Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to praise the memory of Army COL Brian Dwayne Allgood of the 30th Medical Brigade, European Regional Medical Command. Colonel Allgood was taken from his family late last month in Iraq. He was only 46 years old, and the highest ranking medical officer in Iraq. After graduating high school in Colorado Springs, Brian Allgood attended the U.S. Military Academy in West Point and medical school at the University of Oklahoma. He completed his residency at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio and continued with his military career, rising to become one of the Army's top surgeons. Most recently, before being sent to Iraq, Colonel Allgood spent 2 years as the commanding officer of medical facilities in Korea. It is no surprise that Brian Allgood rose to such great heights. Brian came from a medical family and a military family--Brian's father Jerry was an Army hospital administrator like his son, and Brian's mother Cleo was a nurse. One might say that service, both to his country and to those in need, was in his blood. Brian Allgood was a healer, a quiet and humble man who knew the best way to lead was not through anger or boastfulness. Instead, he simply did what needed to be done, helping save and improve lives every day, and in doing so led by example. Colonel Allgood acted not only with courage but with concern for the troops he led. He was renowned for his willingness to stick his neck out for his troops and for his unique bond with them. To better understand the risks posed to paratroopers, Colonel Allgood completed the grueling Ranger school and parachuted into Panama in 1989. He served as the commanding officer of the hospital at West Point. As a surgeon and later a commanding medical officer, he played a role in the saving of hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives. And as the top Army surgeon in Iraq, Colonel Allgood also oversaw the system that tended Iraqis in need of urgent care. Every day we hear stories from Iraq of innocent bystanders facing brutality in their own streets. Who knows how many Iraqis are alive today because of the talent and wisdom of Colonel Allgood and those he led? Colonel Allgood's parents, Jerry and Cleo, have been supportive of not only their son but all Colorado veterans, and I am privileged to have worked with them on veterans concerns in my State. Jerry and Cleo are good people and should take great pride in having raised their son from a young boy into an exemplary man: a fine doctor, a thoughtful son and brother, a loving husband, and a caring father. To Brian's wife Jane and his son Wyatt, I cannot imagine the sorrow and loss you are feeling, and I hope that in time your grief can be salved by your pride in the way Brian lived his life. Brian served his Nation with honor and distinction and improved the lives of countless soldiers, families and those with whom he interacted every day.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, let me congratulate my good friend from Idaho, Senator Craig and Suzanne and their grandchildren, Lily and Damon. I wish your family the very best. The family in Idaho, obviously, is where the roots are. Our families are so important to all of us, and we appreciate the Senator coming to the floor and sharing that special valentine message not only with the family but with the Nation and our colleagues in the Senate.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, the second piece of legislation I am introducing has to do with education. We know rural school districts have a very hard time in terms of retaining teachers. The national teacher turnover rate across the country is about 15 percent, but in rural districts it is as high as 30 to 40 percent. Thirty to forty percent of teachers in rural school districts are turning over. So what I hope to do with the Colorado Teacher Retention Act is to help with a competitive State program that would allow rural school districts to provide bonuses for highly qualified teachers who commit to teaching in rural schools for at least 3 years. It would simply provide an opportunity for rural schools to have the kind of excellence in teaching they so deserve.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the Senate to speak about the forgotten America. That is the rural America which is a wide expanse of the geographic area of these United States. When I came to the Senate 2 years ago, I gave my maiden speech about forgotten America, the rural parts of our country which have been in decline decade after decade after decade. I did so because if you look at my own history, I come from a place that is 300 miles to the south of Denver, a place that has the name of Conejos, in English meaning rabbit county. It is one of the four poorest counties in the United States of America. In that county, as in so many counties across America, you see the kinds of problems that describe the two Americas we have. We have the America of prosperity, much of that part of America lying within the metropolitan areas of our great Nation, and we have the other America, the forgotten America, the America that struggles on the vine every day to stay alive, the part of America that has great disparity in terms of the kind of health care and the kind of education and the kind of economic opportunity that exists for them. In my own State of Colorado, there were 64 counties, and out of the 64 counties, even in the great boom of the 1990s when unemployment was nonexistent and our economy was growing at a very rapid pace, most of those counties were withering on the vine. They were declining in population. Their population was aging. They were struggling with health care. They were struggling with a whole host of issues that affect those communities. Out of the 64 counties in Colorado during the period of 2000 to 2005, 21 of them actually declined in population. That is a third of my State that was actually declining in population. The fact is that same statistic can apply for many other States, including Nebraska, the Dakotas, Idaho, and most of our States around the country. I am very hopeful, as we move forward in the 110th Congress, that under the great leadership of Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa, we will be able to put together a farm bill that will help revitalize rural America and will help us put the spotlight on what has been the forgotten America. Even as we start the process of moving forward and addressing the issues set forth in the 10 titles of the farm bill, we already see some statistics that to all of us should be alarming. At a hearing we had earlier this week, there was testimony provided to us that the per capita investment in rural America is about $550 less than it is in urban communities. That is because the formulas we have for community development block grants and other investments the Federal Government makes to help communities ends up, in a very disappointing way, affecting rural communities in these negative ways. I am hopeful, as we move forward with the farm bill, we will be able to correct some of these disparities and create new opportunities for rural America. We will see one of those opportunities created with our efforts to grow our way to energy independence. The fact of the matter is, both Democrats and Republicans, progressives and conservatives, are coming together to recognize the fact that growing our way to energy independence is a matter of national security, a matter of economic security, and a matter of environmental security. I am tremendously optimistic about what we can do with the new farm bill. Mr. President, today I speak briefly about two pieces of legislation I have introduced or will soon be introducing that are part of that agenda to try to help rural America. The first, a bipartisan legislation that creates a rural leasing institute. It is legislation which I am proudly sponsoring with Senator Pryor, my good friend and former attorney general from Arkansas and Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson. This legislation creates a rural policing institute to make sure our law enforcement in rural communities has a similar kind of opportunity that law enforcement has in the major metropolitan areas. In my State of Colorado, we have about 14,000 peace officers. I had the great honor as the attorney general of that State to serve as the chairman of the board that certified all the law enforcement officers in my State for a period of 6 years. There is a big difference between the kind of training rural law enforcement officers get and the kind of training provided to law enforcement areas in the metropolitan communities. Of the 14,000 peace officers in Colorado, 7,000 of the people work in departments that have fewer than 15 officers. They cannot afford the kind of training to protect themselves and to protect the public safety that other larger metropolitan police organizations can afford. Therefore, our effort to move forward with this rural policing institute is to allow our national Government to provide training opportunities to the thousands upon thousands of police officers who live in rural communities and who work every day to protect the public safety of their communities. I hope our colleagues will join in the passage of this legislation. Last year, this legislation enjoyed the unanimous support of the Senate. I am hopeful we will again have that same kind of support. In conclusion, let me say that the forgotten America is, indeed, much of rural America. It is that part of rural America which we know is so important to us because of the values we find there, the bedrock values of what America is all about. It is a pioneering spirit of the West. It is the place where the food security of our Nation so depends. If you walk into my office, for many years I have had on my desk a sigh that says: No farms, no food. No farms, no food. I would hope, as we make that statement--as I make that statement--we recognize we should never compromise the food security of the United States of America. We, obviously, have done that in a very negative and disastrous way with respect to our energy dependence on foreign countries today. We ought not to do the same thing with food security. Our ability to revitalize rural America and to enact a farm bill that will help us revitalize rural America is very much at the heart of how we take care of this forgotten America. (The remarks of Mr. Salazar pertaining to the introduction of S. 583 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I have often referred to our rural communities as ``the forgotten America.'' Indeed, rural America is the backbone of our country--but is too often neglected by policymakers and politicians who have lost touch with people in the heartland. Nowhere is this neglect felt more acutely than in small-town law enforcement agencies--which have been confronted with decreased funding, increased homeland security responsibilities, and the great toll of a meth epidemic that is devastating rural America. Many people do not realize that most American law enforcement agencies serve rural communities or small towns. Indeed, of the nearly 17,000 police agencies in the United States, 90 percent serve a population of under 25,000 and operate with fewer than 50 sworn officers. I am well aware of the difficulties small town law enforcement agencies face day-in, day-out. When I was the attorney general of Colorado, I had the honor to work with some of America's finest law enforcement officials--many of them from rural Colorado. Men like Jerry Martin, the Dolores County Sherriff, who have consistently been able to do more with less. But the pressure they face is great. The growing demands on rural law enforcement, and shrinking budgets, have hit training programs particularly hard. Many rural law enforcement agencies simply do not have the budget to provide officers with adequate training. Furthermore, even those agencies that can come up with the money simply can't afford to take their police officers off the beat long enough to get additional training. That is where the Rural Policing Institute comes in. FLETC does a fantastic job training Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials. But FLETC does not have enough resources dedicated specifically toward training rural law enforcement officials. So the Rural Policing Institute would: evaluate the needs of rural and tribal law enforcement agencies; develop training programs designed to address the needs of rural law enforcement agencies, with a focus on combating meth, domestic violence, and school violence; export those training programs to rural and tribal law enforcement agencies; and conduct outreach to ensure that the training programs reach rural law enforcement agencies. As Colorado's attorney general, I learned that a small investment in law enforcement training can pay great dividends. This legislation would do just that--by ensuring that our rural and small town law enforcement officers have the training they need to protect their communities. I am proud of my roots in rural southern Colorado. Communities like mine are the heart of our Nation--and the men and women who protect them deserve the best possible training. I thank Senators Chambliss, Isakson, and Pryor for cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I have often referred to our rural communities as ``the forgotten America.'' Indeed, rural America is the backbone of our country--but is too often neglected by policymakers and politicians who have lost touch with people in the heartland. Nowhere is this neglect felt more acutely than in small-town law enforcement agencies--which have been confronted with decreased funding, increased homeland security responsibilities, and the great toll of a meth epidemic that is devastating rural America. Many people do not realize that most American law enforcement agencies serve rural communities or small towns. Indeed, of the nearly 17,000 police agencies in the United States, 90 percent serve a population of under 25,000 and operate with fewer than 50 sworn officers. I am well aware of the difficulties small town law enforcement agencies face day-in, day-out. When I was the attorney general of Colorado, I had the honor to work with some of America's finest law enforcement officials--many of them from rural Colorado. Men like Jerry Martin, the Dolores County Sherriff, who have consistently been able to do more with less. But the pressure they face is great. The growing demands on rural law enforcement, and shrinking budgets, have hit training programs particularly hard. Many rural law enforcement agencies simply do not have the budget to provide officers with adequate training. Furthermore, even those agencies that can come up with the money simply can't afford to take their police officers off the beat long enough to get additional training. That is where the Rural Policing Institute comes in. FLETC does a fantastic job training Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials. But FLETC does not have enough resources dedicated specifically toward training rural law enforcement officials. So the Rural Policing Institute would: evaluate the needs of rural and tribal law enforcement agencies; develop training programs designed to address the needs of rural law enforcement agencies, with a focus on combating meth, domestic violence, and school violence; export those training programs to rural and tribal law enforcement agencies; and conduct outreach to ensure that the training programs reach rural law enforcement agencies. As Colorado's attorney general, I learned that a small investment in law enforcement training can pay great dividends. This legislation would do just that--by ensuring that our rural and small town law enforcement officers have the training they need to protect their communities. I am proud of my roots in rural southern Colorado. Communities like mine are the heart of our Nation--and the men and women who protect them deserve the best possible training. I thank Senators Chambliss, Isakson, and Pryor for cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about bi-partisan legislation I am introducing today. I am proud to be joined by Senator Mel Martinez, Senator Bob Menendez, and 20 additional Senators from both sides of the aisle. The National Museum of the American Latino Community Commission Act will establish a Commission to study the potential creation of a National Museum of the American Latino Community. The Commission members, selected by the President and Members of Congress, will be tasked with studying the impact of such a Museum and the cost of constructing and maintaining a museum, developing a plan of action and a fundraising plan, and proposing recommendations to make the Museum a reality. As we begin our efforts to pass this significant legislation, the U.S. House of Representatives is set to complete their consideration of H.R. 512, the House companion bill, and will pass the bill on the House floor today. It has been a pleasure to working with Representative Xavier Becerra and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who have championed this legislation for several years. I hope to work with the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee to quickly advance the Senate bill, so that we can, at last, move forward. If we are successful in our efforts, I believe we will have done our part to enhance the experience of the millions who visit our Nation's capital every year. By passing this legislation, we will contribute to the ongoing, deeply rewarding, and profoundly important process of national self-discovery. Washington, DC is the symbolic heart of our country. When Americans travel to their capital, they expect the museums, monuments, and national parks they visit to reflect the complete American experience. I celebrate the opening of the National Museum of the America Indian and efforts underway to establish the National Museum of African American History and Culture because I believe we must celebrate our rich, diverse national heritage. Hispanics have long been a part of our country's history and my own family's story illustrates this truth. Over 400 years ago, in 1598, my family helped found the oldest city in what is now these United States. They named the city Santa Fe--the City of Holy Faith--because they knew the hand of God would guide them through the struggles of survival in the ages ahead. In Hispanic Pioneers in Colorado and New Mexico, a new book by Colorado Society of Hispanic Genealogy, their triumph over extreme adversity is documented. The time has come for the story of these pioneers to be told in our Nation's capital. As a proud American, I want to ensure that every individual who visits Washington has a chance to learn the full history of who we are as Americans. It is my hope that the Senate can work to pass this important bill. In doing so, we will preserve our shared America history. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about bi-partisan legislation I am introducing today. I am proud to be joined by Senator Mel Martinez, Senator Bob Menendez, and 20 additional Senators from both sides of the aisle. The National Museum of the American Latino Community Commission Act will establish a Commission to study the potential creation of a National Museum of the American Latino Community. The Commission members, selected by the President and Members of Congress, will be tasked with studying the impact of such a Museum and the cost of constructing and maintaining a museum, developing a plan of action and a fundraising plan, and proposing recommendations to make the Museum a reality. As we begin our efforts to pass this significant legislation, the U.S. House of Representatives is set to complete their consideration of H.R. 512, the House companion bill, and will pass the bill on the House floor today. It has been a pleasure to working with Representative Xavier Becerra and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who have championed this legislation for several years. I hope to work with the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee to quickly advance the Senate bill, so that we can, at last, move forward. If we are successful in our efforts, I believe we will have done our part to enhance the experience of the millions who visit our Nation's capital every year. By passing this legislation, we will contribute to the ongoing, deeply rewarding, and profoundly important process of national self-discovery. Washington, DC is the symbolic heart of our country. When Americans travel to their capital, they expect the museums, monuments, and national parks they visit to reflect the complete American experience. I celebrate the opening of the National Museum of the America Indian and efforts underway to establish the National Museum of African American History and Culture because I believe we must celebrate our rich, diverse national heritage. Hispanics have long been a part of our country's history and my own family's story illustrates this truth. Over 400 years ago, in 1598, my family helped found the oldest city in what is now these United States. They named the city Santa Fe--the City of Holy Faith--because they knew the hand of God would guide them through the struggles of survival in the ages ahead. In Hispanic Pioneers in Colorado and New Mexico, a new book by Colorado Society of Hispanic Genealogy, their triumph over extreme adversity is documented. The time has come for the story of these pioneers to be told in our Nation's capital. As a proud American, I want to ensure that every individual who visits Washington has a chance to learn the full history of who we are as Americans. It is my hope that the Senate can work to pass this important bill. In doing so, we will preserve our shared America history. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, this is a disappointing day for the Senate and for the United States of America because the debate we should be having on this floor, which is taking place around procedural issues, should really be a debate about what is happening in Iraq and the new direction we should be heading in Iraq. It is disappointing as well that it has been postured somehow as a political debate from the other side. The fact is that what happens in Iraq today and what happens in Iraq in the months and years ahead is, in fact, perhaps the most important issue we can face in the United States of America and in the world, and it is important that this body, elected by 300 million Americans in each of our respective States, grapple with the fundamental defining issue of our time. It is also important, as we grapple with this issue of the future of Iraq and the involvement of the United States, that we try to move forward in a manner that is bipartisan. At the end of the day, the only way in which we are going to achieve stability in the Middle East and we are going to bring our troops home--which I believe is a goal that is shared by the 100 Members of this body--is if we develop a bipartisan approach to getting it done. Yet, at the end of the day, we can't even seem to get beyond a procedural obstacle to get to a debate on the central issue that was presented by a bipartisan resolution, led by some of the most distinguished Members of this Senate, including Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and others. We cannot even get past the procedural problem for us to end up having a discussion and a vote on that very simple issue. I ask our brethren on the other side that they join us in getting through this procedural roadblock so that we can have an effective debate and a vote on a question that is before us concerning the future of Iraq and the President's plan on how we move forward. I am disappointed as one Senator that today we are not on this floor debating the alternative resolutions that were submitted in the last week, which are bipartisan in nature, and then deciding how to move forward as a Senate. I am very disappointed that we have not been able to get there. Let me also say that for those who have said the political posturing is taking place on this side, I don't believe that is at all the case. The fact is, what we have been trying to do on this side is to have an open and honest debate, and again underscoring the reality that if we are going to find our way out of the quagmire in which we find ourselves in Iraq, it is going to take a true bipartisan effort to get us to a place where we can say we have peace and stability in the Middle East and we have brought our troops home. I hope as we move forward in this discussion that we will be able to find some of that bipartisan consensus. At the end of the day, when we look at what is happening in Iraq, we need to recognize the realities. We need to know and remember the 3,100 men and women who have given their lives on behalf of the mission the President assigned to them in that country. We need to remember the 23,000 men and women in uniform who today are wounded and who are carrying the scars of the war with them day by day and for many of them for the rest of their lives. We need to remember the 137,000 men and women who are on the ground in Iraq today. The bipartisan resolution we put forward with Senator Warner, Senator Nelson, Senator Collins, and others recognizes that. We recognize the bravery of the men and women who have given so much of their time and their life in Iraq, and we recognize the need for us to support our men and women on the ground in Iraq. But we also recognize that what the American people are asking us to do is to chart a new direction for Iraq. I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side--as there is criticism on this side--that all we are doing is being critical and not offering alternatives. The fact is that we are attempting to come up with a new direction in Iraq, and that is what is embodied in the Warner-Levin resolution. It is, in fact, a new direction and new strategy in Iraq. Mr. President, I ask the Members of this body and I ask the people of the United States of America to consider what are the options before us. In my view, there are three options. There is plan A. Plan A is a plan--which was put forth by the President after several months of deliberation in which he concluded what we had to do in order to be successful in Iraq--to send 21,500 additional troops. In real terms, that is about 48,000 additional troops assigned, mostly in Baghdad. Some people have called it an escalation. Some people have called it a surge. That is the heart of the plan. It is a plan he announced in early January, a plan he reiterated at the State of the Union, that we assign 21,500 troops to Baghdad. The question we all ought to be asking ourselves is whether that will work. Will plan A work? I believe those who have studied the issue in great depth would answer the question no--no, it will not work; no, it will not work because Operation Going Forward in June of 2006, just 7 months ago, showed that it does not work. And when that didn't work, we went in with a surge of some 7,000 troops in August in Operation Going Forward Together No. 2, and again that did not work. If today we go in with 21,500 additional troops, plus all the support for the troops that is going to be necessary, what is going to be the result of that endeavor? In my view, we have been there, we have done that, and it hasn't worked. So we have to look forward to a new direction. So I believe plan A, the President's plan, is not a plan that is going to work. Then there is plan B. Plan B is being advocated by many, including some who have demonstrated in Washington and have called our offices every day, and that is to just bring our troops home today; it is over; it is a precipitous withdrawal; let's get out of there and get out of there right now. The mistakes of the past have compounded the problems in the Middle East and Iraq to the point that we can't put Humpty Dumpty together. Not all the king's men or all the king's horses could ever put Humpty Dumpty together again, some people would say, because the problems in Iraq today are so severe. I, as one Senator, reject plan B as well. I don't believe we can afford to move forward with that kind of precipitous withdrawal. There is plan C, and plan C is really the plan of trying to move forward in a bipartisan way so that we can achieve success in Iraq-- success, again, being defined by stability in Iraq and in the region and by bringing our troops home. I know there are lots of people in this body who have much more experience than I, and I know there are lots of people who have studied this issue extensively over a very long period of time, and yet it is amazing to me that when we have a group of people in a bipartisan way coming forward with a new direction, we have the President and others of the minority party essentially rejecting that plan of going forward together in a new direction. When I look at the Iraq study report and I look at names such as former Secretary of State James Baker, former Attorney General Ed Meese, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson, I see all of these Republicans who are saying we need a new direction going forward together. I believe that is what we ought to be doing, and I believe that new direction going forward together is what is embodied in the bipartisan resolution which was put together by Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and others. It is that kind of new direction which we ought to be debating and discussing on the floor of the Senate today. When one looks at this group of elder statesmen, which includes not only the Republicans whose names I mentioned, but they include esteemed elder statesmen who are also Democrats, such as Lee Hamilton, Vernon Jordan, Leon Panetta, William Perry, and Charles Robb, when we see those kinds of elder statesmen who have taken a year to try to figure out how we deal with this quagmire in Iraq, we have to say those recommendations should be paid very serious attention. The recommendations are many, but they are important because they show the depth of thinking that commission went through in coming up with those recommendations. In essence, what that bipartisan group of elder statesmen said to the people of America is that the way forward requires a new approach. The way forward requires a new approach. They talk about the external approach, which is to build an international consensus on how we move forward in Iraq. They talk about a new diplomatic offensive which is important if we are to succeed because there are too many nations in that part of the world and around the world who have been sitting on their hands letting America do it alone. They have to stop sitting on their hands if ultimately we are going to achieve stability in the Middle East. They talk about the Iraq International Support Group, and that kind of a group would be a group that would make sure the efforts on reconstruction and building the peace and security in Iraq are, in fact, successful. Where is that group? It hasn't been there. It has been the United States alone moving forward on this effort. We need to have the international community involved. It talks about dealing with Iran and dealing with Syria. They are part of that region, like it or not. This group of elder statesmen has said we need to deal with those countries. We know the limitations. We know the threats they also embody and present to the United States of America, but we need to bring them into the dialog if ultimately we are going to bring stability to that region. The study group goes on with a whole host of other recommendations on the internal approach, helping the Iraqis help themselves. It says that we must require the Iraqis to have performance on milestones, that we need to push them hard on national reconciliation, that we need to make sure the Iraqi Government takes responsibility for security and for their military forces, that they establish a functioning police force, and that they establish a criminal justice system that does, in fact, work. And the list goes on with 79 recommendations on the way forward, a new approach. That is what we ought to be talking about, Mr. President, on the floor of the Senate today--how we move forward. I look at this resolution which was put together by some of my esteemed colleagues, of which I am a proud original cosponsor, and I say at least we have tried on a bipartisan basis to figure out a roadmap for how we ought to move forward together as Democrats and Republicans, as Americans, on this issue, which is the defining issue of our times. I see the names of people such as Senator Warner, I see Senator Collins, I see Senator Levin, I see Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and others who have been involved in this effort. What we are trying to do as a group is to say we ought to figure out a way of charting a new direction forward together, much like the elder statesmen did in coming up with the Iraq Study Group recommendations. Yet we are being refused the opportunity to even engage in a debate on a resolution that essentially says this is a direction we propose to the President in how we move forward together. I hope that at the end of the day, with the discussions that are going on between the leadership, we are able to come to some agreement. I believe there is too much at stake. I believe there is too much at stake not only in the Middle East, but there is too much at stake for the United States of America and for the free world. At the end of the day, it is going to take Republicans and Democrats working together to try to chart this new and successful direction for how we move forward in Iraq. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act, introduced by Senator Feinstein. Before discussing the details of this bill, I want to state how pleased I am that it has such broad bipartisan support. With 13 sponsors, 7 Democrats and 6 Republicans, I am hopeful that this bill can move quickly through Congress. Gang-related violence is on the rise, in Colorado and throughout the Nation. Just by way of example: according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Denver is home to roughly 12,470 gang members, who are affiliated with 110 gangs. Nationwide, there are roughly 730,000 gang members. Since 1999 the number of crimes investigated by the Denver gang unit has risen 35 percent; gang members were responsible for fully 35 percent of Denver's firearm-related homicides; As these statistics show, gang violence is still a serious problem-- and we in Congress have an obligation to respond. This bill is a good first-step, because it focuses on four key pillars of effective law enforcement policy: prevention; investigation and prosecution; firm and just penalties; and effective law enforcement training. On prevention, the bill would authorize $250 million for intervention programs focused on at-risk youth. These funds would be administered through a new High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Area program, or HIGAA, which would be designed to facilitate cooperation between Federal, State, and local law enforcement in identifying, targeting, and eliminating violent gangs. I have firsthand experience with the effectiveness of multijurisdictional law enforcement efforts: the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, and the various local multijurisdictional drug task forces in Colorado, have successfully leveraged Federal, State, and local resources to fight crime. I support applying this model to the fight against gangs. On the investigation and prosecution front, I am pleased that the bill would increase funding for the Justice Department, Federal prosecutors, and FBI agents to coordinate Federal enforcement against violent gangs. In regards to penalties for gang-related activity, this bill takes a sensible approach. It would replace the current sentencing enhancement for gang-related conduct with a new Federal antigang law that directly criminalizes gang crimes--and related conspiracies and attempts to commit crimes in furtherance of a criminal gang. The bill would also create new Federal offenses prohibiting the recruitment of minors into a criminal gang. Finally, the bill would authorize $3-$5 million per year for the creation of a national gang violence prevention training center and clearinghouse, which would assist local law enforcment with training and the implementation of effective gang violence prevention models. Since my time as attorney general, I have been acutely aware of the importance of effective law enforcement training--and I am pleased that this bill contains provisions which would directly address this important issue. This is a sensible, comprehensive bill. By focusing on prevention, investigation, prosecution, punishment, and training, I am hopeful that it will give our law enforcement agencies--Federal, State, and local-- the resources they need to effectively fight the growth of gangs and gang activity.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, as we anticipate the beginning of the discussion and debate with respect to the future of the involvement of the United States in Iraq, it is important for Members always in this Chamber to remember we are all unified in honoring the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces and those men and women who continue to fight in Iraq with such bravery and such valor that we cannot forget what they do. Every Member in the Senate honors the sacrifice which our troops and their families have made over the past 4 years. That sacrifice will not, cannot, and will never be forgotten. It is also important to remember that no matter how contentious the debate might become in the weeks and months ahead, every Senator shares the same basic goals: The goal is simply peace and stability in the Middle East and a safe return of our troops to their homeland. We may disagree on the best path to the end. It is important to remember what binds us together as America so we will not be torn too far apart and we can help end the divisiveness which has occurred in our country over this issue and move forward in a bipartisan way to restore the greatness of America in the world. It is my hope the anticipated debate that will occur will be with a spirit of bipartisanship and with a spirit of civility. I am especially pleased we have arrived at a bipartisan resolution which plainly states Congress does, in fact, support a new direction in Iraq. I commend the efforts of the bipartisan group of Senators who worked together to provide a positive framework for protecting our national security, supporting our troops, and defining our mission in Iraq. That compromise resolution reflects the will of the American people that we must, in fact, chart a new course of success in Iraq. I especially commend the leadership and the great efforts of Senator Warner, Senator Nelson, Senator Collins, Senator Levin, Senator Biden, Senator Hagel, and others who have been involved in this effort over the last several days. Until now, the debate over our mission in Iraq has been dominated by essentially what has been a false choice. On the one hand, we have had before Congress and before the American people plan A, which is the President's plan, which essentially has been to say, stay the course, plus, add another 21,500 troops into the fight in Baghdad. This would be a mistake. It would put more American troops into the middle of a civil war and places too much faith in what has been, to us, an incompetent Iraqi Government that has failed to do its work in securing the peace for its people and their country. On the other hand, we have plan B, which is advocated by some Members of Congress, both in the House and this Senate, which calls for a more or less precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. From my point of view, this, too, is a bad choice. It could open the door to even more bloodshed and to a dangerous regionwide military escalation not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East. In my view, what we need is a plan C. That plan C should reflect the bipartisan opposition to the President's proposal to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq and also propose an alternative strategy for success in Iraq. That is exactly what we have accomplished with this compromise resolution which would make clear the following: First, that a bipartisan majority of Senators disagrees with the President's plan to increase the number of United States troops in Iraq as he has proposed; second, that the primary objective of a United States strategy in Iraq should be to encourage the Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises that are necessary to improve security, foster reconciliation, strengthen the Government, and end the violence; third, that the United States has an important role to play in helping to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, conducting counterterrorism activities, promoting regional stability and training and equipping the Iraqi troops; and, finally, that the United States should engage the nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally sponsored peace and reconciliation diplomatic process and initiative within Iraq and throughout the region. I will briefly elaborate on some of these points. The President's plan to simply surge or increase the number of troops in Iraq by 21,500 would be a mistake. First, the violence in Iraq is becoming increasingly sectarian, even intrasectarian. I worry that the American troops we are sending there are being placed in what is the midst of a civil war. Second, I also worry that the larger American military presence will discourage the Iraqis from taking responsibility for their own security. As General John Abizaid said in this Capitol last November: . . . it's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. As we enter the debate over the next several days and weeks in this Senate, we should not forget those words: I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. Furthermore, I am concerned that the plan places too much faith in the present Iraqi Government, which has so far shown little willingness to make the difficult decisions necessary to stop the bloodshed and the violence within their own country. Finally, we have recent experience where the additional troops who have been sent into Iraq indicate that the results of those operations of the last 7 to 8 months have not been successful. Last year, we tried two separate surges--one was named Operation Together Forward I and the other was Operation Together Forward II--and neither stopped or slowed the violence in Iraq. In fact, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group found that the violence had escalated during that same time period by 43 percent. Adding to this is all the additional strain that a troop increase will place on our service men and women and their families. For these reasons, I oppose the President's plan to increase our troop presence in Iraq. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the resolution that will be before this Senate. This resolution is more than about opposing the President's plan. It proposes a new strategy by calling for an enhanced diplomatic effort, a new focus on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, so that the weapons that are flowing from Iran and from Syria into that country can, in fact, be stopped. Stopping the flow of weapons and terrorists into that country will be part of bringing about the security that is needed in that country. It also calls for a renewed focus on helping the Iraqis achieve a political settlement which is, at the end, a precondition to any successful outcome in Iraq. We need a new direction in Iraq. We need to speak in a bipartisan voice. We, as an institution, need to fulfill our constitutional duty as a coequal branch of Government as we move forward with what is one of the most important questions that today faces the American Nation. The resolution I hope will be considered in the Senate this next week is a first step in that direction. I am proud to be a sponsor and a supporter of that resolution.

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

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. On behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. SALAZAR

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

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, as we anticipate the beginning of the discussion and debate with respect to the future of the involvement of the United States in Iraq, it is important for Members always in this Chamber to remember we are all unified in honoring the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces and those men and women who continue to fight in Iraq with such bravery and such valor that we cannot forget what they do. Every Member in the Senate honors the sacrifice which our troops and their families have made over the past 4 years. That sacrifice will not, cannot, and will never be forgotten. It is also important to remember that no matter how contentious the debate might become in the weeks and months ahead, every Senator shares the same basic goals: The goal is simply peace and stability in the Middle East and a safe return of our troops to their homeland. We may disagree on the best path to the end. It is important to remember what binds us together as America so we will not be torn too far apart and we can help end the divisiveness which has occurred in our country over this issue and move forward in a bipartisan way to restore the greatness of America in the world. It is my hope the anticipated debate that will occur will be with a spirit of bipartisanship and with a spirit of civility. I am especially pleased we have arrived at a bipartisan resolution which plainly states Congress does, in fact, support a new direction in Iraq. I commend the efforts of the bipartisan group of Senators who worked together to provide a positive framework for protecting our national security, supporting our troops, and defining our mission in Iraq. That compromise resolution reflects the will of the American people that we must, in fact, chart a new course of success in Iraq. I especially commend the leadership and the great efforts of Senator Warner, Senator Nelson, Senator Collins, Senator Levin, Senator Biden, Senator Hagel, and others who have been involved in this effort over the last several days. Until now, the debate over our mission in Iraq has been dominated by essentially what has been a false choice. On the one hand, we have had before Congress and before the American people plan A, which is the President's plan, which essentially has been to say, stay the course, plus, add another 21,500 troops into the fight in Baghdad. This would be a mistake. It would put more American troops into the middle of a civil war and places too much faith in what has been, to us, an incompetent Iraqi Government that has failed to do its work in securing the peace for its people and their country. On the other hand, we have plan B, which is advocated by some Members of Congress, both in the House and this Senate, which calls for a more or less precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. From my point of view, this, too, is a bad choice. It could open the door to even more bloodshed and to a dangerous regionwide military escalation not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East. In my view, what we need is a plan C. That plan C should reflect the bipartisan opposition to the President's proposal to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq and also propose an alternative strategy for success in Iraq. That is exactly what we have accomplished with this compromise resolution which would make clear the following: First, that a bipartisan majority of Senators disagrees with the President's plan to increase the number of United States troops in Iraq as he has proposed; second, that the primary objective of a United States strategy in Iraq should be to encourage the Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises that are necessary to improve security, foster reconciliation, strengthen the Government, and end the violence; third, that the United States has an important role to play in helping to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, conducting counterterrorism activities, promoting regional stability and training and equipping the Iraqi troops; and, finally, that the United States should engage the nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally sponsored peace and reconciliation diplomatic process and initiative within Iraq and throughout the region. I will briefly elaborate on some of these points. The President's plan to simply surge or increase the number of troops in Iraq by 21,500 would be a mistake. First, the violence in Iraq is becoming increasingly sectarian, even intrasectarian. I worry that the American troops we are sending there are being placed in what is the midst of a civil war. Second, I also worry that the larger American military presence will discourage the Iraqis from taking responsibility for their own security. As General John Abizaid said in this Capitol last November: . . . it's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. As we enter the debate over the next several days and weeks in this Senate, we should not forget those words: I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. Furthermore, I am concerned that the plan places too much faith in the present Iraqi Government, which has so far shown little willingness to make the difficult decisions necessary to stop the bloodshed and the violence within their own country. Finally, we have recent experience where the additional troops who have been sent into Iraq indicate that the results of those operations of the last 7 to 8 months have not been successful. Last year, we tried two separate surges--one was named Operation Together Forward I and the other was Operation Together Forward II--and neither stopped or slowed the violence in Iraq. In fact, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group found that the violence had escalated during that same time period by 43 percent. Adding to this is all the additional strain that a troop increase will place on our service men and women and their families. For these reasons, I oppose the President's plan to increase our troop presence in Iraq. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the resolution that will be before this Senate. This resolution is more than about opposing the President's plan. It proposes a new strategy by calling for an enhanced diplomatic effort, a new focus on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, so that the weapons that are flowing from Iran and from Syria into that country can, in fact, be stopped. Stopping the flow of weapons and terrorists into that country will be part of bringing about the security that is needed in that country. It also calls for a renewed focus on helping the Iraqis achieve a political settlement which is, at the end, a precondition to any successful outcome in Iraq. We need a new direction in Iraq. We need to speak in a bipartisan voice. We, as an institution, need to fulfill our constitutional duty as a coequal branch of Government as we move forward with what is one of the most important questions that today faces the American Nation. The resolution I hope will be considered in the Senate this next week is a first step in that direction. I am proud to be a sponsor and a supporter of that resolution.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. On behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today Senator Allard and I are introducing a bill that will authorize full funding for a state-of-the- art veterans' hospital at the Fitzsimons campus in Aurora, CO. This crown jewel of our veterans' health system will serve more than 424,000 veterans who live in Colorado, and many more who live in nearby States, with the best available health care. Our veterans deserve the best, and Fitzsimons will be the best. Since the VA identified the Fitzsimons VA Hospital as one of its top medical construction projects in 2004, I have fought to move this project forward, although we've encountered some hurdles along the way. But we are making progress. I helped bring all the stakeholders together in 2005 so that supporters of the project, and advocates for veterans' health care, could speak with one voice on Fitzsimons. Thanks in part to this dialogue, in February of 2006 the VA finally reached agreement with the Fitzsimons Authority on the purchase price of 24 acres at the site. And just 2 months ago, in December, I was pleased that the omnibus veterans' bill we passed, S. 3421, included a $98 million authorization for Fitzsimons that was so desperately needed to keep the project on track. Senator Allard and I fought hard for that authorization because it allowed the VA to use unspent project funds from previous years, and to begin spending more on the critical initial phases of the project. Today, Senator Allard and I are introducing a bill that will complete the authorization for Fitzsimons VA Hospital. Our bill authorizes the remaining $523 million necessary to complete the project. It is a straightforward bill that we should pass as soon as possible to ensure we don't run into any costly construction delays down the road. I spoke with Secretary Nicholson about this project just last week, and he reiterated his commitment to getting this project done as soon as possible. Just as the VA must keep Fitzsimons at the top of its priority list, so too should Congress do its part by completing the authorization for the project. I look forward to the day when our veterans can enjoy the benefits of a new state-of-the-art facility at Fitzsimons. They have more than earned the high quality care they will receive there, and I urge this body to keep the project on track by passing this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today Senator Allard and I are introducing a bill that will authorize full funding for a state-of-the- art veterans' hospital at the Fitzsimons campus in Aurora, CO. This crown jewel of our veterans' health system will serve more than 424,000 veterans who live in Colorado, and many more who live in nearby States, with the best available health care. Our veterans deserve the best, and Fitzsimons will be the best. Since the VA identified the Fitzsimons VA Hospital as one of its top medical construction projects in 2004, I have fought to move this project forward, although we've encountered some hurdles along the way. But we are making progress. I helped bring all the stakeholders together in 2005 so that supporters of the project, and advocates for veterans' health care, could speak with one voice on Fitzsimons. Thanks in part to this dialogue, in February of 2006 the VA finally reached agreement with the Fitzsimons Authority on the purchase price of 24 acres at the site. And just 2 months ago, in December, I was pleased that the omnibus veterans' bill we passed, S. 3421, included a $98 million authorization for Fitzsimons that was so desperately needed to keep the project on track. Senator Allard and I fought hard for that authorization because it allowed the VA to use unspent project funds from previous years, and to begin spending more on the critical initial phases of the project. Today, Senator Allard and I are introducing a bill that will complete the authorization for Fitzsimons VA Hospital. Our bill authorizes the remaining $523 million necessary to complete the project. It is a straightforward bill that we should pass as soon as possible to ensure we don't run into any costly construction delays down the road. I spoke with Secretary Nicholson about this project just last week, and he reiterated his commitment to getting this project done as soon as possible. Just as the VA must keep Fitzsimons at the top of its priority list, so too should Congress do its part by completing the authorization for the project. I look forward to the day when our veterans can enjoy the benefits of a new state-of-the-art facility at Fitzsimons. They have more than earned the high quality care they will receive there, and I urge this body to keep the project on track by passing this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I thank my friend from Alabama. And at the outset, before I make a comment about the matter that is pending before the Senate today, I want to also commend him for his work on energy independence. I think it demonstrates how we are able in this body to bring together Republicans and conservatives, Democrats and progressives, on what is one of the signature issues of our time. I very much look forward to working with him, as well as with my other colleagues on this very important agenda in this 110th Congress. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Reid substitute amendment that is a very important matter that is now before this body. I applaud the leadership of the floor managers, Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi. I very much look forward to a successful conclusion of this legislation. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 would raise the Federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over a period of 2 years. I am proud to be a supporter and a cosponsor of this measure which will help lift millions of Americans into a better way of life. The Federal minimum wage was first established through the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. At that time, the Federal Government set the Federal minimum wage at 25 cents an hour, which would amount to $3.22 an hour in today's dollars. Since then, Congress has used its wisdom and increased the minimum wage eight times under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Unfortunately, American workers have now had to wait 10 years since the last increase--the longest that workers have gone without an increase in the entire history our Nation has had a minimum wage law. American workers, in my view, have waited long enough for their raise. The minimum wage is not just about fairness. It is also about economic necessity. While Congress has neglected to raise the minimum wage, the cost of living has continued to skyrocket. Since we last raised the minimum wage, take the following examples on the escalation of the cost of living: Gas prices have increased by 36 percent. Health insurance rates have gone up by 33 percent. College tuition rates have gone up by 35 percent. And housing costs have gone up by 38 percent. There have been all of those increases during all of that time, and the minimum wage for Americans has gone unchanged. Without any increase in their wages, these rising costs will force many minimum wage workers to make very difficult choices. Sometimes they must ask themselves: Should they pay the rent or buy groceries? Should they pay the heating bill or buy diapers? Some of the very basic, essential questions of life have to be answered by some of these minimum wage workers every day. Indeed, desperate times often have called for desperate measures. Our inaction here in Washington has spurred a number of different States, including my State of Colorado, to take action on their own. In November, the people of my State voted to increase the State's minimum wage by a very substantial margin. Twenty-eight other States and the District of Columbia have also taken action to raise wages above the Federal minimum of $5.15 an hour. In my view, unless we act as a Congress, what will end up happening is we will continue to see a hodgepodge of minimum wage increases in the 50 States of our Nation. I think it would be much preferable to business as well as to the people of America to have a Federal minimum wage that applies across the entire country. The House of Representatives has already acted quickly on this legislation. It is simple and straightforward. It is now time for the Senate to act, and for this long overdue increase to finally become law. Make no mistake, we all know this legislation will make a significant difference in the lives of working families. The increase will directly impact 13 million Americans and nearly 6 million children. Do you hear that, Madam President? It will impact 13 million Americans and nearly 6 million children who would see their parents' earnings increase. In Colorado, raising the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour would directly raise the pay of 87,000 workers and benefit 251,000 workers overall. This increase will mean an additional $4,400 in annual wages. That money is money that could be used for a number of great essentials: Almost 2 years of childcare, more than full tuition for a community college degree, a year and a half of heat and electricity, more than a year of groceries, and more than 8 months of rent. I support doing everything we can to help these workers. As we help these workers, I also believe we must do everything we can to help the small businesses of America. That is why I am supporting the Reid substitute amendment that has the targeted tax relief to help small businesses thrive. Having had a history of working as a small business person for a long time, I know the struggle small businesses engage in every day. I also know that it is small businesses that are the engine of most of the job creation in America today. That is true whether it is in Colorado or in the States of Wyoming or Massachusetts. Small businesses are, in fact, the backbone of job creation. In my State alone, we have 500,000 small businesses. And 98 percent of the businesses that hire workers in Colorado are, in fact, small businesses. These businesses create jobs. They fuel our economy. They provide the livelihood for millions of workers, many of them low-wage earners. We must ensure that these small businesses continue to serve this vital purpose. In my first hearing as a new member of the Senate Finance Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, we heard from small business owners who testified that an increase in the minimum wage would, in some cases, force them to consider whether to eliminate some workers or cut back the hours of others. They also testified that some of the costs of the increase could be defrayed through specific tax incentives to help them meet the expenses associated with improving and expanding their businesses through construction and renovation and tax credits to help them hire more low- wage workers. Last week I introduced legislation called the Business RAISE Act to help small businesses with business tax relief. My bill contains some of the tax incentives we heard about in the Finance Committee hearing. Specifically, my legislation, now incorporated into the Reid substitute, would allow 15 year depreciation periods for restaurant improvements, new restaurant construction, and improvements to business property that is owned as opposed to leased. That simply makes economic sense. When you buy equipment or build a restaurant, you know that a 39-year depreciation does not reflect economic reality. You know that those changes that have to be made will have to be made in 5 or 10 years. So allowing these items to be expensed over a 15-year period will be a great incentive and of great assistance to small businesses and restaurants to do what they have to do to improve their businesses. I also have proposed--and it has been included in the Reid substitute amendment--the expansion of the eligibility for the work opportunity tax credit to all disabled veterans. This legislation would expand the eligibility for the work opportunity tax credit to all disabled veterans. In these days of Afghanistan and Iraqi veteran forces returning back to our Nation with the kinds of injuries that many of them have sustained and some of the disabilities they have to suffer through, it is important for us as a nation to do everything we can to provide them with an opportunity. These work opportunity tax credits that would apply to all disabled veterans in America would be part of our Nation's promise to make sure we are taking care of the veterans of America. I am proud to have worked with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, with Republicans and Democratic Senators in the Finance Committee, to have many of these provisions included in the legislation that was reported unanimously out of committee. Those recommendations have now been included in the Reid substitute amendment which is currently pending. But we could have dealt with these issues separately. The political reality is that we will do two good things at the same time. We will raise the minimum wage for Americans, which has been on hold for far too long, and we will provide incentives to allow small businesses to continue to thrive with the tax incentives we are creating in this legislation. Toward that end, I am hopeful that this body of Senators will move quickly and expeditiously in approving the provisions of the Reid substitute amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, in each State of the Union Address that President Bush has given to our country over the last 6 years, he has talked about the importance of energy independence for our Nation. In 2001, he said loudly and clearly that we as America ``must become more energy independent.'' In 2002, he said: We need to encourage conservation, promote technology, and build infrastructure. And again last year, most of us remember the President loudly and clearly telling the people of America, the people of this world, that America is addicted to oil and we need to do something about it. I was pleased last night that the President revisited an issue he had talked about before--our energy independence. In my view, this is a signature issue for all of us in the 21st century. Encompassed in this issue of energy security for our Nation, we see the national security of America because today the way we approach the energy issue, where we now import 70 percent of our oil from foreign countries, we end up funding both ends of the war on terror. We do it when we put gasoline in our tanks in America and it ends up funding Iran and Iran ends up buying the rockets for Hezbollah that rain over Israel and funds the 10,000 members of the Hezbollah militia. That is crazy. So our national security requires us to move forward with energy independence. As far as our economic independence at home, we saw what happened when gasoline went up over $3 a gallon, when farmers and ranchers were suffering, having to pay $3.50 a gallon for diesel to fill up their tractors, their combines, and their trucks. We know the economic security of our country depends on having a steady supply of energy. Finally, the environmental security of our country, knowing what global warming is doing to the North Pole and to the climate changes all around the world, is something we need to get our hands around. We need to deal with the energy issue in an effective way. So I was pleased that the President of the United States last night came before the Congress and the Nation and said we needed to do some more work on energy. He said we needed to more than double, we need to quintuple the renewable fuel standard, which hopefully will get us to the 35 million gallons per day in 10 years. And he said we need to reduce the gasoline we are currently using in this country in 10 years by 20 percent. At the end of the day, what we do on energy will depend on how we take those concepts and how we, with the President, walk the talk toward getting us to energy independence. When we look back on what has happened in the last 6 years in the United States, the opposite has happened. Instead of becoming less dependent on foreign sources of oil, we have become more dependent on foreign sources of oil. So the rhetoric simply has not matched the deeds. We need to make sure the words that were spoken last night are matched by the deeds of the administration in terms of the budget, the leadership of the Department of Energy in investing in technology, in the National Renewable Energy Lab, and moving forward with an aggressive agenda on renewable energy and new technologies. I wish to illustrate two points that tell the history of what has happened over the last 6 years in Washington. First, with respect to renewable energy investments, if one takes a look at this chart, 2001 to 2006, one would think, as we were on this trajectory of getting ourselves energy independent, that this red line would show us increasing investments in renewable energy in America. And yet the exact opposite has happened. We started in 2001 investing about $350 million a year into renewable energy. By the time we got to 2006, we were at about $375 million. So we actually dropped about $25 million in what we were investing in renewable energies. This is not walking the talk as we embrace the future of renewable energy. I would like to illustrate what we have done with efficiency. We talk about energy independence. We know it is a complex issue, but frankly, as my good friend from Tennessee and others know, it is not as complex as some of the other issues we face in America today. It certainly is not as complex, in my mind, as the health care issue which dogs the businesses and families of America every day because we know how we can get to energy independence. If the country of Brazil, a Third World country, could declare itself to be energy independent, why not the most powerful Nation on Earth, the Nation with the greatest technology? Why couldn't we have done the same thing? The answer to that is that we have not had a sustained commitment to get us to energy independence. If we look at the low-hanging fruit with respect to energy efficiency, we again see the story of our walking away from embracing a true ethic of energy independence. If we look at the investments that have been made from 2001 to 2006, we see a dramatic decline, again, in terms of what we are doing with energy efficiency. That is not the way to go. It is the wrong way to go because the experts and scientists at the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Lab tell us that we waste about 62 percent of the energy we consume. We waste 62 percent of the energy that we consume. So if we can become much more efficient with respect to how we use energy, we can help deal with this issue of energy dependence, which is essentially strangling our economy and strangling our national security. As I react to the President's State of the Union Address, I am delighted with the fact that he has given us this challenge. Now we need to work as a Congress and have the administration work with us so we are able to put the resources and the ideas on the table to come up with what is truly a bipartisan package that will help us move forward with the kind of energy independence that is achievable. In my view, we can be even bolder and go beyond what the President has said. There is a group of Senators in this Chamber--some 25 of us, half Republicans, half Democrats--that last year sponsored legislation called 2025. This year it has another number. We talk about alternative fuels and how we incentivize moving forward with alternative fuels. We have in the Senate as well incentives for higher efficiencies and how we use oil. Our goal in that legislation is to reduce the consumption in the imports of oil in a very dramatic fashion by the year 2016 and then beyond, by the year 2026. It is a bipartisan agenda. At the end of the day, and in conclusion, we have an opportunity to work together as a Senate, as a Congress, by bringing Republicans and Democrats together to achieve true energy independence and surpass even the President's vision of what we can do. When you think about Senators such as Sessions and Brownback and then on the Democratic side Bayh and Lieberman, a whole host of us who are involved in the set America free agenda, it is an important opportunity we have to move forward. But, at the end of the day, the way we will achieve this milestone of energy independence for our country, which is so essential, is by making sure the administration itself, the President of the United States, walks the talk in terms of what we can do to achieve this goal of energy independence. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me first say I am pleased and honored to be here with Senator Warner and Senator Collins and Senator Nelson. It was about a year or so ago that Senator Levin and Senator Warner led a CODEL of Senators into Iraq and Afghanistan. I had the great fortune of traveling with both Senator Warner and Senator Levin on that CODEL. I learned a tremendous amount from them in terms of what it is they had seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the observations they made about where we were on the levels of violence in Iraq. I came away from that CODEL with them feeling as if they truly had the best interests of America at heart. As they have sponsored these resolutions today, what they are acting out here is in the best fashion of what a Senator should do, and that is trying to do the best for our country. Let me say, first of all, with respect to the resolution that was heard earlier today in the Foreign Relations Committee, sponsored by Senator Levin and Senator Biden and Senator Hagel, I very much appreciate their leadership and thinking and the passion they brought to the debate and to this issue. When I sat down and compared the resolution considered in the Foreign Relations Committee to the resolution that is now being introduced by Senator Warner and other colleagues, I thought there were a great number of similarities between the two resolutions. Let me just comment about my own involvement and give part of my rationale for becoming an original sponsor of this resolution. First and foremost, I think what this country needs today more than anything else is a sense of unity. I think we have had a great deal of divisiveness in this country over the last 6 years. I think in the long run, when one looks 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the road at these very difficult times that are very challenging to our country--very challenging to our men and women in uniform and the other men and women of America--we will be judged as to whether we in this Congress were able to unify a direction in Iraq that ultimately was a successful direction in Iraq. I have called for a new direction in Iraq because I believe we need that to get us to success there. I don't believe we can get to success in Iraq if we have a divided country in terms of how we move forward. With respect to the resolution that is before us, in my own conversations with the President and with members of his administration in the past, I have told them that, in my view, with all due respect to our Commander in Chief, we need to move forward in a new direction. When I returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with the Levin-Warner codel, one of the things I told the President we needed to do was to enhance our diplomatic efforts in the region; that the countries in the area have as much, if not more, at stake than the United States. I saw them doing very little. Today, I see Saudi Arabia, with all its wealth, doing very little to help in the reconstruction of Iraq. The same thing could be said about Kuwait and many of the neighboring countries. That effort has to be enhanced because they simply, in my judgment, are not doing their part to contribute to a successful outcome in that region. I have also spoken to the President and members of his administration about the importance of the effort of reconstruction and making sure that there are other countries besides the United States putting their shoulder to the wheel on the reconstruction efforts that are underway in Iraq. The way I see this debate unfolding is that we essentially have the plan of the President, which I call plan A. His plan is that we do a lot of what we have been doing but, in addition, that we move forward and add an additional 21,500 troops to the war effort in Iraq. That would be what I call plan A. There is another plan out there, plan B, from some Members of Congress and others that say we ought to bring our troops home and bring our troops home right away; that we ought to engage in an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and from that region. My own view of that plan, plan B, is that is not a good plan either. At the end of the day, no matter what criticisms we make about the original decision to invade Iraq, about the way the war has been mishandled, the fact is we are in Iraq today; there is a mess in Iraq and in the Middle East. So the question for me becomes: How do we as the United States of America, working in the Senate, working in the House of Representatives, working with the President, how do we put Humpty-Dumpty together again? It seems to me that Humpty-Dumpty has fallen off the wall, and it is up to us to try to figure out, in some united way, under difficult circumstances, how to move forward together to create the unity that will allow us to succeed in Iraq. When I look at the possibility of plan B, which is a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it seems to me that will create tremendous dangers not only to the Middle East but to the long-term interests of the United States. I, for one, want us very much to succeed in Iraq and, because I want to succeed, I want to see whether we can create a kind of unity on how we move forward. I think this resolution introduced by the senior Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Nebraska, and the Senator from Maine is a good direction for us to go in. I want to point out what I consider to be four central points of this resolution which, in my view, are also reflected in the Biden-Levin-Hagel resolution. The first of those points is that there is a disagreement with the President's decision to move forward with a surge of 21,500 more troops. I think both resolutions say that equally and clearly. Why, in this resolution, is that conclusion reached? Why was it reached in the other resolution heard in the Foreign Relations Committee? In my view, it is because of what our military commanders have said. General Abizaid said it a few weeks ago, in November. He said an increase in troops was not the way to go because it sends the wrong signal about the ultimate responsibility to quell the sectarian violence in Iraq. It is not the right way to go because when you look at what happened with the surges we have had over the last 6, 7 months in Iraq, they themselves did not work. When operations going forward started in June, there was a sense that it might quell some of the sectarian violence going on. It didn't work. We came back in August and did another operation going forward. It did not work. The Iraq bipartisan study commission, chaired by former Secretary Baker and Lee Hamilton, found, in fact, that those surges created an escalation of violence by 43 percent during that time period. In a matter of 6 months we saw a 43-percent escalation of violence there. Regarding putting more troops in, it seems we have the laboratory of experience where it hasn't worked in the past, and there is nothing I have seen that indicates that moving forward in that direction will work at this time. I agree with the resolution and making a statement that we disagree with the President's decision moving forward in that regard. As to the second part of this resolution, also reflected in the alternative resolution in the Foreign Relations Committee, I think there is unanimity of opinion. I bet you that we can get 100 Senators to vote for the position that the Iraqi Government needs to assume responsibility for a functioning government that will provide security to the Iraqi nation and to the people of Iraq. When Senator Warner and I visited Iraq with Senator Levin, I still remember meeting with the Iraqi Ministers and with our own forces responsible for helping with the training of the Iraqi police. Mr. President, 2006 was supposed to be the year of the police in Iraq. This is the year where the Iraqi security was supposed to be taken to the point where they could move forward and assume the responsibility for their own security. Yet that handoff hasn't occurred and the sectarian violence has continued to increase. I very much agree with the spirit of both resolutions that says if we are going to move forward and be successful on this issue, it is the Iraqi Government and people who need to move forward and assume responsibility for their security. The third thing in this resolution that I think is important is that we contemplate that there is going to be some continuing involvement of the United States in Iraq, without limitation. Nobody knows for how long. But our efforts to engage in counterterrorism in that area will be a continuing and important role of the United States of America. Our efforts to attempt to restore the territorial integrity of Iraq and to stop the weapons flowing into Iraq from Iran and Syria are important measures that I believe the U.S. military can address. I agree with those aspects of the resolution as well. Finally, as I said earlier in my comments, at the end of the day, this is not a United States of America problem alone. When one looks at the Gulf States and other countries in that area, such as Egypt, there is a huge problem that belongs to them as well. We have our hands on the tar baby as the United States of America. They, too, as countries have a huge stake in the success of Iraq and also have to get their hands on the tar baby. I believe the resolution put forward by Senator Levin and my other colleagues is a step in the right direction in that it creates a framework for how we ought to be moving forward in Iraq. In conclusion, again, I say how much I respect the senior Senator from Virginia. I remember well the work that we did just a year or so ago in the so-called Gang of 14. I see that Senator Nelson and Senator Collins and Senator Warner are back again trying to pull the Members of this body together on what is a very contentious issue. I wish them well, and I am delighted to be part of the effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today because our dependence on foreign oil is dangerously out of control and it is putting our Nation at risk. It is weakening our defenses and undermining our power around the world. From my point of view, as I look at the defining issues of the 21st century, there is no doubt in my mind that our energy security is at the very top of those issues which we must address. We must address it because of national security implications, because of our economic security, and because of the environmental security of the United States of America. First, with respect to the national security of our country, it is incredible to me that in this year, 2007, we are importing 60 percent of our oil from foreign countries, and 22 percent of the world's oil reserves are official sponsors of terrorism that are under some kind of U.N. sanction. When we look at the conflict underway in the Middle East, when we look at the tensions with Venezuela, we in the United States of America are putting our very national security at risk simply because of our overdependence on foreign oil. Second, the economic security of the United States of America is very much at risk as well. We need to have a new energy economy that will produce jobs in the United States of America and give us stability with respect to the costs that go into our energy economy. Third, the environmental security of our Nation is also very much at risk. As we move forward to try to address issues such as global warming, it is important for us to address this issue from a national security point of view, an economic security point of view, and environmental security point of view. Therefore, I believe the Congress and President Bush, Secretary Bodman, and others who are involved in this effort have to get very serious about our energy security. It is time for us to put rhetoric behind us. As we heard last week in the Senate Energy Committee, we have a pre- 9/11 energy policy that is failing us in a post-9/11 world. We have an energy policy which is still a pre-9/11 energy policy, and it is failing us in this post-9/11 world. We must take dramatic steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, conserve energy with new energy-efficient technologies, and expedite the development of renewable energy resources. We must build a clean energy economy that restores our independence and our competitive advantage around the world. For much of the last century, the United States has been the single most powerful Nation on this globe. We have been a clarion voice for freedom, democracy, and justice for all people. My father and 16 million young Americans served their country in World War II, defeating the Nazis and the fascists around the world, earning us our role on this globe of the most powerful Nation of the last century. Many died to achieve that legacy for the United States of America. My uncle was one of those 400,000 Americans who died in that conflict of World War II, leaving his life, his blood, and his spirit on the soils of Europe. Today, our dependence on foreign oil is sapping the strength that the World War II generation built for us. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran are playing their oil holdings like chess pieces on a chessboard, applying pressure here, threatening there, and eroding U.S. influence around the world. Since 2001, China and Russia have partnered to lock up oil in central Asia, rolling us out of the region. Venezuela has wielded its resources to bully its neighbors and to oppose our interests in South America. And Iran has used its oil resources to court Russia and China, convincing them to oppose our diplomatic effort to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. We ought not put our foreign policy in the hands of Iran or Venezuela or the sheiks and kings of the Middle East. Countries that wish us harm know full well of our addiction to their oil. They know that any disruption in supply sends gas prices through the roof and slows our economy. And they are happy to profit from our addiction. Oil money lines the pockets of the terrorists, the extremists, and unfriendly governments. It helps the Syrians buy rockets, such as those the Hezbollah has in Lebanon today. It reaches bin Laden and al-Qaida. It funds the militants in Nigeria who capture and terrorize westerners. The sad truth is that we are funding both sides of the war on terror. We spent over $100 billion last year to fight the extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan--extremists armed with weapons purchased from our oil revenues. It is crazy. We are importing more oil today than we ever have. Over 60 percent of our oil--more than 12 million barrels a day--comes from abroad. The vast majority of this oil comes from state-owned oil companies in unfriendly countries. This is only going to get worse in the coming years. Take a look at who controls the world's oil reserves. If we look at the chart, the countries of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Iraq--and the list goes on--control most of the world's oil reserves, and many of these countries are either unfriendly to the United States or have a shaky government around them. But we know one thing for sure: It is not the best interests of the United States they have at heart. If our oil dependence continues, we will be relying on companies such as Petrovesa, Saudi Aramco, and Gazprom for our oil. What does this mean? It means that Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela will hold our very energy security in their hands, which means they hold our very national security in their hands. We have to change course, and we have to change course now. We are no longer a world where oil costs $12 a barrel. We no longer carry the illusion that others wish us no harm. We live in a complex and dangerous time. Yet we continue to depend on this pre-9/11 energy policy that simply is not working for us in this 21st century. The good news is that the future of our Nation's energy security lies right here at home. It lies in our farms and in our fields and with the ingenuity of American workers and American technologies. There are two things we can do immediately to improve our energy security. First, we can dramatically increase our energy efficiency. Improved efficiency is the cheapest and largest source of energy. The technologies that will save us energy and money are already in place, but Government policies often discourage consumers from using them. We have to be much smarter as a country about energy efficiency. Second, we need to expand our domestic energy production from renewable energy sources. We have taken aggressive steps over the past few years to open new sources of oil and natural gas in this country. We see the effects of these policies throughout our country, especially in my State of Colorado where natural gas production has jumped over 50 percent over 2000, and we see it in the Gulf of Mexico where just a few months ago we in Congress opened millions of new acres for leasing. But we have fallen woefully short on the renewable energy front. We have fallen woefully short. In last year's State of the Union Address, President Bush touted the virtues of cellulosic ethanol and solar power. He told the American people: . . . We have a serious problem, we are addicted to oil. And he indicated that he would make a serious commitment to renewable energy. That is what the President said a year ago in his State of the Union Address. Yet, in fact, that hasn't happened. The proof is that it simply is not in the budget, and the proof is that if you look at what has happened with renewable energy and energy efficiency, we are investing less in these initiatives than at the time President Bush became President. If you look at our renewable energy investments from 2001 to 2006, you see this line, this thin line. We have actually been investing less in renewable energy resources from 2001 until 2006. For us to have declined by almost $100 million during that time period in terms of what we are investing in renewable energy means we are not walking the talk about what we can do with respect to renewable energy. I also want to briefly demonstrate the reductions that have been made with respect to our investments in energy efficiency. Again, in 2001, we were investing about $900 million to make this a more energy- efficient country. In the time that has passed in the last 5 years, now, in 2006, we are investing $200 million less. So when people talk about getting energy efficient or investing in renewable energy, the fact is America simply is not walking the talk. We need to start walking the talk if we are going to get to energy independence. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?