Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Troops to Teachers Improvement Act of 2007, which will help more of our veterans and service members find second careers in our classrooms. This bill will expand the accessibility of this program, so that more military personnel will be able to enroll, receive $5,000 toward their teaching certification, and teach in a school near their home. I am proud to be joined by Senator Chambliss, Senator Collins, and Senator Allard in introducing this legislation. On the House side, Congressman Petri and Congresswoman Matsui have introduced a companion to this bill. Since it was created in 1994, the Troops to Teachers program has helped place over 10,000 new teachers in classrooms around the country. The program provides guidance, teacher certification assistance, and bonuses for military personnel who give at least three years of service in the classroom. When Congress established the Troops to Teachers program, it created two levels of bonuses for military personnel and veterans who participate. An individual was eligible for a $5,000 stipend so long as he or she taught in any school in a district that received Title I funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This meant that an individual could teach three years in any of a vast majority of schools in the country and still be eligible for the $5,000 bonus. Congress allowed a person to receive an additional $5,000 if he or she taught three years in a school that served a high percentage of disadvantaged students. The total bonus of $10,000 was meant to draw these talented new teachers into schools that needed them most. For over a decade, this bonus structure was highly successful. In Colorado alone, the program has provided around 80 new hires a year to schools where new teachers are desperately needed. But in 2005, the Department of Education limited the number of schools that were eligible to participate and therefore made it more difficult for individuals to receive the baseline $5,000 bonus. The Department of Education was able to do this because when the Troops to Teachers program was reauthorized under the No Child Left Behind Act, there was a mistake in the reauthorization language that created confusion about which schools an individual may teach in order to be eligible for the $5,000 bonus. As I pointed out a moment ago, when Congress created the Troops to Teachers program, it said that an individual could receive the bonus if he or she taught in a ``high- need'' school, that is, in any school in a district that received Title 1 funding. In Colorado, that meant that around 98 percent of school districts qualified. But, because Troops to Teachers was mistakenly placed in a section of NCLB with a different definition of ``high need,'' an individual can now only receive the $5,000 bonus if he or she teaches in a school that has more than 10,000 students or has more than 20 percent of its students from families below the poverty line. As a result of this change, enrollments in the Troops to Teachers program have dwindled over the past two years. Western and rural States, in particular, have been negatively impacted. In Colorado, new hires out of Troops to Teachers have dropped from 79 for the 2003-2004 school year to 43 for the 2006-2007 school year. This drop-off in new hires from Troops to Teachers is problematic for several reasons. First, we should be finding ways of attracting new teachers to our classrooms, not devising bureaucratic barriers that keep them out. Experts predict that we will need approximately 2 million new teachers in the next decade, and we need teachers who will give more than a year or two of service. Today, half of newcomers to the teaching profession last less than five years. The good news is that Troops to Teachers has an 83 percent retention rate for its teachers. A full 223 of the 343 original participants are still teaching today, more than a decade after the program's creation. Troops to Teachers also helps fill a need for diversity in the classroom--83 percent of program participants are male, compared to 18 percent of teachers nationally, and 37 percent are ethnic minorities, compared to 15 percent of teachers nationally. The second problem with the new eligibility criteria is that it disproportionately hurts rural veterans and rural school districts. It's hard to find a school district in western Colorado or on the eastern plains that has 10,000 students. Are we expecting a Troops to Teacher participant living in Yuma County, population 9,789 to drive to Denver to teach in an eligible school there so they can receive the $5,000 stipend? The third problem with the new criteria is that it hurts retiring service members who want to pursue a second career in education. This country has a long history of providing educational benefits to our men and women in uniform through the 1944 GI Bill and successive legislation. Troops to Teachers furthers this great cause by helping our men and women in uniform extend their education and earn a teaching certificate. With over 1.3 million veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom are currently transitioning back to civilian life, we have an opportunity to bring the best and the brightest who are now serving in the military straight into the classrooms, where they can continue to extend their service to their country. The bill I'm introducing today provides a simple fix to the problems that arose for the Troops to Teachers program under the No Child Left Behind Act. The bill simply says that if there is no school within 50 miles of the home of a Troops to Teachers participant, the individual may teach in any school in a district that receives Title 1 funding and receive the initial $5,000 bonus. This bill will allow thousands of retiring service members in rural communities to take advantage of the Troops to Teachers incentives and transition to a second career in the classroom. I also want to point out that this bill still prioritizes schools that fit the current definition of ``high need''--that is, schools with over 10,000 students or with 20 percent of its students from families below the poverty line--but it also provides an outlet if there are no schools in the area that fit those criteria. This bill does not affect the additional bonus that Troops to Teachers participants have always been able to receive if they teach in a school with a high percentage of disadvantaged students. I am hopeful that when we reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, we take another look at Troops to Teachers to help make it more accessible to veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, National Guard members, and reservists. Troops to Teachers is a good program that should be strengthened and supported when it is reauthorized. Yet, we shouldn't wait until then to fix this needless problem that is hampering the program's effectiveness today. I urge my colleagues to support this problem, today, by supporting the quick, straightforward solution that this bill provides. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Troops to Teachers Improvement Act of 2007, which will help more of our veterans and service members find second careers in our classrooms. This bill will expand the accessibility of this program, so that more military personnel will be able to enroll, receive $5,000 toward their teaching certification, and teach in a school near their home. I am proud to be joined by Senator Chambliss, Senator Collins, and Senator Allard in introducing this legislation. On the House side, Congressman Petri and Congresswoman Matsui have introduced a companion to this bill. Since it was created in 1994, the Troops to Teachers program has helped place over 10,000 new teachers in classrooms around the country. The program provides guidance, teacher certification assistance, and bonuses for military personnel who give at least three years of service in the classroom. When Congress established the Troops to Teachers program, it created two levels of bonuses for military personnel and veterans who participate. An individual was eligible for a $5,000 stipend so long as he or she taught in any school in a district that received Title I funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This meant that an individual could teach three years in any of a vast majority of schools in the country and still be eligible for the $5,000 bonus. Congress allowed a person to receive an additional $5,000 if he or she taught three years in a school that served a high percentage of disadvantaged students. The total bonus of $10,000 was meant to draw these talented new teachers into schools that needed them most. For over a decade, this bonus structure was highly successful. In Colorado alone, the program has provided around 80 new hires a year to schools where new teachers are desperately needed. But in 2005, the Department of Education limited the number of schools that were eligible to participate and therefore made it more difficult for individuals to receive the baseline $5,000 bonus. The Department of Education was able to do this because when the Troops to Teachers program was reauthorized under the No Child Left Behind Act, there was a mistake in the reauthorization language that created confusion about which schools an individual may teach in order to be eligible for the $5,000 bonus. As I pointed out a moment ago, when Congress created the Troops to Teachers program, it said that an individual could receive the bonus if he or she taught in a ``high- need'' school, that is, in any school in a district that received Title 1 funding. In Colorado, that meant that around 98 percent of school districts qualified. But, because Troops to Teachers was mistakenly placed in a section of NCLB with a different definition of ``high need,'' an individual can now only receive the $5,000 bonus if he or she teaches in a school that has more than 10,000 students or has more than 20 percent of its students from families below the poverty line. As a result of this change, enrollments in the Troops to Teachers program have dwindled over the past two years. Western and rural States, in particular, have been negatively impacted. In Colorado, new hires out of Troops to Teachers have dropped from 79 for the 2003-2004 school year to 43 for the 2006-2007 school year. This drop-off in new hires from Troops to Teachers is problematic for several reasons. First, we should be finding ways of attracting new teachers to our classrooms, not devising bureaucratic barriers that keep them out. Experts predict that we will need approximately 2 million new teachers in the next decade, and we need teachers who will give more than a year or two of service. Today, half of newcomers to the teaching profession last less than five years. The good news is that Troops to Teachers has an 83 percent retention rate for its teachers. A full 223 of the 343 original participants are still teaching today, more than a decade after the program's creation. Troops to Teachers also helps fill a need for diversity in the classroom--83 percent of program participants are male, compared to 18 percent of teachers nationally, and 37 percent are ethnic minorities, compared to 15 percent of teachers nationally. The second problem with the new eligibility criteria is that it disproportionately hurts rural veterans and rural school districts. It's hard to find a school district in western Colorado or on the eastern plains that has 10,000 students. Are we expecting a Troops to Teacher participant living in Yuma County, population 9,789 to drive to Denver to teach in an eligible school there so they can receive the $5,000 stipend? The third problem with the new criteria is that it hurts retiring service members who want to pursue a second career in education. This country has a long history of providing educational benefits to our men and women in uniform through the 1944 GI Bill and successive legislation. Troops to Teachers furthers this great cause by helping our men and women in uniform extend their education and earn a teaching certificate. With over 1.3 million veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom are currently transitioning back to civilian life, we have an opportunity to bring the best and the brightest who are now serving in the military straight into the classrooms, where they can continue to extend their service to their country. The bill I'm introducing today provides a simple fix to the problems that arose for the Troops to Teachers program under the No Child Left Behind Act. The bill simply says that if there is no school within 50 miles of the home of a Troops to Teachers participant, the individual may teach in any school in a district that receives Title 1 funding and receive the initial $5,000 bonus. This bill will allow thousands of retiring service members in rural communities to take advantage of the Troops to Teachers incentives and transition to a second career in the classroom. I also want to point out that this bill still prioritizes schools that fit the current definition of ``high need''--that is, schools with over 10,000 students or with 20 percent of its students from families below the poverty line--but it also provides an outlet if there are no schools in the area that fit those criteria. This bill does not affect the additional bonus that Troops to Teachers participants have always been able to receive if they teach in a school with a high percentage of disadvantaged students. I am hopeful that when we reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, we take another look at Troops to Teachers to help make it more accessible to veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, National Guard members, and reservists. Troops to Teachers is a good program that should be strengthened and supported when it is reauthorized. Yet, we shouldn't wait until then to fix this needless problem that is hampering the program's effectiveness today. I urge my colleagues to support this problem, today, by supporting the quick, straightforward solution that this bill provides. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, the importance of this amendment is underscored in the stories and the lives that are led by the 800,000 men and women who leave their homes every day to make sure they are protecting America. These are men and women who, in many areas, live in rural communities. In my State alone, we have 14,000 peace officers. As the attorney general of Colorado, I had the great honor and privilege of being the chairman of the Peace Officers Standards and Training Board. One of the things we recognized during that timeframe in my State of Colorado was that the training of these rural law enforcement officers was very essential for us to be able to make sure, first of all, they were able to protect themselves from getting in harm's way, and, second of all, they were able to protect the public? Mr. President, can I ask how much time I have on this side.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have up to 2 more minutes to speak on the subject of amendment No. 280.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, it is a very simple amendment that would create the Rural Policing Institute, which would help our rural law enforcement throughout the country. These men and women will help us in dealing with terrorism around the country. There is broad bipartisan support from Senator Isakson, Senator Chambliss, and Senator Mark Pryor, the former attorney general from Arkansas. I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, we will be voting in a few minutes on amendment No. 280, which will create the Rural Policing Institute. This is the pinnacle of law enforcement training for our Federal agents throughout our country. It is very important that we allow the 800,000 men and women who are in rural law enforcement agencies to take advantage of this great training opportunity. They are the eyes and ears on the ground who ultimately will help us avoid future terrorist attacks such as the one we saw in Oklahoma City which killed 156 people. Mr. President, I am very proud of the fact this is a bipartisan amendment. I am going to yield up to 2 or 3 minutes of my time to Senator Chambliss because FLETC is located in his State, and he has been a great champion of FLETC.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I am proud of the fact that Senator Pryor and Senator Isakson and Senator Chambliss have joined us in moving forward with this amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. When you consider the horrific attack we saw in Oklahoma, it is exactly the kind of attack that might have been prevented if we had our rural law enforcement agencies with the kind of training that would make them part of our antiterrorism efforts. So I want us very much to move forward with this amendment, to adopt it in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be yielded 5 minutes of the time allotted to me. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be permitted to move forward for 5 minutes, with 2\1/2\ minutes taken from our side and 2\1/ 2\ minutes taken from the other side, and following Senator Landrieu, Senator Allard from Colorado be permitted to lay down his amendment for up to 5 minutes, with 2\1/2\ minutes taken from our side and 2\1/2\ minutes from their side.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I modify my unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Louisiana be allotted 5 minutes, 2\1/2\ minutes to come off of the majority side and 2\1/2\ from the minority side; then following her, up to 5 minutes for the Senator from Colorado, with 2\1/2\ minutes coming off the majority side and 2\1/2\ minutes off the minority side.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I introduced today. The Rocky Flats Special Exposure Cohort Act will at long last repay our debt to the patriotic American workers of Rocky Flats, who served our Nation during the Cold War. Many Americans contributed to our victory in the Cold War. Brave men and women worked in laboratories and factories throughout the Nation, fashioning nuclear weapons that led to the fall of the former Soviet Union. Unfortunately, many of these Cold War Veterans contracted cancer and other disabling and fatal diseases due to their service. Before I arrived to Washington, DC, Congress recognized the sacrifices made by our nuclear weapons workers by enacting the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act (EEOICPA) to provide benefits to nuclear weapons workers for their work-related illnesses or to their survivors when these illnesses took their lives. While thousands of workers are successfully applying and receiving benefits today, others face incredible obstacles as they try to demonstrate that they qualify for benefits. In fact, a combination of missing records and bureaucratic red tape has prevented many workers from accessing benefits who served at the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado. Our government failed these workers when they maintained shoddy, inaccurate, and incomplete records. Thankfully, Congress had the foresight in the Energy Employees Act to realize that some workers might not be able to prove that their cancers were caused by their work in nuclear weapons facilities, whether due to the lack of records or other problems that make it difficult or impossible to determine the dose of radiation they received. To protect these workers, Congress designated a Special Exposure Cohort to receive benefits if they suffered from one of the specified cancers known to be linked to radiation exposure. Since February 2005, Rocky Flats workers have patiently and diligently been making their case to the Federal Government. Unfortunately, many of the Rocky Flats workers are running out of time. Over the past 2 years, several have passed away without having received the healthcare and other benefits that they would have qualified for if they were granted an SEC designation. Their petition is being reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH), a body that is stretched thin. In the past, I have raised my strong concerns about the several unfilled Advisory Board seats. I commend these Americans for having answered the calls of their government to serve our country. Like our Cold War Veterans, Advisory Board members have sacrificed their time and energy to perform an important service. I believe it is the responsibility of this Congress to fulfill its duty as well. The bill I am introducing today would extend Special Exposure Cohort status to workers employed by the Department of Energy or its contractors at Rocky Flats according to the stringent requirements of the EEOICPA. As a result of this designation, a Rocky Flats worker suffering from one of the 22 listed cancers will be able to receive benefits despite the inadequate records maintained by the Department of Energy and its contractors. Through five decades, men and women worked at Rocky Flats, producing plutonium, one of the most dangerous substances in creation, and crafting it into the triggers for America's nuclear arsenal. These men and women served a critical role in a program deemed essential to our national security by a succession of Presidents and Congresses. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. My bill is a companion bill to the bipartisan House bill, H.R. 904, introduced by my friends, Congressman Mark Udall and Congressman Ed Perlmutter from Colorado. I look forward to its bipartisan support in the Senate and urge this body to swiftly take up and pass this important legislation. In doing so, we will right a wrong and fulfill a task that is long overdue.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act of 2007. Our earth is getting warmer. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently announced that 2006 was the warmest year on record, and every single year since 1993 has fallen in the top twenty warmest years on record. In February 2007, a report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels have increased more than 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution. The increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to the increased temperatures we are seeing today. The United States is the largest emitter of CO2 in the world, and much of these emissions come from satisfying our energy needs. These same energy needs that fuel our homes, our cars, and our economy are hurting our planet. The debate on climate change in the Senate has started to transform, it has gone from whether or not climate change is real, to what can we do, now, to address climate change. There has been much discussion in the Senate about the need to create a clean energy future for America, and there is much optimism about our ability to produce energy in ways that do not harm the environment. In attempting to limit emissions, one promising step we can take is to sequester carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration is a process where carbon is captured before it is released into the atmosphere, compressed, and stored underground in geological areas such as saline formations, unmineable coal seams, and oil and gas reservoirs. This technology exists today. My legislation would start us on the path to large-scale sequestration by directing the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national assessment of our sequestration capacity. Specifically, this assessment would evaluate the potential capacity and rate of carbon sequestration in all possible sites throughout the United States, as well the various risk levels involved. Carbon sequestration also holds potential economic benefits for the United States. Sequestration has the potential to enhance the recovery capabilities of certain oil, gas, and coal-bed reservoirs increasing the efficiency of these important resources to the benefit of all. The Department of Energy has already established seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships. These partnerships have vital experience and understanding about the potential for storing carbon dioxide. This bill will build upon the existing work of these partnerships, and create a national database assessable to the public on the potential storage sites across the United States--enabling companies to make cost-effective decisions needed to make sequestration a viable option. The need to combat climate change is here; many of the techniques and technologies to combat climate change are available; and we have the will to act. What is missing for carbon sequestration is a accessible, national assessment of the potential storage sites. This bill gives us the tools our country needs to spur the implementation of carbon sequestration, fight climate change, and create a clean energy future.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 290. I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. SALAZAR. I send the amendment as modified to the desk. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come here today first to make some comments about the legislation that is before the Chamber. I can think of no greater responsibility for this Senate to take on than to make sure our homeland is in fact secure and protected. I commend my colleagues, the chairman, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator Susan Collins, the ranking member, for having worked with the committee to have brought a very good product here to the floor of the Senate. It is legislation I strongly support. It moves our country in the right direction in terms of making sure we are moving forward with the appropriate level of homeland security. When the people of Colorado chose me to represent them here in this Chamber, I made a promise to them that protecting our homeland and supporting law enforcement would be among my very highest priorities. In the 2 years-plus since I took that oath of office, I have had the privilege of working hard to fulfill that pledge with my colleagues here in the Senate. With the help of colleagues of both parties, I have been privileged to help pass the Combat Meth Act, I have been privileged to help find bipartisan support on the PATRIOT Act, provide resources for law enforcement and emergency responders, and pass, last year, a comprehensive immigration reform bill that secured our borders and enforced our laws. Great challenges remain. Great challenges remain as we move forward with the challenge of homeland security, challenges that cannot be deferred, challenges we should not defer here in Washington. These are challenges that require compromise and a bipartisan approach in dealing with homeland security. This week we take up those challenges as we implement the unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I begin my remarks by reading a few sentences from the preface of the 9/11 Commission report. That report said in its preface the following: We have come together with a unity of purpose because our Nation demands it. September 11, 2001, was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering in the history of the United States. The nation was unprepared. How did this happen and how can we avoid such tragedy again? These words convey a simple but a very important message. We have an obligation to work together, not as partisans but as policymakers, to ensure our Nation is better protected in the future. The bill we are debating today takes a number of very important steps in that direction. First, I am pleased to see the creation of a grant program dedicated to improving interoperable communications at the Federal, State, and local levels. This grant program will help ensure that communities across the country in both urban and rural areas receive the funding necessary to improve their communications systems. Money alone will not solve the problem of interoperability, but many cash-strapped communities need the Federal funds necessary to help purchase the necessary radio and tower upgrades. It is also important to note that States will be required to pass on at least 80 percent of grants under this program to local and tribal governments and to demonstrate that those funds will be used in a manner consistent with statewide operability plans and the National Emergency Communications Plan. While Colorado has been a leader in achieving interoperability, many communities in my State simply do not have the resources necessary to purchase radio equipment. As Frank Cavaliere, the chief of the Lower Valley Colorado Fire District, told my office last year, ``We are many light years away from being able to purchase enough radio equipment let alone all of the repeater towers needed for effective coverage.'' This grant program alone will not solve the problem, but it is an important step in the right direction. Second, I am pleased to see the proposed legislation would improve the sharing of intelligence and information with State and local and tribal governments. In particular, I am pleased the bill establishes an intelligence training program for State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers and emergency responders, and it authorizes the Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group, which will coordinate the dissemination of intelligence to State and local officials. Intelligence and information sharing is an issue of particular importance to law enforcement officials and emergency responders throughout our Nation. Indeed, when I conducted a survey last year of Colorado emergency officials, by a 3-to-1 margin they felt antiterrorism information they received from the Federal Government was insufficient and ineffective. The chief of police for Estes Park, CO, Lowell Richardson, summed this up when he told my office the following. He said ``a duplicity in sharing information . . . exists between State and Federal agencies. This overwhelms our ability to efficiently sift through the information and forward what is relevant to the officers on the street.'' I am hopeful this bill will begin to sort out this program and ensure our State and local emergency responders have all the necessary information and intelligence. Finally, I am pleased the bill would mandate the creation of a National Biosurveillance Integration Center which would promote the integration of Federal, State, and local data from human health, agriculture, and environmental surveillance programs in order to enhance the ability to rapidly identify and attack outbreaks following a bioterrorist attack or a naturally occurring pandemic. In the survey of Colorado emergency responders, by a 4-to-1 margin they felt unprepared to handle a weapons of mass destruction attack. It is our duty as a Congress to do everything in our power to help State, local, and tribal communities prepare for the possibility of a bioterrorist attack and this bill takes an important step in that direction. I also note two amendments which I offered to strengthen this already good bill. These amendments deal with two issues which I understand well since serving as attorney general for Colorado, the planning and training for law enforcement. Now I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside. I call up amendment No. 290 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SALAZAR. This amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a ``Quadrennial Homeland Defense Review.'' I am proud both Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins are cosponsors of this legislation. This amendment would provide a comprehensive examination of the national homeland security strategy and an assessment of interagency cooperation, preparedness of Federal response assets and infrastructure, and a budget plan. The quadrennial homeland defense review would mirror the quadrennial homeland defense review prepared by the Pentagon which helped shape defense policy, military strategy, and resource allocation. The quadrennial review would not be another bureaucratic document which gathers dust on some shelf; instead, this document will require DHS to do the hard thinking, preparation, and planning necessary to coordinate national homeland security resources. Amendment No. 280 to Amendment No. 275 The second amendment I wish to discuss is amendment No. 280. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, this amendment, which I offer with Senators Chambliss, Isakson, and Pryor, would create a Rural Policing Institute at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. I have often referred to our rural communities as ``the forgotten America.'' Indeed, rural America is the backbone of our country. But often those with wide stretches of land out in the heartland of America are forgotten and don't have the kinds of resources found in larger cities. What this amendment would do is create a Rural Policing Institute that would be operated out of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia. I am proud my colleagues in Georgia and Arkansas have agreed to cosponsor the amendment. The essence of this amendment is to evaluate the needs of rural and tribal law enforcement agencies. It would develop training programs designed to address the needs of rural law enforcement agencies. It would export those training programs to those agencies, and it would conduct outreach to ensure the programs reach rural law enforcement agencies. Let me comment briefly on this amendment. When I step back and see what we are trying to do on the front of homeland security, we know that at some point, someplace, we in the United States will be attacked again in the same way we were attacked on 9/11. The question becomes, What will we do to prevent those kinds of attacks from occurring? If one looks at the men and women who wear our uniform as our peace officers around the country, there are some 600,000 of them out there in patrol cars. They are the ones who are going to be the first to really know whether there is a threat somewhere within a small community or a large community. It is important for us to support these men and women who are out there as law enforcement officers and make them a coordinated partner in helping us deal with issues of homeland security. The Rural Policing Institute, which is a top-of-the-line institute for Federal law enforcement training, should be made available to these rural law enforcement officers because that will help them be true partners in enhancing homeland security, which we need so much. I commend the leadership of Senators Lieberman and Collins on this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I introduced today. The Rocky Flats Special Exposure Cohort Act will at long last repay our debt to the patriotic American workers of Rocky Flats, who served our Nation during the Cold War. Many Americans contributed to our victory in the Cold War. Brave men and women worked in laboratories and factories throughout the Nation, fashioning nuclear weapons that led to the fall of the former Soviet Union. Unfortunately, many of these Cold War Veterans contracted cancer and other disabling and fatal diseases due to their service. Before I arrived to Washington, DC, Congress recognized the sacrifices made by our nuclear weapons workers by enacting the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act (EEOICPA) to provide benefits to nuclear weapons workers for their work-related illnesses or to their survivors when these illnesses took their lives. While thousands of workers are successfully applying and receiving benefits today, others face incredible obstacles as they try to demonstrate that they qualify for benefits. In fact, a combination of missing records and bureaucratic red tape has prevented many workers from accessing benefits who served at the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado. Our government failed these workers when they maintained shoddy, inaccurate, and incomplete records. Thankfully, Congress had the foresight in the Energy Employees Act to realize that some workers might not be able to prove that their cancers were caused by their work in nuclear weapons facilities, whether due to the lack of records or other problems that make it difficult or impossible to determine the dose of radiation they received. To protect these workers, Congress designated a Special Exposure Cohort to receive benefits if they suffered from one of the specified cancers known to be linked to radiation exposure. Since February 2005, Rocky Flats workers have patiently and diligently been making their case to the Federal Government. Unfortunately, many of the Rocky Flats workers are running out of time. Over the past 2 years, several have passed away without having received the healthcare and other benefits that they would have qualified for if they were granted an SEC designation. Their petition is being reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH), a body that is stretched thin. In the past, I have raised my strong concerns about the several unfilled Advisory Board seats. I commend these Americans for having answered the calls of their government to serve our country. Like our Cold War Veterans, Advisory Board members have sacrificed their time and energy to perform an important service. I believe it is the responsibility of this Congress to fulfill its duty as well. The bill I am introducing today would extend Special Exposure Cohort status to workers employed by the Department of Energy or its contractors at Rocky Flats according to the stringent requirements of the EEOICPA. As a result of this designation, a Rocky Flats worker suffering from one of the 22 listed cancers will be able to receive benefits despite the inadequate records maintained by the Department of Energy and its contractors. Through five decades, men and women worked at Rocky Flats, producing plutonium, one of the most dangerous substances in creation, and crafting it into the triggers for America's nuclear arsenal. These men and women served a critical role in a program deemed essential to our national security by a succession of Presidents and Congresses. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. My bill is a companion bill to the bipartisan House bill, H.R. 904, introduced by my friends, Congressman Mark Udall and Congressman Ed Perlmutter from Colorado. I look forward to its bipartisan support in the Senate and urge this body to swiftly take up and pass this important legislation. In doing so, we will right a wrong and fulfill a task that is long overdue.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act of 2007. Our earth is getting warmer. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently announced that 2006 was the warmest year on record, and every single year since 1993 has fallen in the top twenty warmest years on record. In February 2007, a report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels have increased more than 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution. The increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to the increased temperatures we are seeing today. The United States is the largest emitter of CO2 in the world, and much of these emissions come from satisfying our energy needs. These same energy needs that fuel our homes, our cars, and our economy are hurting our planet. The debate on climate change in the Senate has started to transform, it has gone from whether or not climate change is real, to what can we do, now, to address climate change. There has been much discussion in the Senate about the need to create a clean energy future for America, and there is much optimism about our ability to produce energy in ways that do not harm the environment. In attempting to limit emissions, one promising step we can take is to sequester carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration is a process where carbon is captured before it is released into the atmosphere, compressed, and stored underground in geological areas such as saline formations, unmineable coal seams, and oil and gas reservoirs. This technology exists today. My legislation would start us on the path to large-scale sequestration by directing the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national assessment of our sequestration capacity. Specifically, this assessment would evaluate the potential capacity and rate of carbon sequestration in all possible sites throughout the United States, as well the various risk levels involved. Carbon sequestration also holds potential economic benefits for the United States. Sequestration has the potential to enhance the recovery capabilities of certain oil, gas, and coal-bed reservoirs increasing the efficiency of these important resources to the benefit of all. The Department of Energy has already established seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships. These partnerships have vital experience and understanding about the potential for storing carbon dioxide. This bill will build upon the existing work of these partnerships, and create a national database assessable to the public on the potential storage sites across the United States--enabling companies to make cost-effective decisions needed to make sequestration a viable option. The need to combat climate change is here; many of the techniques and technologies to combat climate change are available; and we have the will to act. What is missing for carbon sequestration is a accessible, national assessment of the potential storage sites. This bill gives us the tools our country needs to spur the implementation of carbon sequestration, fight climate change, and create a clean energy future.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills that will help drive the renewable energy revolution that is currently underway in our rural communities. The Rural Community Renewable Energy Bonds Act, which I am introducing with Senator Smith, and the Rural Wind Energy Development Act, which I am introducing with Senators Smith, Dorgan and Craig, will help spur much needed private investment in renewable energy infrastructure in rural areas. I have spoken countless times about the great possibilities that rural America holds for our Nation's energy future. I have also expressed my alarm at how our rising dependence on foreign oil is undermining our security and our interests around the world. How do we build a more energy secure economy--one that is less vulnerable to wild swings in oil prices, political instability, and supply disruptions? Unfortunately, we don't have the resources in this country to drill our way to energy independence. We do, however, have the most productive lands in the world, and the most productive farmers, ranchers, engineers and entrepreneurs in the world. If we give them the right tools, they can build a new, clean energy economy that will rely heavily on biofuels, wind power, solar energy, and alternative sources. If you spend time in places like Prowers County or Alamosa County, you see that a clean energy revolution is already underway in our heartland. In these rural communities, like so many across the country, people are banding together to build small biofuels plants, solar farms, and wind turbines. These projects are already underway, and they are the seeds for a full-blown clean energy revolution in rural America. The farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs who are behind these projects want to be a part of the solution to our Nation's energy challenges. They also understand that home-grown energy can revitalize the Main Streets that have been boarded up in the last few years. The bills I am introducing today provide tools that rural communities can use to build a renewable energy economy. The first bill, the Renewable Energy Bonds Act, provides incentives for investment in wind and other renewable energy projects by giving private developers access to tax-exempt bond markets. Currently, the Federal tax code only allows municipal and public entities access to tax-exempt bond markets for wind and other renewable energy projects. Private developers, who are more likely to invest in smaller projects and who are currently responsible for nearly 75 percent of current renewable energy development, are not eligible to use these federally tax-exempt bonds. This is unfortunate because these are the same small developers who don't benefit much from the production tax credit, as their Federal tax liabilities usually aren't big enough to reap the tax credit's benefits. Renewable energy bonds make sense for these small developers and, because they cost the Federal Government less than the production tax credit, they also make sense from a fiscal perspective. This bill may actually save the Government money. The second bill I am introducing, the Rural Wind Energy Development Act, would extend the production tax credit to include small wind systems. We have made great strides in wind development over the last few years, as evidenced by wind energy's growing availability to Colorado consumers. The trouble is that the existing production tax credit only benefits larger producers that want to build wind farms with million-dollar turbines. Small businesses, towns, farms, and families aren't given the same incentive to produce their own renewable power from smaller, more affordable turbines. This is unfortunate because the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado, and others are making great strides in the development of small wind systems that can be installed on homes and businesses. The system now available costs around $50,000 for 10kW of capacity. That's a steep investment for any family or any business. But our bill, by providing a tax incentive for their purchase, would not only reduce the cost, but it would create more market certainty for manufacturers of small wind systems. With more systems in production, costs will fall further and small wind will be a real option for more people. The bill is simple: it creates a five year tax credit of $1500 per half-kW. There is no cap for the purchase and installation of small wind systems, so long as they are smaller than 100kW. It will put more small wind systems on the market and it will give consumers more choices of how to power their homes and businesses. I'm proud to introduce these bills with my colleagues because they represent two more building blocks for a new, clean energy economy and because they will help revitalize a rural America that has been forgotten for too long. I hope we can move these straightforward, bipartisan solutions through as quickly as possible.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Friday, February 16, 2007, at 10 a.m., in SD-430.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to come before the Senate today to speak on legislation that the Senate passed last night, S. 188. Just last month, I introduced S. 188 with Senators Reid, Leahy, Feinstein, Boxer, and Menendez. This straightforward measure would incorporate Cesar E. Chavez--a truly remarkable civil rights leader and American--into the title of the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act passed last year. Cesar Chavez is an American hero. Like the venerable American leaders who are now associated with this effort, he sacrificed his life to empower the most vulnerable in America. For this reason, he continues to be an important part of our country's journey on the path to a more inclusive America. Cesar Chavez believed strongly in our American democracy and saw the right to vote as a fundamental cornerstone of our freedom. I believe it is fitting that his name be a part of the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. I would like to thank Senator Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for his support. I sincerely appreciate his efforts to quickly steer S. 188 through his committee. I enthusiastically supported last year's Voting Rights Act reauthorization. I firmly believe that this landmark civil rights legislation has opened the door for millions of Hispanic Americans to fully exercise their right to participate in our democracy. Adding Cesar E. Chavez's name sends an important message to Hispanic Americans. It signals to the Nation's 40 million Hispanics that the Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized with their interest and constitutional rights in mind. During the Judiciary Committee's consideration of S. 188, Senator Leahy offered an amendment that incorporated another important American leader. His amendment to add William C. Velasquez to the title of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization bill has my strong and unequivocal support. In 1974, Mr. Velasquez founded the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, SVREP. Using his powerful slogan--Su Voto es Su Voz or your vote is your voice--he energized the Hispanic community and registered many to vote. Mr. Velasquez envisioned a time when Latinos would play an important role in the American democratic process. When SVREP was established, there were only 1,566 Latino elected officials. Today, there are over 6,000 Hispanics elected to local, State, and Federal office, including 3 U.S. Senators and 23 U.S. Representatives. Like Cesar E. Chavez, Mr. Velasquez did not live to see the remarkable progress our country has made. He passed away in 1988 from kidney cancer. However, I am sure he is looking down on this body with joy and pride. In addition, Senator Cornyn sought to include the name of former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also played an integral part in the history of the Voting Rights Act, and Dr. Hector Garcia, founder of the American GI Forum. Congresswoman Jordan was certainly a remarkable civil rights and social justice leader and I support her inclusion in my legislation. In addition, Dr. Garcia fought for half a century for civil and education rights for Mexican Americans. Former President Bill Clinton, who first met Dr. Garcia while registering voters in the Rio Grande Valley in 1972, called him a ``national hero.'' In the coming months, I will work with Senator Cornyn to find another appropriate manner to honor Dr. Garcia's work with the American G.I. Forum. The American G.I. Forum was established in the wake of World War II when Hispanic veterans returned home and were categorically denied their G.I. Bill of Rights benefits. Dr. Garcia was propelled into the national spotlight when he fought to have Army PVT Longoria buried alongside others in the local cemetery in his hometown of Three Rivers, TX. Dr. Garcia called Members of Congress and alerted the press to this injustice. Within 24 hours, he received a telegram from then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson that stated: I deeply regret to learn that the prejudice of some individuals extends even beyond this life. I have no authority over civilian funeral homes. Nor does the federal government. However, I have made arrangements to have Felix Longoria buried with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery ... where the honored dead of our nation's war rest. As our Nation moves forward toward the next chapter of civic equality and inclusion, starting, last year, with the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, it is fitting that we honor civil rights leaders whose contributions and courage helped pave the way for today's more inclusive democracy. With the Senate's passage of S. 188, my attention and efforts will now focus on the U.S. House of Representatives. I am hopeful that they will approve this measure so that this landmark law can now be known as the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, Cesar E. Chavez, Barbara Jordan, William C. Velasquez, and Hector P. Garcia Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come before the body today to let my colleagues know I intend to vote for cloture on the single and simple resolution that will be before this body tomorrow afternoon. When one looks at the content of what is included in this resolution, it is very simple. In its simplest terms, it says, firsts and foremost, we support our troops. We support our troops. Who in this body would disagree with that statement? Secondly, it makes another statement, another important but very simple statement, and that is that we disagree with the President's plan to add an additional 21,500 troops into Iraq. We disagree with the President's plan. That is a simple resolution. We should be able to bring that resolution to this floor. We should be able to have it debated. And we should be able to have an up-or-down vote on that resolution. I wish it were otherwise. I wish that, in fact, we were debating the various resolutions that have been suggested that we debate on this floor by the majority leader in the last week, where he has offered the minority leader on the Republican side the opportunity to come in and debate the Warner resolution, the McCain-Lieberman resolution, as well as this resolution, and a number of different configurations which have been offered to the minority party. But the reality today is this Chamber, through the minority party, wants to stop a vote on any resolution relating to Iraq. They simply want to stop a vote. What we need to do as a Chamber, in my view, is to move forward with the deliberation of the great Senators who are a part of this Senate and have a robust debate on Iraq that sets forth the different alternatives that have been presented and come to some kind of conclusion that gives direction to America and to this country on how we ought to move forward in Iraq. I wish we were here in part debating the Warner-Levin resolution because when you think about the content of the Warner-Levin resolution, in that resolution you also find what I believe is the best of what we have to offer. You have a thoughtful proposal that says, yes, we disagree with the President, but we also have a new direction in which we believe we ought to march forward in Iraq. That bipartisan resolution, that was largely drafted by Senator Warner and Senator Nelson and Senator Collins, of which I am a cosponsor, is a way forward. It is a way to describe a new direction for us as we move forward in Iraq. I also wish we were here today and tomorrow, and even into next week, debating the resolution which has been brought forward by my dear friends, Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain. They have a different point of view than other Members of this body. They have a different point of view than Senator Warner and I do with respect to how we ought to move forward in Iraq. But, nonetheless, they are people of good faith who have a point of view that ought to be debated in this body, and we ought to have a vote on it. Unfortunately, the procedural mechanisms which have been put forward by the minority party will keep us from actually debating that particular resolution and having a debate and a vote on that resolution. I believe the ultimate goal we all have in this Chamber is we want to have peace in Iraq, and we want to have a peaceful Middle East. But I also believe that unless we are able to find some way of working together in a bipartisan manner, that key ingredient of how we find a peaceful avenue in Iraq and in the Middle East is going to elude us. For sure, today is simply one of the opening chapters of the great debate we will have in this Chamber in the weeks and months, perhaps even in the years, ahead with respect to how we move forward in Iraq and how we move forward in the Middle East. Without a sense of bipartisanship, we will not be able to find that unity which is an essential ingredient for us to be able to move forward. It dismays me we have not been able to find the bipartisanship to get us to the 60-vote threshold so we can move forward and have a robust debate on this issue that will be before the body tomorrow, as well as other issues and resolutions that would be brought forward by my colleagues. As I speak at this time, the House of Representatives--just right down the hallway from where I stand right now--is about ready to begin a vote--a vote--on this very simple resolution. And again, its simplicity defies any logic as to why we would not want to vote on it in the Senate. It is very simple: We support our troops, and we disagree with the President's proposed escalation of troops by 21,500. It is right that we are here this afternoon and into Saturday debating the vote on that simple resolution. That resolution addresses the most critical and important issue before our Nation today. I deeply regret the Senate has been prevented from voting on a similar resolution, and that is why I will vote for cloture on this resolution tomorrow. I believe the Senate has an obligation--it has an obligation--to debate and to vote on the issue that is most important to America today. For me, my constituents in Colorado know where I stand. I am a cosponsor of the bipartisan resolution which Senator Warner and Senator Nelson and Senator Collins and others have worked on for some time. That resolution states in clear terms that the Senate disagrees with the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq. And, at the same time, that resolution truly offers a new way for us to move forward with this seemingly intractable problem we face in that part of the world. I have referred to the Warner resolution as a new way forward, a new plan, a plan C, if you will, because it finds a middle ground between the President's plan A, which is to escalate the military effort in Iraq, and plan B, which is pushed by some American citizens in each one of our offices every day who say we should immediately leave Iraq--we should immediately leave Iraq. From my point of view, the bipartisan resolution we came up with offers a new direction forward. Our bipartisan group believes what we need to do is to have a new strategy in Iraq, one based on demanding long-overdue compromises from the Iraqi Government, vigorous counterterrorism activity, continued support of our troops in the field, protecting the territorial integrity of Iraq, and a very robust and enhanced diplomatic effort in that region and in Iraq itself. The new way forward reflected in the Warner resolution is based on a number of key principles, as follows: First, the central goal of the American mission in Iraq should be to encourage the Iraqi Government to make the political compromises that are necessary to foster reconciliation and to improve the deteriorating security situation in Iraq. Second, the American military strategy should be focused on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying terrorists a safe haven, promoting regional stability, bringing security to Baghdad, and training--and training--and equipping the Iraqi forces. These are important principles, and they continue. Third, we say what we would like to see happen in Iraq is that the United States should engage the nations in that region to develop a regional peace and reconciliation process. Fourth, we believe the United States should continue to engage in a strong counterterrorism activity, chasing down al-Qaida wherever al- Qaida might be. Fifth, the American mission in Iraq should be conditioned upon the Iraqi Government meeting certain benchmarks, including ensuring an equitable distribution of oil revenues in that country. And sixth, Congress should not eliminate or reduce funds for troops in the field because the brave men and women fighting this war need our support while they are in harm's way. I believe plan C offers us the right way forward. It is my hope that resolution ultimately would be adopted by a large bipartisan group of Senators in this body. I would like to discuss in further detail a couple of the key elements, at least in terms of how I see it, on how we move forward, on how we improve the security situation along Iraq's borders, and the need for an enhanced and much more robust diplomatic effort. I believe the territorial integrity of Iraq, security along Iraq's borders, and, for that matter, security in the region is linked with the need for a renewed and vigorous diplomatic push. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group stated in very simple terms: The United States must build a new international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. In order to foster such a consensus, the United States should embark on a robust diplomatic effort to establish an international support structure intended to stabilize Iraq and ease tensions in other countries in the region. In addition, the public portion of the National Intelligence Estimate--which was a consensus document produced by the 16 agencies comprising the national intelligence community--mentioned three things which could ``help to reverse the negative trends driving Iraq's current trajectory.'' It is important to note that each of these three strategies proposed by the NIE are fundamentally diplomatic and political, as opposed to military. They are, first of all, a recommendation that the broader Sunni acceptance of the current political structure and federalism be brought about; secondly, that significant concessions by Shia and Kurds are required to create space for Sunni acceptance of federalism; and, third, a bottom-up approach is needed to help mend the frayed relationships between the tribal and religious groups. The two most important documents produced on the Iraq war over the past 6 months, the Iraq Study Group report and the public portions of the NIE, recommend a renewed diplomatic and political effort as a keystone for security inside Iraq and in the region. This is no surprise when you consider the situation along the borders of Iraq. To the east, we know of the damage Iran can potentially cause by crossing the relatively porous border in order to promote the Shia cause. Not only that, but Iran has steadfastly ignored the U.N.'s demand to halt their nuclear activities. To the south and west, Saudi Arabia might eventually decide to intervene on the side of the Sunnis, should the situation further deteriorate. To the north and west, of course, is Syria, which has a largely uncontrolled border with Iraq, across which foreign fighters and arms and terrorists cross even today as I speak. To the north is Turkey, which is watching the situation in Iraq and might decide to intervene in order to prevent an independent Kurdistan. Finally, Jordan, to the west, is feeling the strain of the massive influx of Iraqi refugees into their country, which could have a destabilizing effect on a country which is such an important ally of the United States. Given the potential crisis on Iraq's east, west, north, and south borders, given the complex and conflicting interests the parties in the region face, and given the difficulty of imposing a military solution on this expanding, deteriorating puzzle, it is imperative to embark on a renewed and robust diplomatic and political effort in the manner outlined in the Warner resolution. That effort, in my view, must include the following: First, it must include talks with each of the key players in the region. I agree with the Iraq Study Group report which stated that: The United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain the commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results. This does not mean direct talks will necessarily succeed quickly or even succeed at all. But it does mean the United States should use every available carrot and stick, every diplomatic tool we have to try to stabilize the region. Second, the United States and those who share a vision of a peaceful Middle East should organize an international conference to help the Iraqis promote national reconciliation and stronger relations with their neighbors. Third, we should heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group and promote the creation of an Iraq international support group which would include each country that borders Iraq and other key countries in the region. That support group would work to strengthen Iraq's territorial and sovereign integrity and would provide a diplomatic forum for Iraq's neighbors, many of whom have competing and conflicting interests to negotiate. We may very well engage Iraq's neighbors and find we cannot achieve common ground. But I believe that refusing to talk to our adversaries on principle simply because they are our adversaries has done us no good. Indeed, in our history, Presidents from both parties and of different ideological stripes, from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, have actively engaged countries and leaders with whom they strongly disagreed, and they did so because it was in the American national interest. In fact, even this administration diplomatically engaged a member of the so-called ``axis of evil,'' North Korea. And while this process was long and laborious, it appears to have borne fruit. I believe we are at a similar moment in Iraq, when a strong and tough diplomatic effort may offer our last best chance to achieve a measure of peace and stability for Iraq and for the region. For that reason, I believe we should follow the advice of the Iraq Study Group, the authors of the National Intelligence Estimate, and the advice of Senators from both sides of the aisle in pursuing a new direction in Iraq. There are no guarantees of success, but we must make every effort to succeed before it is too late. I want to make a statement relative to why I think it is such an important time for us to be involved in this debate. It was not that long ago when I went with two of the most distinguished Senators in this body to Iraq and Afghanistan and spent time in both countries with both Senator Warner and Senator Levin. For all of us who are Members of this body, there are no two Senators whom we hold in higher esteem. They truly are Senators whom I would call ``a Senator's Senator'' because they have the respect of their colleagues. They have the wisdom they have accumulated through their service to our country over decades, and they are always attempting to do what is best for the American interest. I remember in Baghdad having conversations with both Senator Warner and Senator Levin and how they described how things had changed from the initial invasion to the time we were there in the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad and as we traveled around the country. Since that time, Senator Warner and others have been back there. As we have heard in this Chamber, the distinguished Senator from Virginia talked about how 3 or 4 months ago, he described the situation in Iraq as drifting sideways. Today that situation is not only drifting sideways but it continues to deteriorate. So no matter how much our troops have done, the sacrifice they have made, the sacrifices their families have made, things have not only drifted sideways, they continue to deteriorate. The President's proposal, which is at the heart of this debate, has to do with whether we should send 21,500 more troops into harm's way. We should all ask the question whether that is something we shouldn't support, and we should have an opportunity to vote on that concept in this Chamber. We should have an opportunity to vote on that concept in this Chamber before the President moves forward with the escalation effort. In my view, and part of the reason I joined Senator Warner and Senator Nelson and others in their resolution, I don't believe it will work. I believe when we look at Operation Going Forward Together in June and Operation Going Forward Together 2 in August, they demonstrate that a surge of this kind will, in fact, not work. Indeed, the Iraq Study Group found that between the months of June and the time they issued their report, violence had escalated in Baghdad by 43 percent. So we have tried a surge twice, and it has failed. Now the President is saying we ought to go ahead and do yet another surge. I believe a simple resolution we can vote on that makes a simple statement that we support our troops and we oppose the escalation of the military effort in Iraq in the way the President has proposed is the right thing for us to vote on. It is the most important question of our time. It is appropriate for us to be spending this Friday and Saturday, and, if it so takes, all of next week, instead of going back to our respective States and working during the Presidents holiday to debate this issue, which is such a defining issue of our time. This is a defining issue for the 21st century, not only for Iraq but for the Middle East, for the war on terror which we wage around the globe; this is the defining issue, and it is appropriate for us to be having this discussion on the floor today. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to move forward into the debate on this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills that will help drive the renewable energy revolution that is currently underway in our rural communities. The Rural Community Renewable Energy Bonds Act, which I am introducing with Senator Smith, and the Rural Wind Energy Development Act, which I am introducing with Senators Smith, Dorgan and Craig, will help spur much needed private investment in renewable energy infrastructure in rural areas. I have spoken countless times about the great possibilities that rural America holds for our Nation's energy future. I have also expressed my alarm at how our rising dependence on foreign oil is undermining our security and our interests around the world. How do we build a more energy secure economy--one that is less vulnerable to wild swings in oil prices, political instability, and supply disruptions? Unfortunately, we don't have the resources in this country to drill our way to energy independence. We do, however, have the most productive lands in the world, and the most productive farmers, ranchers, engineers and entrepreneurs in the world. If we give them the right tools, they can build a new, clean energy economy that will rely heavily on biofuels, wind power, solar energy, and alternative sources. If you spend time in places like Prowers County or Alamosa County, you see that a clean energy revolution is already underway in our heartland. In these rural communities, like so many across the country, people are banding together to build small biofuels plants, solar farms, and wind turbines. These projects are already underway, and they are the seeds for a full-blown clean energy revolution in rural America. The farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs who are behind these projects want to be a part of the solution to our Nation's energy challenges. They also understand that home-grown energy can revitalize the Main Streets that have been boarded up in the last few years. The bills I am introducing today provide tools that rural communities can use to build a renewable energy economy. The first bill, the Renewable Energy Bonds Act, provides incentives for investment in wind and other renewable energy projects by giving private developers access to tax-exempt bond markets. Currently, the Federal tax code only allows municipal and public entities access to tax-exempt bond markets for wind and other renewable energy projects. Private developers, who are more likely to invest in smaller projects and who are currently responsible for nearly 75 percent of current renewable energy development, are not eligible to use these federally tax-exempt bonds. This is unfortunate because these are the same small developers who don't benefit much from the production tax credit, as their Federal tax liabilities usually aren't big enough to reap the tax credit's benefits. Renewable energy bonds make sense for these small developers and, because they cost the Federal Government less than the production tax credit, they also make sense from a fiscal perspective. This bill may actually save the Government money. The second bill I am introducing, the Rural Wind Energy Development Act, would extend the production tax credit to include small wind systems. We have made great strides in wind development over the last few years, as evidenced by wind energy's growing availability to Colorado consumers. The trouble is that the existing production tax credit only benefits larger producers that want to build wind farms with million-dollar turbines. Small businesses, towns, farms, and families aren't given the same incentive to produce their own renewable power from smaller, more affordable turbines. This is unfortunate because the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado, and others are making great strides in the development of small wind systems that can be installed on homes and businesses. The system now available costs around $50,000 for 10kW of capacity. That's a steep investment for any family or any business. But our bill, by providing a tax incentive for their purchase, would not only reduce the cost, but it would create more market certainty for manufacturers of small wind systems. With more systems in production, costs will fall further and small wind will be a real option for more people. The bill is simple: it creates a five year tax credit of $1500 per half-kW. There is no cap for the purchase and installation of small wind systems, so long as they are smaller than 100kW. It will put more small wind systems on the market and it will give consumers more choices of how to power their homes and businesses. I'm proud to introduce these bills with my colleagues because they represent two more building blocks for a new, clean energy economy and because they will help revitalize a rural America that has been forgotten for too long. I hope we can move these straightforward, bipartisan solutions through as quickly as possible.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that Avril Haines, a detailee from the Department of State for the Committee on Foreign Relations, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate on S. 574 and any motions related thereto.