural areas, and a significant percentage of them are uninsured. We can do better. The CHIP reauthorization also allows States to cover pregnant women. Children 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 can receive this coverage under our program. The bill also provides grants to States to improve dental benefits and helps improve coverage for mental health. In order to receive the Federal match, States that offer mental health services will be required to provide coverage on par with medical and surgical benefits under CHIP. Finally, the bill reduces bureaucratic hurdles and improves the program's efficiency by setting quality standards, by allowing States to verify citizenship through the Social Security Administration, and by establishing a pilot program to allow States to implement express lane enrollment. These are only a few of the key provisions in a bill that dramatically increases coverage for uninsured children across America. I look forward to a lively week of debate on this bill with the hope that we can further strengthen the package. Finally, I want to briefly talk about an amendment that I intend to offer, which will help States create and expand home visitation programs. In a home visitation program a nurse, social workers, volunteer, or other professional works with families in their homes to provide prenatal care, parenting education, social support, and links with public and private community services. Home visitation programs have existed in the United States since the 19th century and have a long and solid track record in improving children's health. My amendment is straightforward. It would create a $100 million grant program to fund cost-effective home visitation programs. It would also require a study of the cost-effectiveness of adding home visitation programs to coverage under CHIP. From my experience with these programs in Colorado, I think we will find that expanded investment in home visitation programs is a logical step toward improving children's health care. Nurse Family Partnership, one of our home visitation programs in Colorado, is a great example. It operates in 150 sites in 22 States, providing 20,000 low-income pregnant women with help from trained registered nurses. These nurses work closely with the families to increase access to prenatal care, foster child health and development and promote parental economic self-sufficiency. The statistics prove the success of the program. Nurse Family Partnership has been shown to reduce child abuse and neglect by 48 percent; reduce child arrests by 59 percent; reduce arrests of the mother by 61 percent; reduce criminal convictions for the mother by 72 percent; increase father presence in household by 42 percent; reduce subsequent pregnancies by 32 percent; reduce language delays in 21- month-old children by 50 percent; and reduce behavioral/intellectual problems of children at age 6 by 67 percent. A report recently released by the Brookings Institute praised Nurse Family Partnership as one of the most effective returns on investment in the healthy development of the next generation. Our amendment builds on the great promise that home visitation programs offer and strengthens CHIP's investment in the healthy development of our children. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment when we offer it. I want to again thank Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, and Senators Rockefeller and Hatch for their bipartisan leadership on this bill. This is a giant step forward in our Nation's steady march toward providing every child in America the chance to chase their dreams. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up an amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2516 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam 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 added as a cosponsor to the Graham-Pryor amendment, which is currently the pending amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I note at the outset this amendment is sponsored by Senator Menendez, myself, Senator Graham, and Senator Martinez. What it does, in a very simple statement, is say any funds we appropriate under this legislation with respect to our border security should be used to ensure the operational control that needs to be achieved for all our international land and maritime borders of the United States. This is an important amendment because the earlier amendment, which I cosponsored with Senator Graham, focused on the appropriation of moneys to go to the southern border, the border between Mexico and the United States. The fact is, those of us who are here working on homeland security should care and do care about making sure we have secure borders to this country, including our land and our maritime borders. So what this amendment does is it directs that these expenditures of moneys can be spent in securing our land borders to the north and to the south as well as our maritime borders of the United States of America. It is an amendment which is important, and there is an important statement to be made here. Much of the attention we have been giving to the southern border, in terms of the broken borders we are trying to fix in this immigration debate, has taken away the needed amount of attention we should be focused on with respect to the other borders. The fact is, we have a very broken system of immigration. We have a very broken system of our borders today in the United States of America. But it is not just the border with Mexico that is broken. It is also the border between the United States and Canada, and it is also our maritime borders that need additional security. So it is my hope that with this amendment we will be able to put attention on our maritime borders as well as our northern border. I wish to give a couple of examples about why it is that this amendment is needed. If you look at the number of examples we have with terrorists and other people who would wish to do us harm, they come in from across the borders, many of them come into this country legally and then they overstay their visas. One example of what we know from the north, and that is in December of 1999, the Jordanian police foiled a plot to bomb hotels and other sites frequented by American tourists. It was a U.S. Customs agent on the U.S.-Canadian border who arrested the person who was smuggling explosives intended for an attack on Los Angeles International Airport. So when we talk about homeland security and we talk about securing our border to the south, it is equally important we are securing our border to the north, and it is equally important we are securing our maritime borders as well. Another example: Recently, a human smuggling ring running undocumented work immigrants into the United States from Canada was dismantled. This was a human smuggling ring that was bringing undocumented workers through Canada. That ring was responsible for bringing dozens of Indian and Pakistani immigrants into the country. So I think these are examples that demonstrate if we are going to secure our borders, it is not just the border between Mexico and the United States that needs to be secured; it is all the borders of the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Menendez, Senator Martinez, Senator Graham, and me in the adoption of this amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak about amendment No. 2480, the Graham-Pryor amendment. Let me first say the legislation Senator Graham and Senator Pryor have brought to the floor this morning, in terms of an amendment, is essentially the same language and has the same legislative provisions we had in the comprehensive immigration reform package. They are good aspects of that legislation that allow us to move forward with securing and fixing our borders. As we went through the immigration reform debate, we said we had to do three things: First, we needed to enforce and fix our borders; secondly, we needed to enforce our laws within our country; and, thirdly, we needed to figure out a realistic solution to the reality that we have 12 million undocumented workers who are here in this country today. This amendment takes a part of those principal components and addresses it in a very effective way. Indeed, when you look through the language, what it does is it says we will hire 23,000 additional Border Patrol agents; we will have 4 unmanned aerial vehicles and 105 ground- based radar and camera towers; we will have 300 miles of vehicle barriers and 700 miles of fence; we will have a permanent end to the catch-and-release policy and additional funding to enhance employment verification; we will have increased removal and detention of visa overstays and reimbursement to State and local governments for immigration expenses. So that all is good. It addresses one of the fundamental components of immigration reform. So I am supportive of what we are trying to do here. I do wish to let my good friend and colleague, Senator Graham, and my good friend, Senator Pryor, know that the concern I have with the amendment, notwithstanding the fact that I will support it, is that it is all focused on the southern border. While it may be, and it is true our borders are broken, it is not just the border between Mexico and the United States that is broken. We have the same kinds of problems in our ports, we have the same kinds of problems along our northern border. This is, frankly, unfair in terms of focusing only on the Mexican border. We have to fix all our borders, not just the Mexican border. So while I will be supporting this amendment, I also intend to offer another amendment that will address the other broken borders we have in our country because I think that is a way to be fair about it. It is the only way in which we will ultimately achieve the objective we have, which is dealing with the national security of the United States of America. You cannot have national security when you have broken borders.

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today to praise the work of Senator Byrd, Senator Inouye, Senator Cochran, Senator Stevens, Senator Murray, and the entire Appropriations Committee for the work they have done on the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. This is a strong bill. It is an essential bill to protect our homeland. Our foremost duty here in the Congress is to make sure we are protecting America, and this bill is a significant step in the right direction. I agree with Senator Byrd and the majority leader that this must be the first appropriations bill for this fiscal year and that we must pass it this year. I hope we will pass it later today. A government's primary responsibility is in the protection of the homeland and keeping its citizens safe from attack. This bill will help us secure our borders, train and support our first responders, prevent the transport of nuclear materials, and strengthen our defenses against terrorists. We need not look far to understand the threats that face this country. September 11 brought the specter of terrorism to the front door of America. September 11 illustrated tragically and horribly the great threat extremist groups can pose to the United States. But September 11 is not the only terrorist attack we or our allies have endured in recent times. In 2002, a bomb in Bali killed 202 people and wounded 209. In 2004, bombs on trains in Madrid killed 191 people and wounded over 2,000. In 2005, attacks on London's Underground killed 52 commuters and injured 700. The list goes on and on. 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 11,000 to over 14,000. Three-fourths of these incidents resulted in death, injury, or kidnapping. All told, terrorism claimed the lives of more than 74,000 people around the world last year. Americans today know that they are not immune from attack. We know America is not immune from attack. We also know violent extremism is posing a growing threat to our society and to that of our allies. Americans expect their Government to respond to these threats with adequate resources, sound policies, and strong leadership. Unfortunately, our homeland is not as secure as it should be. A recent survey revealed that national security experts on both sides of the aisle agree that we have not come as far as we should have over the last 6 years. They agree that the Department of Homeland Security is underperforming. They agree that intelligence reform has not been effective. And they agree that too few resources are being allocated to the defense of our homeland and our Nation. The reports of holes in America's armor, from inadequate rail security to insufficient funding for screening at ports, along with the Government's recent record of failed responses to national disasters, such as the bungled leadership of Hurricane Katrina to a lack of National Guard equipment when a tornado tore through the State of Kansas--those incidents underline the urgency of passing a strong and smart bill that funds our homeland security. I wish to briefly describe three ways in which the additional funding in this bill is vital for our security. First, the funding levels allow us to improve security at the border and to enforce our immigration laws. Just a few weeks ago, during our immigration debate on this floor, we all agreed that we must get control of our border and know who is coming into this country. Now it is time for us to walk the walk. The bill before us would allow us to hire additional Border Patrol agents to protect our borders. It also includes funds for additional border fencing, infrastructure, and technology to monitor the vast open spaces we need to monitor and control. It also provides an additional $475 million for enforcement of customs and immigration laws within the United States. Our Nation is and must be a nation of laws. Second, I am proud that this bill supports our first responders--the firefighters, peace officers, nurses, and volunteers who rush in when others rush out. They serve us by devoting their time, their skills, their courage, and oftentimes their lives. We owe them the tools and resources they need to do their jobs. The bill before us provides money for State and local emergency preparedness programs, money for firefighter assistance grants in this program and funds for emergency performance grants. I am particularly pleased that this bill restores funds to our first responder and State training programs for law enforcement and firefighter operations that the President had proposed to cut. This bill, however, funds these provisions, and that includes $525 million for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, $375 million for law enforcement and terrorism prevention grants, $560 million for firefighter equipment grants, and $140 million to hire firefighters. I wish also to note that the bill makes a serious investment in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the crown jewel of training centers for the law enforcement community. A bipartisan group of us added a provision to the 9/11 Commission bill to create the Rural Policing Institute at FLETC to address the particular law enforcement needs of rural America. This was a need that I saw. It was very clear to me as attorney general for Colorado. The rural sheriffs and peace officers whom I spoke with during all of the time that I was attorney general and in crafting the Rural Policing Institute legislation agreed that the Rural Police Institute would be a valuable addition to FLETC. The $220 million in this bill for FLETC will help ensure that our peace officers continue to get the highest level of training they need as we deal with the reality we find in the post-9/11 world. It is going to be the eyes and ears and skills of the nearly 800,000 peace officers of America who will protect our homeland from the vicious kinds of attacks we saw in New York on 9/11, the vicious kinds of attacks that took 150-plus lives in Oklahoma City some years ago. So we must do everything we can to support our men and women who are in law enforcement at both the local and State level. This legislation does that. Finally, in addition to providing better protection along our borders and ports and more tools for law enforcement and first responders, this bill helps us to prepare to recover from an attack or a disaster. FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina sounded the alarm bells for all of us. Unfortunately, not everyone seems to have heard them. Not only does FEMA need better leadership and serious Congressional oversight, but it now needs the resources to do this job. The bill before us would provide $6.9 billion for emergency preparedness and response activity. That is a significant amount of additional money beyond what the President requested. Almost half of those dollars would go out to States and local preparedness programs. Once again, I wish to reiterate my appreciation for the bipartisan leadership which Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran, Senator Murray, Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and the other members of the Appropriations Committee have shown on this bill. It is right that this is the first appropriations bill that we consider because our homeland security must come first before everything else. The threat of attack on our soil is as great as it ever has been, and this bill is an important step toward ensuring America's first responders have the tools and the equipment and training they need to keep America safe. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Martinez and Senator Graham be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will help deliver clean energy technologies from the research pipelines of our labs into the hands of our farmers and ranchers, so that we can take better advantage of our farms and fields for clean energy production. This bill, called the Harvesting Energy Act, will bolster the energy title of this year's farm bill, building on the good ideas that Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss, and the rest of us on the Agriculture Committee have been working on for several months. I am proud that the Harvesting Energy Act reflects the broad-based, bipartisan input of the 25 by '25 coalition which, earlier this year, provided us with their policy recommendations for how we can produce 25 percent of our energy from renewable resources by 2025. The 25 by '25 vision has been endorsed by 22 current and former Governors and several State legislatures across the country, along with over 500 organizations and companies, including the Big Three automobile manufacturers, agricultural producers, and environmental groups. We established 25 by '25 as a national goal earlier this year when we passed the Energy bill in the Senate. We must now implement the policies that are necessary to achieve that goal. I have spoken many times about the urgency of moving this Nation toward energy independence by making better use of the resources we have here at home. Responsible development of our oil and gas resources, improved efficiency and conservation, and more aggressive investment in renewable energy technologies--these are the three pillars upon which we must build an economy that is less dependent on foreign oil. I do not need to remind my colleagues of the dangers that oil dependence poses to the United States and to global security. It is oil that empowers states such as lran, Venezuela, and Syria. It is oil that contributes to violence in Iraq, Nigeria, and the Sudan. It is oil that places Russia and China in a dangerous competition for oil in Central Asia and Africa. This Congress has made remarkable progress since January in confronting the daunting task of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It is an effort that has spanned several committees. The Energy bill that we passed in early June represented the diligent work of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Finance Committee. I was proud of the work we did on that bill, from creating meaningful oil savings targets to making smarter investments in renewables, improving vehicle standards, and establishing a national goal of producing 25 percent of our energy from our farms and fields by 2025. I am also proud of the energy work we are doing on the farm bill in the Agriculture Committee. Thanks to Chairman Harkin's leadership, the 2007 farm bill will build on the 2002 farm bill's first-ever energy title. This is an important step that recognizes the central role that our farmers and ranchers must play in a new, clean energy economy. We have the most productive lands and most efficient farmers in the world, allowing America to be the breadbasket for the global community. With these resources, talent, and ingenuity, there is no doubt that we can grow our way to energy independence. As I travel through Colorado, the possibilities of a clean energy revolution, driven by farmers and ranchers, are clear. In Weld County, Logan County, and Yuma County, we are seeing biofuel plants spring to life, creating new markets and new opportunities for our rural communities. In 2004, there were no ethanol plants in Colorado. Today, three plants produce more than 90 million gallons per year, and a fourth plant will come on line later this year, adding another 50 million gallons per year. But it is not just biofuels. In the San Luis Valley, where my family has lived for five generations, Xcel Energy just broke ground on the largest solar plant in North America. We have added 60 megawatts of wind capacity in Colorado in the last 2 years, and by the end of 2007, we will add another 775 megawatts, more than tripling the State's production of wind power to more than 1,000 megawatts. This is good for households along the Front Range that get clean, affordable power, and it is good for the ranchers in Prowers County, who own the land on which the turbines sit. These biofuel plants, wind turbines, and solar farms are revitalizing rural communities that have been withering on the vine. They are bringing life back to main streets that were boarded up and excitement back to farmers and ranchers who are eager to be a part of our clean energy revolution. The bill I am introducing today will help stimulate this revolution by getting more renewable energy technologies out of the development pipeline and into the fields, where they belong. It is based on the recommendations contained in the 25 by 25 Action Plan and builds on those ideas with important new initiatives to supplement the energy title of the farm bill. Our goal is to ensure that the renewable energy work being done at the Department of Energy and in colleges and universities throughout the country, in which we invested earlier this year through the Energy bill, is accompanied by a strong commitment at USDA to bring the resulting technologies and methods out to farmers and ranchers. USDA has a long history of identifying promising new production methods and technologies, refining them, and making them available to agricultural producers. The Akron Research Station in Washington County, CO, is a great example. For 100 years it has connected our farmers in eastern Colorado with the latest practical agricultural research available. USDA can and should be making the same efforts to disperse the latest and best developments from the renewable energy revolution to farmers and ranchers. I want to briefly describe four ways in which my bill will bolster USDA's capabilities in this area and help make the 25x'25 vision a reality. First, the Harvesting Energy Act of expands and extends Section 9006 of the farm bill, which offers competitive grants and loan guarantees to help farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses invest in proven clean energy technologies. My bill adds $280 million to section 9006, following the recommendations of the 25x'25 Agriculture Energy Alliance. This will ramp up the loan guarantees for cellulosic ethanol facilities, encourage community wind and other electric power projects, and expand the number of eligible applicants for these loans and grants. This is a responsible way to help more farmers become net energy producers of on-farm renewable energy. Second, my bill accelerates research, development, demonstration, and deployment of renewable resources such as biomass, wind, solar, and renewable natural gas. I am proposing that we devote an additional $200 million per year to these efforts, with the specific goals of bringing biomass energy feedstocks such as native grasses and short-rotation trees into production; perfecting our biorefinery and conversion technologies; refining biofuels from these biomass feedstocks; and making use of the biobased coproducts to add value to the process. Third, if we are to continue to expand biofuels production, we need to ensure that the supply is stable so that we don't encounter major shortages in droughts or in periods of adverse weather. Storing feedstocks like corn, oilseed crops, and biomass for cellulosic ethanol will better protect consumers from huge price fluctuations or shortages. My bill would create a voluntary biofuel feedstock reserve that would encourage farmers to store these feedstocks on-farm and make them available for biofuel production when a price spike or a shortage occurs. Fourth, the Harvesting Energy Act invests in research and development in new production technologies that promise to yield high energy returns and carbon storage. One of the key investments that this bill makes is in biochar. Biochar is a type of charcoal produced from biomass that is valuable as a soil amendment. The USDA and DOE are finding that they can produce biochar as a carbon-capturing byproduct of cellulosic ethanol production. This is good for farmers, who put the biochar back into the soil as a fertilizer, good for the environment because it reduces carbon emissions, and good for consumers because it could drive down cellulosic ethanol production costs. My bill would provide $50 million in competitive funding for research and development grants to scale-up and commercialize biochar production systems. Like so much else we are doing in the energy title of the farm bill, this would move ideas from the research pipeline out into the field, where they need to be. This bill includes a wide range of other provisions that build on the good work that the Agriculture Committee is doing on the farm bill. Like the provisions I have described, they aim to expand the menu of renewable energy options we have available as we work to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I again thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Chambliss for their leadership on the Agriculture Committee and for their commitment to creating a robust energy title in this year's farm bill. I firmly believe that with the right investments and a commitment from this Congress, our farmers and ranchers can help lead us down the path to energy independence.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will help deliver clean energy technologies from the research pipelines of our labs into the hands of our farmers and ranchers, so that we can take better advantage of our farms and fields for clean energy production. This bill, called the Harvesting Energy Act, will bolster the energy title of this year's farm bill, building on the good ideas that Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss, and the rest of us on the Agriculture Committee have been working on for several months. I am proud that the Harvesting Energy Act reflects the broad-based, bipartisan input of the 25 by '25 coalition which, earlier this year, provided us with their policy recommendations for how we can produce 25 percent of our energy from renewable resources by 2025. The 25 by '25 vision has been endorsed by 22 current and former Governors and several State legislatures across the country, along with over 500 organizations and companies, including the Big Three automobile manufacturers, agricultural producers, and environmental groups. We established 25 by '25 as a national goal earlier this year when we passed the Energy bill in the Senate. We must now implement the policies that are necessary to achieve that goal. I have spoken many times about the urgency of moving this Nation toward energy independence by making better use of the resources we have here at home. Responsible development of our oil and gas resources, improved efficiency and conservation, and more aggressive investment in renewable energy technologies--these are the three pillars upon which we must build an economy that is less dependent on foreign oil. I do not need to remind my colleagues of the dangers that oil dependence poses to the United States and to global security. It is oil that empowers states such as lran, Venezuela, and Syria. It is oil that contributes to violence in Iraq, Nigeria, and the Sudan. It is oil that places Russia and China in a dangerous competition for oil in Central Asia and Africa. This Congress has made remarkable progress since January in confronting the daunting task of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It is an effort that has spanned several committees. The Energy bill that we passed in early June represented the diligent work of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Finance Committee. I was proud of the work we did on that bill, from creating meaningful oil savings targets to making smarter investments in renewables, improving vehicle standards, and establishing a national goal of producing 25 percent of our energy from our farms and fields by 2025. I am also proud of the energy work we are doing on the farm bill in the Agriculture Committee. Thanks to Chairman Harkin's leadership, the 2007 farm bill will build on the 2002 farm bill's first-ever energy title. This is an important step that recognizes the central role that our farmers and ranchers must play in a new, clean energy economy. We have the most productive lands and most efficient farmers in the world, allowing America to be the breadbasket for the global community. With these resources, talent, and ingenuity, there is no doubt that we can grow our way to energy independence. As I travel through Colorado, the possibilities of a clean energy revolution, driven by farmers and ranchers, are clear. In Weld County, Logan County, and Yuma County, we are seeing biofuel plants spring to life, creating new markets and new opportunities for our rural communities. In 2004, there were no ethanol plants in Colorado. Today, three plants produce more than 90 million gallons per year, and a fourth plant will come on line later this year, adding another 50 million gallons per year. But it is not just biofuels. In the San Luis Valley, where my family has lived for five generations, Xcel Energy just broke ground on the largest solar plant in North America. We have added 60 megawatts of wind capacity in Colorado in the last 2 years, and by the end of 2007, we will add another 775 megawatts, more than tripling the State's production of wind power to more than 1,000 megawatts. This is good for households along the Front Range that get clean, affordable power, and it is good for the ranchers in Prowers County, who own the land on which the turbines sit. These biofuel plants, wind turbines, and solar farms are revitalizing rural communities that have been withering on the vine. They are bringing life back to main streets that were boarded up and excitement back to farmers and ranchers who are eager to be a part of our clean energy revolution. The bill I am introducing today will help stimulate this revolution by getting more renewable energy technologies out of the development pipeline and into the fields, where they belong. It is based on the recommendations contained in the 25 by 25 Action Plan and builds on those ideas with important new initiatives to supplement the energy title of the farm bill. Our goal is to ensure that the renewable energy work being done at the Department of Energy and in colleges and universities throughout the country, in which we invested earlier this year through the Energy bill, is accompanied by a strong commitment at USDA to bring the resulting technologies and methods out to farmers and ranchers. USDA has a long history of identifying promising new production methods and technologies, refining them, and making them available to agricultural producers. The Akron Research Station in Washington County, CO, is a great example. For 100 years it has connected our farmers in eastern Colorado with the latest practical agricultural research available. USDA can and should be making the same efforts to disperse the latest and best developments from the renewable energy revolution to farmers and ranchers. I want to briefly describe four ways in which my bill will bolster USDA's capabilities in this area and help make the 25x'25 vision a reality. First, the Harvesting Energy Act of expands and extends Section 9006 of the farm bill, which offers competitive grants and loan guarantees to help farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses invest in proven clean energy technologies. My bill adds $280 million to section 9006, following the recommendations of the 25x'25 Agriculture Energy Alliance. This will ramp up the loan guarantees for cellulosic ethanol facilities, encourage community wind and other electric power projects, and expand the number of eligible applicants for these loans and grants. This is a responsible way to help more farmers become net energy producers of on-farm renewable energy. Second, my bill accelerates research, development, demonstration, and deployment of renewable resources such as biomass, wind, solar, and renewable natural gas. I am proposing that we devote an additional $200 million per year to these efforts, with the specific goals of bringing biomass energy feedstocks such as native grasses and short-rotation trees into production; perfecting our biorefinery and conversion technologies; refining biofuels from these biomass feedstocks; and making use of the biobased coproducts to add value to the process. Third, if we are to continue to expand biofuels production, we need to ensure that the supply is stable so that we don't encounter major shortages in droughts or in periods of adverse weather. Storing feedstocks like corn, oilseed crops, and biomass for cellulosic ethanol will better protect consumers from huge price fluctuations or shortages. My bill would create a voluntary biofuel feedstock reserve that would encourage farmers to store these feedstocks on-farm and make them available for biofuel production when a price spike or a shortage occurs. Fourth, the Harvesting Energy Act invests in research and development in new production technologies that promise to yield high energy returns and carbon storage. One of the key investments that this bill makes is in biochar. Biochar is a type of charcoal produced from biomass that is valuable as a soil amendment. The USDA and DOE are finding that they can produce biochar as a carbon-capturing byproduct of cellulosic ethanol production. This is good for farmers, who put the biochar back into the soil as a fertilizer, good for the environment because it reduces carbon emissions, and good for consumers because it could drive down cellulosic ethanol production costs. My bill would provide $50 million in competitive funding for research and development grants to scale-up and commercialize biochar production systems. Like so much else we are doing in the energy title of the farm bill, this would move ideas from the research pipeline out into the field, where they need to be. This bill includes a wide range of other provisions that build on the good work that the Agriculture Committee is doing on the farm bill. Like the provisions I have described, they aim to expand the menu of renewable energy options we have available as we work to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I again thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Chambliss for their leadership on the Agriculture Committee and for their commitment to creating a robust energy title in this year's farm bill. I firmly believe that with the right investments and a commitment from this Congress, our farmers and ranchers can help lead us down the path to energy independence.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, it is, frankly, regrettable that as we work on this floor on an issue that is absolutely important to the people of this country; that is, the future of our children and their education and providing them with the opportunity to have the American dream, that we are having to have votes on politically motivated amendments that are coming forward from the other side. It would be in the best interest of this institution and the American people to stop this and not to go forward with these kinds of amendments. Regrettably, if you are going to shoot this way, we have to shoot that way. I ask my colleagues to send the sense of the Senate to the President of the United States that he should not pardon Scooter Libby.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I thank my good friend, the distinguished Senator Robert Byrd, for allowing me to go first to make a few comments about the importance of education and the bill we are considering on the floor today, the Higher Education Access Act of 2007. First, when we talk about education, it ought not to be lost on any Member of the Chamber that educational opportunity is the keystone to success for all of us in America. In my own personal story, my parents never had an opportunity to go to college or to get a college degree. And in my family, though we were poor and we grew up without a lot of material wealth, they were rich in spirit and believed in the fundamental values that have made America great. They believed in hard work and in faith. They believed the community was there for an important reason. They understood, without a doubt, that education was in fact the keystone to success. I often remember sitting there at the ranch in southern Colorado, almost 300 miles south of Denver, with a kerosene lamp on the table and the eight siblings around the table and my father and mother making sure we were doing our homework. My father would say to all of us: I cannot leave you large ranches or riches, but the one thing I can make sure I give to you is an education. It is perhaps because of his teachings and his understanding of the promise of America that all eight of his and my mother's children became part of the American dream. All eight became first-generation college graduates, and today I stand on the floor of the Senate as a Senator. I have a brother, Congressman Salazar, who is in the House of Representatives, also serving our great Nation and serving the State of Colorado. As I think about those educational achievements we have had, it would not have happened were it not for the promise of America, the programs that have been created by so many people who came before me. I was on the floor earlier serving as Presiding Officer when Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island spoke about Claiborne Pell. It is true that I was in Rhode Island not so long ago at an event when Senator Claiborne Pell arrived at this event. He was wheeled to the tent, in fact, in a wheelchair. Someone whispered to me that the person who just arrived on the scene was none other than Claiborne Pell. It was for the first time that I connected the dots. I remember going through college and receiving Pell grants that allowed me the opportunity to go to college. But I never knew that the term ``Pell'' was somehow associated with someone who actually sat two desks to my left here at one point in time. That is the great Senator Claiborne Pell from the State of Rhode Island who came up with the idea that the promise of America was somehow embedded in the opportunity to receive a good education. He believed, as many of us here believe, that economic barriers should not be the reason why someone does not advance in higher education. Everyone who wants to go into higher education should have that opportunity to do so. Yet, somehow today when we look at the reality of America, the fact is the educational opportunity that was there for me and hundreds of thousands of my generation is being slowly taken away from our American youngsters. We have been headed in the wrong direction, and it is for that reason that this legislation, which Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and the members of the HELP Committee, with a vote of 17 to 3, was brought to the floor of the Senate today. I am proud to be a supporter, a strong supporter, of this legislation because it will keep hope alive in America with the American dream that results from the education that is provided to the people of our great Nation. When we look at what is happening today in terms of educational opportunities for Americans, it is getting harder and harder for our young people to access higher education. Madam President, 400,000 talented, qualified students each year--that is 400,000--decide they cannot go on to higher education because of economic barriers--400,000 talented young Americans, successful young Americans who should have an opportunity to go on to higher education. That is what this bill is all about. This bill is about tearing down those barriers so that these young people, these 400,000 talented young people have an opportunity to be a part of the American dream. When one looks at what has been happening over the last several years as we have invested and continue to invest in education, the fact is we have not invested enough. The fact is, when we look at the statistics, while we have invested in educational opportunities and access to higher education, the investment has been a flat investment. So by the time we take into account general inflation and particularly the high rate of inflation in higher education, we have been on a roadway that has been disinvesting in opportunities for the young people of America. If we look at the white lines on this chart, what they show is what the maximum Pell grant has been from 2001 to 2007. We essentially see a flat line across right at about $4,000. During that same time period, we see what has happened with respect to the cost of education. We have gone from a point of a little over $8,000 to an average of over $13,000. The gap has increased. We had a gap of $5,282 in 2001, and today the gap is $8,700. What has happened in the last 5 years, as a good friend of mine from the University of Michigan calls it, is the disinvestment in America's future. What we are doing is taking away opportunities for the young people of America. The bill before us today rights that wrong and puts us in the right direction to investing in the education of our young people. This legislation is important because it raises the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next year. It is about time. It is about time we do that. We have waited far too long to increase Pell grants for young people. Secondly, it provides loan forgiveness for those borrowers who serve in areas of national interest--those values of early childhood education, librarians, highly qualified teachers, speech language pathologists, and others. It makes sure we provide loan forgiveness for those people who decide to take jobs to serve others. In addition, the program creates a forgiveness of a balance due on direct loans by borrowers who have been public sector employees for 10 years and who have made 120 income-contingent payments on their loans. The legislation also makes Federal loan payments by student borrowers contingent by capping payments of 15 percent of an individual's income and allowing those borrowers to have their loans forgiven after 20 years of payments. This is an important issue, particularly when we see how much debt is being put on the saddles of young Americans as they are graduating from college and graduate schools. There are a number of other provisions in this legislation that are very important. Finally, with respect to my own State of Colorado, I want my own State, as every Senator here, to make sure we are providing a maximum opportunity for young people, and these programs I mentioned will do that. For the State of Colorado, this means we will have $320 million more in student aid over the next 5 years. I am proud of this legislation. I am proud of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, on the HELP Committee who have brought this legislation forward. I urge my colleagues to support it wholeheartedly as part of making sure that the American dream we live today is a dream that this generation and other generations behind it will be able to achieve. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, through the Chair to my good friend from Oklahoma, I enjoy our work together on many multiple fronts, but with respect to former Senator Cleland, I did see the pain from the attacks that were made against him in Georgia. With respect to what you refer to, my friend from Oklahoma, concerning, quote, ``the surrender resolution,'' in my view, from what I have heard from my colleagues here as we have entered this debate, it appears what we are talking about is a way for an orderly disengagement from Iraq.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for a question?

Mr. SALAZAR. My question----

Mr. SALAZAR. May I ask a question? Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for a simple question?

Mr. SALAZAR. It is my understanding that even under the Levin-Reed amendment there would be a significant troop presence that would remain over the long term in Iraq for the limited missions that are defined in that legislation. Is that not correct?

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come here to the floor this morning to speak about the strategy that we are moving forward with in Iraq. I also come here to say the debate over the last several days, including overnight, has been a very important debate and one we do need to have. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve the debate that is taking place here in the Senate. As the sun rises today across America, it is midafternoon in Baghdad, in Iraq. There the temperatures are close to 100 degrees as we speak. In Iraq today we know there are almost 160,000 men and women in uniform who are serving there, doing the duty they have been called to do on behalf of a grateful nation. So it is for them, for the 160,000 troops we have in Iraq today, for the 1.4 million veterans of both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, that we in the Senate should have a debate about our way forward in Iraq. I, therefore, say to my colleagues who have come to the floor as the night has gone on and have said things such as this is all about cut and run, this is about surrender, this is a political stunt, that they are wrong. With all due respect, those kinds of labels are not helpful as we deal with what is a fundamental American issue, the issue of war and peace and the way forward for all of us here in this country and the way forward for our Armed Forces. Those kinds of labels, those kinds of attacks are not worthy of the reason the American people sent us all here to this body to try to define and devise the best policies for America, the best of policies that will make America strong, the best of policies that will restore America's standing in the world, the best of policies that will honor and recognize that contribution of the greatest generation of America, the generation of World War II. That kind of labeling is not worthy of trying to bring us together in a manner and a way that will help us find stability in Iraq, in the Middle East, bring our troops home, and achieve the goals I believe at the end many of us would agree upon in the Senate. I do not believe the long debate over all of last night has been at all a lost cause. It is important for those of us, the 100 Members of the Senate, who represent the 300 million people of America to come to the floor and give voice to the future of the most fundamental national security issue of our time. The most fundamental national security issue of our time is how we deal with the issue of terrorism, how we deal with creating stability in the Middle East and, ultimately, how we bring our troops home out of harm's way. This debate on those fundamental issues is one that is worth having. Those who would demean, who would take away, who would detract from the importance of this question by trying to use labels--such as ``surrender'' or ``precipitous withdrawal,'' ``cut and run''--do not do a service to the country in advancing a policy that is worthy of the sacrifice so many have made. I hope as we move forward, not only in today's debate and in the vote that will take place later on this morning, as well as when we deal with this issue in July and perhaps into the August recess, perhaps into September, perhaps into October, that we will be able to find a common way forward. I am reminded, as I was listening to some of the labeling that was going on here last night, of a campaign that took place in Georgia in 2002, where a great American by the name of Max Cleland, who had given so much of his life, his blood, and his limbs for the freedom of America in Vietnam, was used as a political pawn in that election of 2002 by people here in Washington and other places who dared put the label on him as unpatriotic. This man, who gave so much to his country, who was willing to give the very last ounce of devotion and courage in his life to do the ultimate sacrifice, was labeled as unpatriotic. So the labeling we see taking place here in this debate on the Senate floor through the night and through the rest of the day smacks of that same kind of labeling that is unworthy of our purpose in the Senate. I hope as we move forward, we can find a way of working together to address the reality and the difficulty of the issues we face. Our troops know the importance of this debate. The 1.4 million veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families know the importance of this debate. There is probably not a Member of this Chamber today who has not spent many hours, both in Iraq, as well as with our troops back home, and in Afghanistan talking to them about the reality on the ground, what it is that they see, how it is conditions are unfolding, and how it is that they believe we ought to move forward with a policy that is worthy of their bravery. The solemnity of this debate should not be lost on America, as the sun rises over this country. The solemnity of this debate should not be lost, particularly when we think about the men and women who have given their lives already in this cause in Iraq. As of today, just from my State of Colorado, at the top of the Rocky Mountains--my State of Colorado--we have had 51 members of Colorado's population killed in Iraq. We have had 443 who have been wounded in Iraq. U.S. casualties in Iraq today are 3,618--3,618 Americans have given their lives in Iraq. So the solemnity of this debate should be one that should honor those who have given their lives in the effort in Iraq, as they have done the duty commanded by the Commander in Chief. Beyond those who have given their lives and the sacrifice their families have made to this effort, we also must remember the solemnity of this time and this moment when we think about the 26,806 Members of our armed services who have been wounded in Iraq. Many of us have spent time at Walter Reed or spent time with veterans back home where we see what has happened to the lives of those who have lost their limbs, who have had traumatic brain injuries. Eighteen percent of those who have gone from Fort Carson, CO, have returned with a traumatic brain injury. It is for those people that we must make sure we have a solemn debate devoid of the politics, devoid of the politics that we see taking place with the labeling that is occurring here today. There is no doubt that as we look at what has happened in now what is almost a 5-year war in Iraq, there is a legion of mistakes that have been made. My friends on the other side of the aisle will concede there have been major mistakes made, that in the early years of the war effort there were mistakes made on intelligence, mistakes made on the information that was provided to the Congress, multiple mistakes in terms of looking at the way forward and simply not being able to find it. I believe when the President landed on the naval carrier and said the mission had been accomplished, in his heart and in his mind he did believe the mission had been accomplished. He did believe the mission had been accomplished because the government of Saddam Hussein had been toppled. Our brave men and women--some 300,000 men and women strong-- had gone in and had taken the Iraqi Republican Army down and had toppled Saddam Hussein. So when the President said ``mission accomplished,'' now 4 years plus ago, I think he believed that was in fact the case. But it was also an absolute failure to be able to look ahead at the reality of the complexity and the political conditions that existed in Iraq at the time. I believe those who testified before the Congress in those days and said it would cost less than $50 billion to undertake this effort--I believe they were telling the American people what they thought was the case. But, sadly, they were very mistaken because we now knock on the door of having invested not $50 billion, not $100 billion, not $200 billion, not $300 billion, not $400 billion, but we are over the $500 billion mark. How could we as America be 12 times off the mark--12 times off the mark--in terms of what this war would cost the American taxpayer? How could we be so far off the mark, perhaps 100 times off the mark in terms of the number of men and women who would be killed in Iraq? No one ever anticipated 4\1/2\ years ago that there would be over 3,600 Americans who would be killed in Iraq. So there has been a legion of mistakes that have been made. History will look at those mistakes. History will look at those mistakes and reach its own judgment. Let me say, we should learn from those mistakes, as we move forward. In my view, that is what the Iraq Study Group did. That was a commission, in fact, that was created by legislative action of this Senate and the House of Representatives and signed by the President. It was a kind of template for which I believe we should strive to find a way of re-creating here in terms of their tenure and their approach to this fundamental issue of war and peace. President John Kennedy said, at one point: So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. Let me say that again. He said: ``let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved.'' We have differences here on the floor of the Senate this morning, as the sun rises across America. We have had differences over the last 4\1/2\ years with respect to this war and the direction of this war. But I hope we find it among ourselves, Democrats and Republicans, to find a way forward together. I think if we do that, we will reach the vision and the aspiration that was articulated by President Kennedy when we find ourselves in the position where we have these fundamental differences among us. I want to spend a few minutes on what I think is a good way forward for all of us. The Iraq Study Group--again, made up of 10 of the most prestigious Americans, people who have earned every right to be called the statesmen of America--came up with a number of recommendations and a number of findings. But at the beginning of the report, it is important for us to remember that in December of 2006--now some 7 months ago--the Iraq Study Group said: The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. ``Grave and deteriorating.'' There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved. It is with that thought in mind that many months ago I began to work, especially with Lee Hamilton, and with former Secretary James Baker, to craft legislation to implement the Iraq Study Group recommendations. Those recommendations that are set forth in the amendment which we have filed, which is cosponsored by 14 of our colleagues, is a way forward that establishes a new direction in Iraq. It does some things which are perhaps from the point of view of some not enough; but in the point of view of others, I think they are very important things for us to do, because for the first time as part of United States policy what we say is: No. 1, we will move forward to transition the mission from combat to training and support. We will do a mission change--a mission change--from combat to training and support. So our combat mission will be something we will transition out of Iraq. They also say, and we include in the legislation, that as part of national policy we set forth a goal that this transition can, in fact, be completed by the early part of 2008. That is some 9 months from where we stand today. In addition, what this legislation does, as a matter of United States law, is for the first time it sends a clear, unequivocal signal to the people of Iraq and to the Iraqi Government that these billions of dollars we are spending, and the huge amount of military support and effort we are putting into Iraq is going to come to an end, that our efforts are conditioned upon the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government making substantial progress toward making their Government work and providing security on the ground. Thirdly, what the legislation does, as a matter of our policy in the Senate, is set forth the major diplomatic offensive that is ultimately necessary to bring about a peace in the very complex and difficult situation we face not only in Iraq but also throughout the Middle East. I do hope we have at some point an opportunity to vote on that amendment. Finally, with respect to the Iraq Study Group, I heard a couple of criticisms about our legislation. One of those criticisms is that it is outdated. I would say it was not a snapshot. Those recommendations-- that were put forth in December by a group that spent about $1 million in putting together that report, and spent countless days and weeks and months in coming up with the only coherent set of bipartisan recommendations on the way forward--those recommendations are as valid today as they were back in December. Congressman Lee Hamilton wrote a letter on July 9 addressed to me, and for others who are working on the bill with me. What his letter said, in conclusion, is that our legislation ``outlines the best chance of salvaging a measure of stability in Iraq and the region. It provides a bipartisan way forward on a problem that cannot be solved unless we come together to address this singular national issue.'' I am hopeful we will be able to find that way forward. Let me conclude then by saying this: Some people have said our efforts here in the last several days, including the all-night session--sleepless here in Washington, DC; watching the night come, watching the sunrise here in Washington, DC--has been a political stunt. It is not a political stunt when the voices of 100 Senators, or at least some of those Senators, are heard on this floor debating how we ought to move forward on the most fundamental issue of national security of our time. It is for that reason that I commend the majority leader and I commend those who have called on us to make sure we put the spotlight on such an important issue. I commend them for their courage, and I am hopeful that as our country and our Senate moves forward in trying to deal with what is a seemingly intractable issue perhaps we can think back to the Scriptures, we can think back to the Book of Matthew, and remember what was said where He said: Blessed are the peacemakers. Blessed are the peacemakers. It is the peacemakers ultimately who will help us chart a new and different direction forward in Iraq that will help us achieve the success I believe 100 Members of this Senate want; and I believe that is to bring our troops safely home, and to create the best conditions to salvage a measure of stability in Iraq and in the Middle East. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his statement. Frankly, it was not great interruption. He had major procedural business to bring before the floor of the Senate and I very much understand. The budget authority for the Air Force is equally robust, putting additional money behind some of our key space and missile defense programs. Many of our communications, intelligence, and missile detection satellites--a large number of which are flown by the 50th Space Wing out of Buckley--are reaching the end of their lifespan. Every day, though, they grow more and more central to troops on the ground. The bill provides important investments in our space assets, including $126.7 million for the Space-Based Infrared Satellite System to replace outdated missile detection satellites, and another $300 million to improve our space situational awareness, to help address concerns raised as a result of the Chinese antisatellite test earlier this year. Ask the space professionals, as I have at Schriever, Buckley, or Peterson Air Force Base, and they will tell you how much these investments are needed. Beyond the funding for equipment and facilities in the bill, however, there are several key quality-of-life provisions in this legislation that the Armed Services Committee has brought before us. Supporting our troops, after all, means we support them in the field and we support them at home. We should help them be successful not just as soldiers but as mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, husbands, and wives. Part of our support includes passing the Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act, which we passed last week. The bill requires the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to create a comprehensive policy for servicemembers who are transitioning from the DOD health system to the VA system. As evidenced by Walter Reed, the current system is not up to the standards that any of us would want for our men and women who have served our country so proudly. I am also pleased that the underlying bill includes a 3\1/2\ percent pay raise for our military personnel, it rejects the administration's proposal to raise TRICARE fees, and requires the DOD to develop a plan to address the findings of an internal assessment of the well-being of soldiers and marines in Iraq. These steps are all important for the quality of life and health of the servicemembers of our Armed Forces. Mr. President, I again thank Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, Senator Reid, Senator Nelson, and others who have been involved in taking such a large step forward for our Nation's defenses, and which provides so much common ground from which we can work. It is a solid bill. It is a solid bill which I hope will be further strengthened by the time it passes this Chamber. I want to very briefly speak about four amendments that I have filed. First, I have filed an amendment with Senator Alexander to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, and I look forward to the debate on that amendment in more detail later this week. We need to find common ground on how we move forward with the United States policy in Iraq. Second, Senator McConnell, Senator Allard, Senator Bunning, and I have filed an amendment, amendment No. 2061, to set 2017 as a hard deadline for chemical weapons destruction and to increase funding for the weapons destruction programs at Pueblo, CO, and in Bluegrass, KY. Our amendment adds $44 million for MilCon, military construction, funding at these sites. Third, amendment No. 2110; that will help the Department of Defense protect military installations against encroaching development. My amendment builds on recently released DOD and RAND Corporation reports and pushes the Department to allocate additional resources, provide additional staff, and more aggressively implement the authorities Congress provided to confront the encroachment challenges at many of our bases. Fort Carson, in my State of Colorado, is a prime example of how an effective DOD encroachment program can make sure the military training at the facility is not compromised by development. At other places and other bases in my State--Buckley Air Force Base, Schriever, and Peterson--the Air Force and we in the Congress have a lot more to do to make sure we don't compromise the military training mission of those facilities. Finally, Senator Sessions and I have filed an amendment to provide better support for the Paralympic programs that serve our servicemembers and veterans. My amendment will allow the Office of Special Events at the Department of Defense to provide transportation, logistical support or funding for the Paralympic Military Program and for certain national and international Paralympic competitions. The Paralympic program is invaluable to wounded warriors who are recovering from injuries, and DOD should be allowed to assist with the program when it benefits our servicemembers and veterans. Again, I thank the leadership of the Armed Services Committee and all its members for bringing forward a bill that is truly a very solid, excellent bill. I thank my colleague, Senator Reed, for his indulgence in letting me precede him. I yield the floor.