Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with a modification which I am sending to the desk.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I also understand that this amendment will be accepted as part of a managers' package. I want to say thank you to both the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Alaska, the floor managers, for accepting this amendment. At the outset of my brief comments on this amendment, I also want to say that I very much appreciate the leadership of both Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. I had the great honor of participating in some activities with Senator Inouye within this past week and hearing his own story of his personal courage and fight against discrimination, and how he has stood up for our country is something that makes me very proud to be an American. I think with Senator Inouye's life story one can see how far it is we have come as a country. And he is a living example of the kind of heroes that we need in America today in these difficult times which we face as a nation. I commend both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for bringing this vitally important bill to the floor. While servicemembers are fighting overseas, this bill is one of the most important actions that we can take this year on the Senate floor. This bill takes care of our troops and I look forward to its passage before the August recess. Protecting its citizens from attack is our Government's most important responsibility. Liberty and prosperity are impossible without security here in our Nation and in our homeland. We must see to it that we are making the right investments to protect Americans from attack. In the last few years the threats facing our Nation have grown in size and complexity. Rogue nations are developing nuclear weapons as we speak. Terrorist organizations are recruiting and new members and have been plotting attacks against Americans. And American service men and women are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak. Our way of life and our freedoms depend on our ability to confront these threats. They depend on our ability to make smart, forward- thinking investments in our national defense. I am proud to represent a State that contributes so much toward achieving these objectives. An in-depth look at this bill shows just how prominent a role Colorado plays in contributing to our national defense and our homeland security. I am happy to support those measures in this bill that focus on Colorado's military installations, such as those that will benefit Fort Carson, Schriever Air Force Base, Peterson Air Force Base, the United States Air Force Academy, and Pueblo Chemical Depot. Furthermore, this bill contains additional emergency supplemental money for the ongoing campaign in Iraq. This money is necessary to make sure that our fighting men and women are provided with the equipment they need to be safe and to get the job done. Recently there have been a number of military commanders saying that overall military readiness is on the decline. Military equipment is wearing out in the harsh environment of the desert. I am very troubled by these reports, and am therefore very proud to support the measure introduced by Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Inouye last night to counteract this decline in readiness by adding $13.1 billion to the bridge fund for Army and Marine Corps equipment reset requirements. This money is necessary for the continuing combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I thank my friends--the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, as well as Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Dodd of Connecticut--for their leadership on this important issue. The amendment I offer directly impacts our homeland security, by providing the United States Northern Command, known as NORTHCOM, with an emergency, mobile, fly-away interoperable communications capability. Northern Command is headquartered in Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, and is a crown jewel of our Nation's homeland defense. The U.S. Northern Command was established on October 1, 2002 to provide command and control for DOD homeland defense efforts and to coordinate military assistance to civil authorities. NORTHCOM serves to defend America on our native soil. Specifically, NORTHCOM's mission is to conduct operations to deter, prevent, and defeat threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its territories and interests within the assigned area of responsibility; and as directed by the President or Secretary of Defense, provide military assistance to civil authorities including consequence management operations. The area of responsibility that falls under Northern Command is vast. Their responsibility encompasses the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, and the surrounding water out to approximately 500 nautical miles. It also includes the Gulf of Mexico, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. NORTHCOM plans, organizes, and executes homeland defense and civil support missions. NORTHCOM's civil support mission includes domestic disaster relief operations that occur during fires, hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. Support also includes counterdrug operations and managing the consequences of a terrorist event employing a weapon of mass destruction. It is quite clear to all of us, that in the few short years that NORTHCOM has been in existence, it has quickly become integrated into the very fabric of our homeland defense. NORTHCOM exists to provide the unity of command that is absolutely necessary when responding to emergencies that immediately threaten Americans on their home soil. I know that the men and women at NORTHCOM work hard every single day to make sure that we are safe, and I thank them for their dedication and their unswerving devotion to duty. But thanking them is not enough. We, the Congress, have to provide them with the tools necessary to do their job. And one thing they lack right now but desperately need is an interoperable communications capability. The amendment I am proposing will benefit the entire country, because it will provide NORTHCOM with the interoperable communications equipment they need in order to respond effectively during an emergency. Northen Command's top unfunded requirement is the purchase of these systems. Without interoperable communications, NORTHCOM, the Department of Homeland Security, and local and State authorities cannot effectively respond to natural and manmade disasters. A $10 million increase in fiscal year 2007 funds for NORTHCOM would allow the command to procure an interoperable mobile communications capability. This amendment cosponsored by Senator Warner and Senator Levin will accomplish that. It is legislation that we have approved before in the Senate. When we spoke about this with respect to the budget resolution and the Department of Defense authorization bill, it was approved by the Senate. Language included in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007 specifically referred to the $10 million for interoperable communications. On page 293 of that report, we in the Senate said the following: U.S. Northern Command requires the capability to effectively communicate with Federal, State, and local governments in order to facilitate support to civil authorities, share information, and provide situational awareness in response to natural or manmade disasters. The committee recommends an increase of $10 million to OMAF to address this funding shortfall and to provide the interoperable communications capability for USNORTHCOM. My amendment follows that recommendation. The Nation cannot afford to wait for the next disaster to strike before we purchase this equipment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii for their consideration and for their support of this amendment. I am proud to offer this amendment and again thank both Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens for their leadership on Department of Defense appropriations legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4776.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Levin and Warner be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. The Senator from New Mexico makes a critical point. The projected revenues for the LWCF stateside program under this bill are important, but they are not sufficient to keep that program, which has contributed to the improvement of 98 percent of the counties in the United States since 1964, strong and vital. And I know that all of us aim to bolster the LWCF stateside grant program, and to achieve the level of support envisioned by Congress's authorization. So we must supplement the revenues directed to LWCF under this bill with meaningful annual appropriations. I have spoken to the majority leader about this issue as well, and he has assured me that he shares my concerns. I look forward to working with him and with all of my colleagues on this issue in the years ahead.

Mr. SALAZAR. I join the Senator from Tennessee in expressing my appreciation for Chairman Domenici's leadership, and I wish to thank both of my colleagues for working with me on providing this permanent funding stream for the LWCF stateside grant program. This program supports the state and local parks and recreation projects that improve the quality of all Americans' lives, and enables American families to enjoy our precious natural resource of open spaces.

Mr. SALAZAR. That would certainly be in the interest of all Americans. Of course, we commit to working together to support LWCF with supplementary appropriations beyond the next fiscal year as well. Only constant vigilance and steady support will ensure that the provision providing a permanent stream of funding for LWCF in the bill before us acts as it was intended--as a strong and growing core, but not the totality, of support for this vital program.

Mr. SALAZAR

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

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I think that order makes sense as we proceed with the discussion and debate. I want to make a point about the contributions of my State of Colorado to oil and gas development for our country. We know natural gas prices are spiraling out of control, hurting families and farmers all across this country. Colorado farmers, for whom natural gas is an essential ingredient for their fertilizer, are already suffering under the weight of very high gas and diesel prices. Now they are also having to pay record prices for fertilizer. Needless to say, they are struggling to make ends meet. Colorado is doing more than its fair share, much like Wyoming, to help our country produce more natural gas. There are currently some 29,000 producing natural gas wells in Colorado, and industry estimates project that between 24,000 and 27,000 new domestic gas wells will be developed every year to meet the growing natural gas demand in our country. I am proud that Colorado is home to such a wealth of resources and that we can help our country through this energy crisis. But we have also paid a price for these contributions. We know the development must be done in an environmentally responsible way, but the rapid pace of exploration and development is having a huge impact on Colorado's land, water, and communities. The vast open spaces of the Rocky Mountain West are home to pump jacks, pipelines, roads, and compressor stations. Many communities are very concerned. Hunters and anglers are seeing habitat loss and wildlife depletion. Local communities are fighting to protect their watersheds from lease sales that could jeopardize the safety of their drinking water. While I am proud that Colorado can help satisfy the Nation's energy needs, we should also be pursuing balanced production of our resources in the Gulf of Mexico. As much as possible, the country should share the benefits and burdens of our energy production, including the production and revenues from the Gulf of Mexico. As I have said before, S. 3711 will make modest additions to our oil and gas supplies with additional leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. It is not, however, a perfect bill. I deeply respect the concerns that Senator Bingaman and several other colleagues have made about the fiscal implications of this bill. The new areas being opened for leasing, they point out, come at a high price. These leases will be on Federal submerged lands on the Outer Continental Shelf, which belong to the taxpayers of all 50 States. Yet 37.5 percent of the revenues from those leases will be paid directly to only four Gulf Coast States--Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. I appreciated hearing Senator Bingaman's thoughtful presentation on the fiscal repercussions of this revenue distribution, and I applaud his work on the OCS issue, both in this debate and in the consideration of S. 2253, which was a bipartisan bill that emerged from the Energy Committee. As I said, this bill is not perfect, but it does, for the first time, establish direct funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund stateside grant program. It is truly historic that we are finally creating an honest to goodness conservation royalty for offshore leases. I appreciate Senator Lamar Alexander's work on this initiative. In 1964, Congress passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, which said that if we are going to drill for oil and gas in the OCS, we should be reinvesting a part of those revenues in parks, trails, and open space for the use and enjoyment of the American people. President Kennedy's vision and Congress' vision was a bold one in the early 1960s. They authorized $450 million a year for the Land and Water Conservation Fund stateside grants program to be provided to States and local communities as matching grants, to help them build ball fields and trails, to help protect wildlife and open spaces across America. Unfortunately, what was envisioned as a conservation royalty has been subject to the budgetary whims of Congress. This meant that the program has been consistently underfunded. Year after year, Congress has appropriated far too little money--an average of $94 million over the program's 42-year history. In the last 2 years, the President has proposed eliminating the program down to zero. With this bill today, we finally create a permanent funding mechanism--a conservation royalty--that Congress envisioned in 1964. This is a new chapter in the history of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is the first step--only the first step--toward securing full and permanent funding for this overwhelmingly successful program. As it is drafted, this bill does not provide the level of funding for LWCF stateside that the program needs. I want to point to this chart, Mr. President, which indicates with the red bar on the left side that the authorization amount for the LWCF program stateside is $450 million. It averaged about $94 million. About 98 percent of the counties of America benefited from the grass from the stateside program. The amount of money projected to be supplied in the LWCF through this legislation is only $15 million a year. When you take that $15 million a year and divide it among the 50 States, every State would get approximately $300,000 per year on average. That is not a significant contribution relative to the historic amounts that have been made available to the States through the assistance of the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund program. So it is important that, as we look at this issue and this legislation, we recognize that we should not be taking away the historic appropriations that have been made to the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am hopeful that we can ensure that those higher levels of funding for LWCF can, in fact, be made. Mr. President, the prospect for LWCF stateside funding after 2017 is a little less clear. Because spending after 2017 is outside the budget window, it is not included in CBO's score of the bill. But based on available estimates of revenues and direct spending under the bill, it is likely that, beginning in 2017, stateside LWCF will receive at least $125 million per year. Indeed, it appears likely that beginning in 2018--12 years from now--stateside LWCF will receive additional funding from ``new receipts'' from the area 181 and 181 south. Mr. President, Senator Alexander and I introduced legislation, S. 3562, that would fully fund the stateside LWCF. I have prepared an amendment that echoes that. It would provide at least $125 million per year of funding for the stateside LWCF program beginning in 2007 and at least $450 million per year beginning in 2017. My amendment would direct revenues from the renegotiation of leases issued for the production of oil and gas from the OCS that provides royalty relief without the necessary price thresholds. The Federal Treasury is owed billions of dollars for those leases. Those leases mistakenly have provided royalty relief without these price thresholds. My amendment, with its $125 million annually between 2007 and 2016 and up to $450 million per year beginning in 2017, would ensure that stateside LWCF will be adequately funded. Mr. President, I wish we were having a larger debate on the energy policy for our country. I wish we were bringing some of the new ideas on energy legislation to the floor. I believe the American people deserve a great public debate on our energy future and they deserve a comprehensive forward-thinking energy policy. But for now, we must satisfy ourselves with what is at hand: a bill that includes modest increases in production in the Gulf of Mexico and, I am proud to say, a conservation royalty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pryor be the next Democrat to speak following Senator Wyden, with the understanding that we will go back and forth to a Republican Senator in between them if a Republican Senator is here.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico energy bill which is before the Senate. At the outset of my remarks, I say I come to the Senate today to speak about this particular bill with a heavy heart. It is a heavy heart because the approach which the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has taken over the last year and a half has been a good template for how we ought to do the business of our country; that is, bringing Republicans and Democrats together to try to work out an agenda in the best interests of America. In this particular circumstance with this bill, with the opening of the gulf coast of Mexico, we did have a bipartisan bill that emerged from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Unfortunately, from the time it came out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee until today, it has been changed in some significant ways. The concerns that have been raised by ranking members are legitimate concerns for several reasons. One is a reason related to the relationships in this Senate and how we get along with each other to try to come up with solutions to face the common problems we face in America today. We were able last year in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to put together the kind of broad bipartisan coalition that emerged in a good bill. It was not a perfect bill, but it was a good bill. I hope the relationships that carried us to a successful conclusion with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will be more the norm around here than the exception. I am hoping, as we work our way through this particular legislation, that those positive relationships will also be restored. From my point of view, when we worked on the national Energy Policy Act of 2005, I saw that as an effort, as a Democratic and Republican effort to build a house of energy independence for America. I saw the house of energy independence being built on cornerstones that are important for us to achieve energy independence. We knew then and we know today that we could do much better with conservation. The experts at the Department of Energy tell us in the Senate, oftentimes in our Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that we waste 62 percent of the energy we consume in America today. We in America can do better. We can do a lot better with conservation. The experts also say we are at the dawn of a whole new revolution with respect to biofuels. There are many Members of the Senate who have worked to advance the cause of biofuels over the last several years. That renewable energy future for America has great potential to help build this house of energy independence. Third, a key cornerstone is the new technology being advanced and explored throughout our country, including the possibility of looking at things such as coal gasification. We know coal for the United States is no different for us than oil is to Saudi Arabia. We have vast resources of coal. The only problem we have with coal is when we burn it, there are environmental problems created. As we have the technological breakthroughs in coal gasification, we can take advantage of one of the greatest natural resources we have in our Nation. So technology is one of the cornerstones, one of the keys that will help get us to energy independence. Finally, the development of our natural resources is very important. For instance, on the gulf coast or mountain lands of my State of Colorado, it is important that we develop those natural resources in a way which is sensitive to the environmental impacts created from that development. As we move forward and look at the possibility of the increase in the modest production which will come from the opening of lease 181 and the area to the south, we ought to look at other issues relating to energy and energy independence. With gas prices over $3 a gallon and with growing instability in the Middle East and a deepening dependence on foreign oil, today should be the day in the Senate where we are talking about the broad array of ideas relating to energy independence. We ought not to be so narrowly focused on a very small development in the Gulf of Mexico--an important development, but nonetheless, in the grand scheme of getting us to energy independence, it is simply a small step in that direction. Now is a time for this Nation to embrace new ideas with regard to energy. Now is a time for a real discussion of energy in this Senate. It is time for a new direction for America as we look at the future of energy for this country and for our world. Gas prices today have jumped 25 percent in just a little over a year. And let's not forget they have doubled in the last 3 years. Today we are paying twice as much for gas at the pump as we were 3 years ago. Second, we remember, at the near anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the great disruptions that were caused across America because of Hurricane Katrina, those disruptions showed the vulnerabilities of our oil and gas infrastructure. Third, today we are facing a deepening cycle of violence and confrontation in the Middle East, making it a stark reminder to all of us that our overdependence on foreign oil brings grave risks and dangers to America's security. The American people and a large bipartisan group of Senators in the Senate share a vision for an energy-independent America. That vision is one which is powered by renewable energy. It is a vision which recognizes the new generation of clean coal and energy-efficient technologies. Unfortunately, because we are not allowed to amend this bill, we will not have the chance to have that discussion about these ideas which have been generated by many of the Senators in this institution. We should allow those ideas to come. I will highlight four ideas I believe we should be considering in the Senate today. First, we should create a national renewable electricity standard. We passed a renewable portfolio standard less than 2 years ago in Colorado. It is a modest standard. It was not a standard that required 30 or 40 percent; it required 10 percent of the power the utility companies deliver to come from renewable resources by the year 2037. That forward-thinking initiative has already spurred a boom in renewable energy production in our State, creating jobs and revitalizing rural economies. You see them in the wind farms in Logan County. You see it in the solar energy utility farms now being built across my State. We can do the same thing on a national level. In fact, Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard that passed in the Senate last year but was rejected in a conference with the House was a step in the right direction. We should have that kind of a standard, or perhaps we could try flexible renewable electricity standards that account for regional differences in our country. There is no doubt that a renewable electricity standard would usher in a new era in renewable energy production across the country. That would, in turn, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Second, we should establish aggressive goals for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. We should employ the full force of our policies in our Nation to achieve them. S. 2025, the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act, which has 25 sponsors, Democrats and Republicans alike, establishes achievable goals of saving 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by the year 2015, 7 million barrels a day by 2026, and 10 million barrels a day by the year 2030. We should be having a debate on S. 2025 in the Senate today. Third, we know we must do a lot more with biofuels. We must also do more to put biofuel-powered vehicles on the road. Right now, the United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Two-thirds of the oil we consume is for transportation. We need to substitute that oil with biofuels, biofuels grown right here in America, on our farms and in our fields. To do this, we need to bring more gallons of biofuels to the market. We need to give consumers access to alternative fuels at filling stations. We need to retool America's vehicle fleet to run more efficiently and on alternative fuels. S. 2025 does this, and we should bring to the floor that legislation so that we can have a discussion about the positive contribution that would make on our road to energy independence. Finally, we should have a candid discussion of how we can improve the fuel economy of our vehicles. A number of proposals are circulating in this Chamber that would, for example, raise CAFE standards or implement a ``feebate'' program. Last week, Senator Coleman, along with Senator Obama, and others, introduced a bill that takes a somewhat different approach to raising fuel standards--one that moves us in an honest direction to have a much more efficient national vehicle fleet for America. Mr. President, there are many other great energy legislative initiatives circulating in this body. You see them in the Clean EDGE Act, the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act, the Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006, the Alternative Energy Refueling System Act, and other bills that have yet to receive appropriate attention. We should bring them forward to the floor. It is not as if they belong to one party or the other. The Roman philosopher Seneca once wrote: ``The best ideas are common property.'' We ought to be thinking about energy independence, not as Democratic or Republican ideas. We should be thinking about them as American ideas. The question is, How do we as an institution, as the Senate, move forward in a new direction to get us to energy independence? It is time that we write an additional chapter in the energy future of America that takes the building blocks of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and moves forward with the great ideas that have been developed by so many Senators over the last year. Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I see my colleague from New Jersey. Through the Chair, may I ask the Senator how long he will be?

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, at the outset of this historic day in the Senate, let me give my accolades to Senator Specter and to Senator Leahy for their leadership in the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. This is one of the finest days of the Senate of the 109th Congress because it is a demonstration of Republicans and Democrats coming together to deal with the very important question of our Nation. I congratulate the Judiciary Committee and all of those who have created a template for how we should do business in the Senate. I rise today to offer my unequivocal support for the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King and Cesar E. Chavez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. Almost a year ago, I stood on the Senate floor to pay tribute to the Voting Rights Act on the occasion of its 40th anniversary. In my remarks on that day, I urged my colleagues to rise above the partisanship that often plagues this body and to renew the promise of the landmark civil rights legislation by reauthorizing the key provisions that were set to expire in 2007. I am extremely pleased that the Senate today is poised to take action on this important legislation. Without enforcement and accountability of our Nation's voting laws for all Americans--for all Americans--the words of the Declaration of Independence declaring ``All men are created equal,'' the words written in the Constitution guaranteeing the inalienable right to vote, and the maxim of one person, one vote, those principles enshrined in our elected laws, are little more than empty words. The reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act is fundamental to protect these rights and values and to ensure that they translate into actual practice, actual representation, and an actual electoral voice for every American. I especially thank Senator Leahy for offering an amendment on my behalf in the committee that incorporated the name of Cesar E. Chavez, a true American hero, into the title of the Senate's reauthorization bill. Like the venerable American leaders who are now associated with this effort, Cesar Chavez sacrificed his life to empower the most vulnerable in America. He fought for all Americans to be included in our great democracy. It is only fitting that his name be a part of the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. As we move forward, I believe incorporating the names of these historic American leaders underscores the importance of reflecting on the history of our country and our never-ending--not yet completed-- quest to become a more inclusive America. When one looks back at our history, one learns some very painful lessons from that past. We must keep in mind that we, as a nation, for the first 250 years of our history allowed one group of people to own another group of people under a system of slavery simply based on the color of their skin. It took the bloodiest war of our country's history, even more bloody than World War II--the Civil War, where over half a million people were killed on our soil in America--to bring about an end to the system of slavery and to usher in the 13th and 14th and 15th amendments to our Constitution. In my estimation, these three amendments are the bedrock of the proposition that all constitutional liberties are endowed upon all Americans without exception. But it took many long years for the promise of these amendments to be realized in our own Nation. Notwithstanding the tremendous loss of blood and life during the Civil War, some years later, in 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, our own U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned a system of segregation and the doctrine of ``separate but equal.'' The Court's decision to uphold an 1890 Louisiana statute mandating racially segregated but equal railroad carriages ushered in another dark period in our country's history where Jim Crow was the law of the land throughout the South. Similar laws applied to other groups. Throughout the Southwest, Mexican Americans in many places were systematically denied access to ``White Only'' restrooms and other places of public accommodation. Just as there were signs that said ``No Blacks Allowed'' in the South, there were also signs in many places across our country that read ``No Mexicans Allowed.'' In the now infamous Plessy case, Justice Harlan, writing for the dissent in that case, looking ahead at the century to come, made the following observation: The destinies of the races, in this country, are indissolubly linked together and the interests of both require that the common government law shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law. Justice Harlan's statement was profound in its forecast for America. It is unfortunate that his words of warning were largely ignored for the next half century. It was not until 1920, for example, that our Constitution even guaranteed the right of women to vote, and it was not until 1954 that the U.S. Supreme Court, under the very able leadership of Chief Justice Warren, struck down the ``separate but equal'' doctrine as unconstitutional under the 14th amendment in the Brown v. Board of Education case. That case was argued by Thurgood Marshall, another American hero who gave his life for equal opportunity for all Americans. More hard-won change followed that 1954 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. While the 15th amendment, which was ratified in 1870, guaranteed all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, in 1965--that wasn't that long ago--only a very small percentage of African Americans were registered to vote in States such as Mississippi and Alabama. In Mississippi in that year, only 6.7 percent of African Americans were registered to vote, and in Alabama less than 20 percent were registered to vote. The various tactics that were used back then to impede and discourage people from registering to vote and casting their right in our democracy on election day ranged from literacy tests, poll taxes, and language barriers, to overt intimidation and harassment. The Voting Rights Act went on to attack those discriminatory practices in people's exercise of their fundamental right to vote. On August 6, 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, America took a critical step forward in fulfilling our constitutional ideals. Just a year earlier, President Johnson had signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 proclaiming that in America, as he said: We believe that all men are created equal, yet many are denied equal treatment. We believe that all men have certain unalienable rights, yet many Americans do not enjoy those rights. We believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty, yet millions are being deprived of those blessings, not because of their own failures, but because of the color of the skin. President Johnson knew then what we still recognize today on this floor of the Senate. The enactment of both of these critical pieces of legislation in the 1960s was another major step forward in our country's journey to become an inclusive America for all citizens--for all citizens--and enjoy the rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. When he recalled the day when the Voting Rights Act was signed by President Johnson, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wisely pointed out that: The bill that lay on the polished mahogany desk was born in violence in Selma, AL, where a stubborn sheriff had stumbled against the future. Dr. King was, of course, referring to Bloody Sunday, the Selma incident which took place on March 7, 1965, where more than 500 nonviolent civil rights marchers attempting a 54-mile march to the State capital to call for voting rights were confronted by an aggressive and violent assault by the authorities. In response to the violence in Selma and the death of Jimmy Lee Jackson, who was shot 3 weeks earlier by a State trooper during a civil rights demonstration, President Johnson addressed Congress and the Nation on March 15, 1965, to press for the passage of the Voting Rights Act. Indeed, President Johnson's speech served as a rallying call to the Nation and to the Congress. In that speech, Lyndon Johnson said to the Nation: At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama. This time, on this issue, there must be no delay, no hesitation and no compromise with our purpose. We cannot, we must not, refuse to protect the right of every American to vote in every election that he may desire to participate in. Five months later, on August 7, 1965, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law. In our country's history in America, we have often stumbled, but great leaders, such as Dr. King and those whose names are associated with this authorization--Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Cesar Chavez--those are people who gave their lives to make certain that when we stumble, we get up and we continue our path of America forward, we continue an America in progress. Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the doors to opportunity for political participation by previously disenfranchised groups have swung open. Their voices are now heard and counted across America. This progress is evident through the Nation in all levels of government today. The number of Black elected officials nationwide has risen from only 300 in 1964 to more than 9,000 today. In addition, today there are over 5,000 Latinos who now hold public office, and there are still hundreds more Asian Americans and Native Americans serving as elected officials. It is with this history in mind--and with the increasing diversity of our country--that I look to the future of an inclusive America continuing to fulfill the promises and guarantees to all Americans that our Constitution provides. Our work is not yet done. Although significant advances to ensure voting rights for all Americans have been made, the testimony presented before the Senate Judiciary Committee points to still an unfortunate truth: that Americans are still too often being kept from the polls. The greatness of this country depends on our learning and not forgetting the painful lessons of our past, including poll taxes and literacy tests that prevented countless of individuals from exercising their right to vote. I believe the United States, the Federal Government must remain vigilant in safeguarding all Americans' sacred right to vote. This legislation today is a manifestation of that vigilance of the Congress. It represents the Senate working at its best. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today in support of the nomination of Neal Gorsuch to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. At a time when too many judicial nominations are bogged down by partisan and ideological rancor, it is heartening to see a nominee on whom Senators from both parties can agree. While Mr. Gorsuch has spent the majority of his professional life in Washington DC, his roots in the state of Colorado are strong--going back four generations. Once confirmed, he will return to Colorado where I hope that he will live up to the standard set by a long line of distinguished jurists from our State, including the late Justice Byron White. At the young age of 38, Mr. Gorsuch has already had an impressive legal career. After earning degrees from Columbia University, Harvard Law School, and Oxford University, he went on to clerk on the DC Circuit and U.S. Supreme Courts. Following his clerkships, he spent nearly 10 years in private practice before becoming Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General of the United States--where he helps manage the Department's civil litigation. I have had the chance to visit with Mr. Gorsuch and learn about both his personal background and his professional experience. I found him to be intelligent, thoughtful, and appreciative of the great honor it is to be nominated to the Federal bench. It is no surprise, then, that the ABA rated him unanimously well qualified. Of course, it takes more than a great resume to be a great judge. In addition to professional excellence as a lawyer, a judicial nominee should have a demonstrated dedication to fairness, impartiality, precedent, and the avoidance of judicial activism--from both the left and the right. I believe that Mr. Gorsuch meets this very high test--and I believe he will make a fine addition to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the question currently before the Senate regarding whether to allow Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. It is clear from the last 2 days of debate in the Senate that people on both sides of this issue have very strong feelings about their positions, and rightly so. This is an extremely important issue that raises a whole host of questions to which there are no easy answers. On one hand, we must consider the fundamental question of how to treat potential human life. On the other, we must consider the vast potential of a scientific field that could greatly improve millions of actual human lives and save millions more. When the stakes are this high, we are obligated to have an honest, open, and thorough debate. In keeping with the gravity of these questions and the potential ramifications of how we answer them, I believe that both the Government and the scientific community should address them responsibly. Like millions of other American families, my family has been touched by the ache of loss brought about by Alzheimer's disease. My father died of complications only a few years ago. At the end of his life, I wanted nothing more than to be able to help ease his suffering. Now, as I reflect on that difficult time, I think of the families that are currently enduring the same pain mine did, and I want to help them. I trust the vast majority of the scientific community that believes embryonic stem cell research may hold the key to the cures these families are seeking. I also believe that our Government can work to promote this science responsibly by paving the way for treatments that will save millions of lives without destroying others. Toward that end, I believe the legislation passed by the House represents a measured, responsible step toward tapping into the vast potential that embryonic stem cell research has with respect to finding cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and a wide range of other devastating diseases. In millions of cases, H.R. 810 could mean the difference between a normal life and one of pain and suffering. In millions of other cases, it could mean the difference between life and death. By authorizing Federal funding only for research on embryonic stem cells that will never become human life and that are donated willingly, it achieves its objectives without destroying the potential for life. To be sure, support from private funds for this research has been welcome. But it is not enough. I have heard from scores of scientists in my home State of Colorado--working in university labs as we speak, trying to find cures for our most devastating diseases--who tell me that the Federal funding H.R. 810 would authorize would boost their capabilities exponentially. In addition to the practical impact on American laboratories, however, there is something else to consider. I can think of no other Nation that should lead this research with strict guidelines than the United States. Throughout our Nation's history, America has been the leader in making monumental scientific strides--on everything from cars to computers to medicine--that have made life easier and better for people in our country and all over the world. In a field with such great promise, I believe we owe it to our history and to our position in the world community to once again be the leader. I want to be clear that I also believe we should promote research on adult umbilical cord stem cells, as well as alternative methods of creating embryonic stem cells. In addition, we should do everything in our power to prevent unethical and repulsive practices from pervading this kind of research. For that reason, I strongly support the other two proposals that are currently before the Senate, S. 2754 and S. 3504. As I make these remarks today, I think once again of my father. I also think of other fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters across this great Nation who live every day with debilitating conditions that stem cell research could help cure. Suffering that could be stopped. Lives that could be saved. Families that could stay together. We have an opportunity to make great strides on these fronts today and to do so responsibly. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 810.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the life of Edward G. Eid, the head of the Colorado State Soccer Association, CSSA, who died recently while attending the World Cup soccer tournament in Munich, Germany. Ed Eid passionately believed in the power of soccer to bring people together. He knew that the beautiful game, as we saw in this year's World Cup, can bridge national, linguistic, racial, economic, and cultural gaps. Ed Eid used soccer to strengthen and bind communities in our State and across the globe. As a coach, he took a team to compete behind the Iron Curtain, recognizing that shared passions for sport could warm a relationship between superpowers. At CSSA he reached out to teams from immigrant communities, helping kids from all walks of life learn the game and participate in leagues. When Ed Eid immigrated to the U.S. in 1958, soccer had not yet entered the American mainstream. The sport thrived in immigrant communities, but the U.S. had neither a professional league nor its own soccer icons. After fighting through adversity and discrimination to become a successful entrepreneur, Eid dedicated more and more time to helping the game he loved gain ground. Thanks to his efforts, and the efforts of other visionaries like him, soccer is the most widely played game in America. Mr. Eid is survived by a wonderful family. He was especially proud of his two grandchildren, Alex and Emily Eid. Earlier this year he saw his daughter-in-law, Allison, appointed by Governor Bill Owens to the Colorado Supreme Court. And he saw his son, Troy, nominated by President Bush to be Colorado's next U.S. Attorney. The legacy of Ed Eid's life is clear. In the soccer leagues of Colorado, in all the communities he has touched, and in a sport whose popularity is growing by leaps and bounds, he will be sorely missed.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, when I was elected to the Senate, I promised the people of Colorado that protecting the homeland and supporting law enforcement would be among my highest priorities. In the year and a half since taking the oath of office, I have worked hard to fulfill that pledge by working with my colleagues to help pass the Combat Meth Act, working to find bipartisan compromise on the PATRIOT Act, working to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that increases border security, and most important, paying close attention to the concerns of Colorado's law enforcement and homeland security communities. But great challenges remain, challenges that should not be deferred for the next Congress to deal with, challenges that should not be turned into partisan weapons, challenges that will require reaching across the aisle to solve. I would like to take a few moments to discuss just a few of these challenges. First, however, I want to briefly discuss the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, which we passed today. Thank Senators Gregg and Byrd, who did an excellent job shepherding this bill through the committee process and on the floor. While there are some provisions in the bill with which I disagree--for example, I would like to see more funding for first responders, port, and rail security--the bill is a product of serious and careful deliberation. I would also like to draw attention to an issue of great importance: the training of our law enforcement and homeland security officials. I was pleased to see the DHS appropriations bill increase funding for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. I am also pleased that the bill classifies Federal Law Enforcement Training Center staff as serving an ``inherently governmental'' function, which guarantees that law enforcement training cannot be outsourced. Law enforcement training has been an issue of concern to me dating back to my time as attorney general, when we guaranteed an adequate stream of funding for the training of law enforcement officers through the Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training Board. I look forward to working doing more work on this issue in the future. I also thank my colleagues for agreeing to the two amendments I offered to the appropriations bill. The first requires DHS to provide a detailed report on how it will improve the inspection of incoming agricultural products in order to protect U.S. agriculture from foreign pests and disease. Agriculture is the largest industry and employer in the United States, generating more than $1 trillion in economic activity each year. However, the agricultural sector is both a great strength and a potential vulnerability: the entry of foreign pests and disease could wreak havoc on the economy, the environment, and public health. In order to safeguard American agriculture, we need--first and foremost-- effective inspection at our points of entry. There have been some serious questions about the effectiveness of the inspection program at DHS, and my amendment will make sure that DHS has a sensible strategy in place to improve that program. My second amendment requires DHS to produce a detailed blueprint regarding how it will help Federal, State, and local officials achieve communications interoperability. More than 5 years after September 11, first responders are still struggling to achieve communications interoperability. Fixing this problem will require money, leadership, and sound planning by Federal, State, and local officials. In my own State of Colorado, first responders and emergency managers are working hard to solve this problem--and they are making progress. But they deserve to know exactly what DHS plans to do, in the short, intermediate, and long terms to help them get to where they need to be. So I thank my colleagues for agreeing to my amendments, for increasing funding for training, and for putting together a thoughtful--if imperfect--appropriations bill. I would like to spend just a few minutes discussing some important homeland security and law enforcement priorities which I hope the Senate will take up as soon as possible. Each of these issues share two important characteristics: they are vital to the security of our Nation, and they have broad bipartisan support. First and foremost is providing adequate funding for law enforcement. When I talk to law enforcement officials in Colorado, no issue comes up more often and I can understand why. When I was attorney general, I saw firsthand the importance of Federal assistance for law enforcement: Federal funds allow law enforcement agencies to hire more police officers and firefighters, to purchase equipment, to conduct training exercises, and to fight the meth epidemic. This is not a partisan or ideological issue: it is about protecting our communities and the first responders who serve them. To be honest, I have long been confused by this White House's annual effort to cut these vital programs. Of all the line items in the budget, of all the places to cut unnecessary Federal spending, the President keeps trying to cut key programs for first responders. For example, this year, the President's budget request proposed deep cuts to the COPS Program, which helps State and local law enforcement agencies hire police officers; the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program, which makes grants to help States improve their criminal justice systems; firefighter assistance grants, which provide direct assistance to local fire departments; and the Office of Violence Against Women. These proposed cuts are particularly appalling at a time when the crime rate seems to be rising. Indeed, preliminary figures indicate that the national violent crime rate rose 2.5 percent in 2005 as compared to 2004. Fortunately, there is bipartisan support to restore many of these cuts. Indeed, this week the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee restored funding for many of the programs that the President proposed to cut or eliminate, including COPS and the Byrne JAG Program. For that, I applaud the subcommittee--and I hope the full Senate follows suit. The heroes who keep us safe every day deserve the best equipment, the best training, and the best support available--and they deserve Senators who will fight for them. Next, I want to discuss the need to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package that includes strong border security measures. We are now embroiled in a historic debate about immigration and border security. The reality is that our borders are broken and lawless--and that millions have crossed the border without the Government knowing who they are or why they are here. Indeed, the GAO released a report in March that detailed how two Federal investigators were able to smuggle enough nuclear material to make two dirty bombs across our northern and southern borders. The report stated that GAO investigators ``transported radioactive sources across both borders . . . with ease.'' This is why the comprehensive immigration reform backed by a bipartisan majority of Senators includes thousands of new positions aimed at fixing the border. For example, the bill would add 12,000 new Border Patrol agents, 10,000 new ICE worksite inspectors, 2,500 new port-of-entry inspectors, 1,000 new document fraud inspectors, and hundreds of other related positions. I am hopeful that we can address this issue in the context of a comprehensive reform of our immigration laws--and that we can bring law and order to our porous borders. Next, I wish to address identity theft--another issue that calls for a bipartisan approach. Each year, roughly 5 percent of the population is victimized by identity theft. That means that in 10 years, roughly half of the population will have been affected. But not only does identity theft affect the victims--many of whom see their credit ratings ruined and their financial situations turned upside down--it is also fueling and financing a good part of the meth epidemic that is ravaging so many communities. Indeed, meth addicts have become the driving force behind identity theft in Colorado--as they seek new ways to fund the production and consumption of the drug. So tackling identity theft is also a way of tackling the meth epidemic. I believe that a comprehensive approach to attacking identity theft will require working with the financial industry, law enforcement, retailers, and consumer groups. I applaud the Judiciary and Commerce Committees, both of which have bipartisan bills addressing this issue. There are elements of both bills that would go a good ways toward addressing identity theft, and I hope that the Senate takes action on this issue soon. I also wish to briefly discuss prisoner reentry--another vital law enforcement issue that cries out for a bipartisan solution. Approximately 650,000 State and Federal prisoners reenter society each year, and a staggering two-thirds of them are returned to prison for a new crime or parole violation within 3 years of release. Prisoners returning to society face difficulties with housing, employment, mental health, and substance abuse--all of which impose a great toll on families, communities, State and local governments, and overcrowded prison systems. The problem is truly multidimensional and calls out for a bipartisan approach. For that reason, I am happy to cosponsor the Second Chance Act, a bipartisan bill which provides badly needed resources for prisoner reentry programs. I hope the Senate takes action on this bill soon. Finally, I would like to briefly discuss port and chemical security. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bipartisan GreenLane Maritime Cargo Act and the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act. I cannot stress how important these bipartisan pieces of legislation are to protecting our homeland security. Indeed, each year roughly 9 million shipping containers enter the United States via our seaports. Those containers carry approximately 2.4 billion tons of goods worth more than $1 trillion--and those numbers are expected to double in the next 20 years. Furthermore, the average container originating overseas will pass through over a dozen intermediate points before arriving in the United States--providing multiple points of vulnerability for both our security and our economy. The GreenLane Maritime Cargo Act would take some important steps to secure our ports--including requiring 100 percent screening of incoming containers within a year--and is a fine example of bipartisan problem- solving. Regarding chemical security, we face a situation today where there are no Federal laws establishing minimum security standards at chemical facilities--this despite the fact that the roughly 15,000 chemical plants and refineries in this country pose a great vulnerability and despite the fact that dangerous chemicals routinely travel along our highways, inland waterways, and on railcars that pass through the heart of major cities. The cost of an attack would be staggering in terms of both loss of life and economic impact. Even DHS agrees that chemical security legislation is necessary. So I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the bipartisan Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act. Neither port security nor chemical security is a partisan issue. Just look at these two bills: they both have strong bipartisan support. So I say to the Senate: let us take up these important bills soon. Mr. President, each of the issues I have discussed this morning has bipartisan support. Each is important to the security and safety of the American people. Our most important obligation as Senators is to protect the security and safety of our constituents--and each of the issues I have discussed this morning would take an important step in that direction. I hope the Senate can debate and act on these issues soon.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment of the Senate's time to remember a Coloradan who was lost to us last month in defense of this Nation. Shaw Vaughan was a loving and supportive son and older brother, an avid hunter and fly fisherman. One of his most prized possessions was his 1969 Jeepster Commando, an off-roading vehicle he had personally rebuilt, affectionately named Hercules. Hercules sits quiet today, its red finish gleaming undimmed in the mountain sun. U.S. Army LT John Shaw Vaughan, of Edwards, in Eagle County in my State of Colorado, was killed on June 7 in Mosul, Iraq. Lieutenant Vaughan was a young man with his entire life before him: He was a mere 23 years old, and had been in Iraq only a month. As a middle school student, Shaw Vaughan caught the eye of our military leaders for his regional science fair project: comparing the accuracy of store-bought ammunition with ammunition he had assembled. He graduated Battle Mountain High School in 2001 and attended Embry- Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, FL. Upon graduation, Lieutenant Vaughan was one of only 70 cadets, out of 5,000, to receive a much-sought-after assignment in military intelligence in the infantry. It was a high honor, reflecting his intellect, work ethic, and commitment to our Nation. Lieutenant Vaughan was stationed in Alaska, a part of our country he had visited with his family years earlier. I guess you could say that Alaska had ``hooked'' the fisherman in Lieutenant Vaughan, and he was looking forward to his service there after he completed his time in Iraq. Lieutenant Vaughan was eager to get to Iraq, to serve with his unit. In his e-mails and phone calls back home, Lieutenant Vaughan spoke of how strongly he felt about America's mission in Iraq. He told stories of Iraqi families leading him into their homes, telling him horror stories of their families' sufferings under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. As one newspaper in my home State observed, it seems that every story about Shaw Vaughan was different and yet the same: ``one of a great guy and a courageous man lost too soon.'' In Act III of William Shakespeare's classic ``Henry V,'' King Henry says with pride, ``As I am a soldier, A name that in my thoughts becomes me best . . .'' I will think of this today as I bow my head in prayer for the loss of Lieutenant Vaughan, a life of such great promise that was snuffed out too soon. He was living his life to its fullest, on the great adventure before him. But we can rest assured that Lieutenant Vaughan had the convictions of his beliefs, and that he fulfilled his beliefs to the end. Lieutenant Shaw Vaughan took pride in his life as a soldier, and it is truly a name that, in all of our thoughts, becomes him best.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the work of a great Coloradan, Randy Rusk, and share some thoughts about the role that conservation easements can play in protecting Colorado's open spaces and rural way of life. Mr. Rusk was recently named one of ``15 People Who Make America Great'' by Newsweek Magazine for the contributions he has made to the protection of Colorado's Wet Mountain Valley. The Wet Mountain Valley is near my own San Luis Valley in southern Colorado. It is known for its lush pastures, for the jagged mountains that flank it, and for the men and women who ranch its lands. Mr. Rusk's family raises cattle on their 1,500 acres, but it would be a prime setting for second homes, 35-acre ranchettes, or a subdivision. Clearly he could sell his land to a developer if money was his primary concern, but Mr. Rusk would rather that his grandchildren be able to enjoy and work the ranch as he has. As someone who comes from a ranching family, I can tell you, that ranchers generally don't like to be told what they can or can't do on their lands. But Mr. Rusk decided that the best way to protect his land was to put its development rights in a trust. With a conservation easement on his land, he can be certain that the property will remain intact in perpetuity. Mr. Rusk has taken this idea beyond his own ranch and has convinced other ranchers in the Wet Mountain Valley to place conservation easements on their land, too. Some get reimbursed for parting with their land's development rights, while others simply donate them. Thanks to Mr. Rusk's leadership, around 11,000 acres of the Wet Mountain Valley will be protected from development. Knowing how useful conservation easements are to ranchers and farmers across Colorado how much good they have done for preserving our open lands and rural way of life, I am troubled by proposals that would punish those who use conservation easements to protect their lands. Our current tax law says that donated conservation easements can be claimed as a deduction. This is how it should be. If a rancher donates development rights to a nonprofit, to be held in trust, he or she should be able to claim a Federal tax deduction. This deduction, in conjunction with State and local incentives, is a valuable tool in protecting Colorado's natural heritage. There have been some instances of fraud in the use of conservation easements. The IRS should punish those responsible and Congress should explore ways of tightening up our laws to avoid abuses of the system. But, by and large, those who place easements on their lands are like Randy Rusk, and they do so for the right reasons. Mr. President, I am proud of the innovative ways that Coloradans are finding to protect open spaces, strengthen rural economies, and continue traditional ways of life. We have a common interest in supporting the work of ranchers like Mr. Rusk, whose stewardship of his lands yields benefits for all of us. I encourage this body to stand behind these wise conservation practices by protecting the Federal tax deduction for conservation easements.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, let me first say my colleague from North Dakota does an incredible job in terms of leading our country with a voice that stands for fiscal discipline. When he talks about the mountain of debt that we are continuing to build in this country, and passing on that mountain of debt to our children and our grandchildren, the American people deserve more of this Congress and more of Washington, DC, and more of this President. I look forward to his continuing leadership on this issue to try and bring about fiscal integrity and fiscal honesty to the United States of America. The American people deserve no less than that kind of candor and integrity from the Senate. I rise today to talk about an urgent issue which we all ought to be very concerned about in the United States of America. That is the issue of energy. Last year, this Senate put together a bipartisan template on the National Energy Policy Act of 2005 which may go down in our history as being one of the most important achievements of the 109th Congress. Notwithstanding the fact that we put together energy legislation that did some great things for conservation, that stood out for renewable energy, that said that new technologies were part of how we could lock in the future of our Nation's energy independence, we have had many opportunities to move forward and to continue to address the issue of energy. Yet we have not done that as a Congress nor as a Senate. Six months of this year have already passed. It has been 5 months since the President of the United States, before the American people, said that we were addicted to foreign oil and we needed to take aggressive steps to move forward to get ourselves to energy independence. I had the honor of hosting the President at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO, and we looked at the possibility of renewable energy. Yet some 6 months after that January speech, we still are here in this Senate without having moved forward with any significant kind of energy legislation. That is wrong. Part of the people's business, the highest priority, is for us to look at this energy dilemma we are facing in this country and to embrace in a real, honest, and ethical way the imperative that moves us toward energy independence. I will address part of what I think we ought to be doing with our movement toward energy independence in our country today. The time to get serious about growing our way to energy independence is long overdue. If Brazil, a Third World country, can do it, it is inexcusable for the United States of America, the strongest Nation on Earth, to do otherwise. Today in Brazil, ethanol substitutes for 204,000 barrels of gasoline sold every day. Over 40 percent of all the gasoline that is sold nationally in Brazil comes from ethanol, making that country energy independent today. In the last couple of months, we have had a lot of ideas discussed in this Senate and through multiple press conferences about how we can ease the pain at the pump for the American consumers. We have heard ideas to give $100 tax rebates. We heard ideas to create a tax holiday for gas, to enact a Federal gas price-gouging statute, to reduce the number of fuels that are currently on the market, to end royalty relief, and on and on. There are lots of ideas talked about that we should give careful consideration. We should also talk straight to the American people. We are a nation that relies on oil to power our economy. We import almost 60 percent of our oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Venezuela. We are hostage to a cartel of oil-producing countries that decide how much oil will reach the market at any given moment. Many Members of this cartel are unfriendly to the United States. They know how much power their oil has over our national security. The bottom line is that energy independence is important to all of us in the 21st century if we are to achieve national security. Without a reliable and affordable supply of homegrown energy, our dependence on foreign oil will only continue to increase, further warping our foreign policy and jeopardizing the stability of our economy. If we continue at our current pace, in two decades we will be importing 70 percent of our oil from foreign countries. We cannot afford to stay that course on our energy policy. Expanding our domestic production of oil and gas is an important component in our Nation's movement toward energy independence. We should continue to encourage the balanced development of the resources that we have. We should accelerate our development of clean coal technologies to produce clean-burning synfuel gases and jet fuels from coal, an abundant domestic resource. But none of the rhetoric can change the fact that we just don't have enough petroleum resources in this country to drill our way to energy independence. Today, we are the world's third leading producer of oil, but our rate of oil consumption--primarily for transportation--is almost three times our rate of oil production. Furthermore, the sad truth is that we only have 3 percent of the world's reserves in the United States of America. That 3 percent includes the proven reserves in the State of Alaska. We ought to look at our renewable energy future. If we make a dramatic, perhaps even a revolutionary new commitment to renewable energy, the fuel grown in American fields can help power our vehicle fleet. With a bold new commitment, we can produce enough fuel on our farm lands and ranch lands to meet 25 percent of our energy needs by the year 2025. Farmers and ranchers and all of rural America are rallying behind this cry for a goal of ``25 by 25.'' Our farmers are growing corn, soybeans, and sunflowers to be used for ethanol and biodiesel. Ranchers are building windfarms and using animal manure for power. Rural business men and women are investing in biorefineries. New jobs are springing up in many places where they had no jobs. Rural economies, long forgotten, are starting to gather steam as part of the renewable energy chapter opens in America. It is time for Congress as a whole to embrace rural America's vision for this renewable energy future. Senator Chuck Grassley and I have introduced a resolution that would make ``25 by 25'' our national goal. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this resolution because producing 25 percent of our energy on agricultural lands by 2025 is, in fact, a fully achievable goal. We can do it. We can do it if we get on task and we make a bipartisan commitment to work toward this goal. We should begin on this goal immediately. First, we should raise the renewable fuel standards we set in last year's Energy Policy Act. That goal, in law today, is to produce 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012. That goal is far too modest. We will easily meet this goal under current policies. Yet we will not be putting enough renewable fuels on the market to give consumers a real choice or to make a real dent in our oil dependence on foreign countries. We should increase this target so we are producing 9 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012 and 30 billion gallons of renewable fuel by the year 2025. Second, we should extend the renewable energy production tax credit until 2012. The existing production tax credit is now set to expire in 2007. That creates uncertainty for business people and investors who want to invest in renewable energy. We have legislation that I have introduced, S. 1093, the Research and Development Investment Act, which extends the renewable energy production tax credits through 2012, allowing more investment and quicker growth in the renewable energy market. Next, we should pass S. 2025, the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act. This is an important piece of legislation with broad bipartisan support. S. 2025 will essentially do three simple but very important conceptual things. First, it will increase the amount of biofuels we currently are producing in America. Second, it will ensure there are filling stations that are available across the country that will provide alternative fuels to give that choice to the American consumer. And, third, it will also help transform Detroit to embrace alternative fuel vehicle systems. Right now, the United States consumes around 20 million barrels of oil every day. Twenty million barrels of oil every day are consumed in America. Two-thirds of those 20 million barrels a day are consumed in our transportation system--by our cars and our trucks--across this country. This is alarming: The massive amount of oil we are importing is barley enough to cover the needs of the transportation sector. S. 2025 tackles this problem head on. It brings more gallons of biofuels to the market. It gives consumers access to alternative fuels. It retools America's vehicle fleet to run more efficiently and to run on alternative fuels. By passing S. 2025, we will give consumers more choices of fuels and vehicles, lower and stabilize the cost of fuel, and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. This is not a Republican or Democratic agenda. This is an American agenda. And this American agenda toward energy independence is demonstrated by the group of Senators who are supporting S. 2025. They include Senator Brownback, Senator Bayh, Senator Graham, Senator Cantwell, Senator Lieberman, Senator Coleman, Senator Dodd, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Isakson, Senator Kohl, Senator Lugar, Senator Obama, Senator Sessions, Senator Clinton, Senator Chafee, and others. We think this bill is effective, and we would hope the Senate can move forward and embrace this bill and pass it so the President can sign it yet this year. What S. 2025 does, in more detail, is it is aggressive in encouraging the increased production of biofuels. It provides loan guarantees to farmer-owned ethanol producers, to help them make investments in renewable energy systems and infrastructure. It also increases the ethanol infrastructure tax credit that we passed last summer in the Energy Policy Act so that credit is set at 50 percent. This will lower the startup costs for farmers and communities and businesspeople who want to build a biorefinery or a processing plant. These producers will benefit from the bill's investments in biofuels research. By doubling the funding for biofuels research, S. 2025 will improve yields and efficiencies and expand the range of feedstocks that can be used for biofuels production. Secondly, S. 2025 helps reduce our foreign oil dependency by giving consumers access to alternative fuels at filling stations. Currently, in the United States, we have 5 million flexible fuel vehicles. These vehicles can run on either gasoline or E-85, an 85-percent ethanol- gasoline mix. We today are adding about 1.5 million of these flex-fuel vehicles to our national fleet every year. The trouble is, as you well know, there are only 485 filling stations in the country that carry E- 85. There are only 485 filling stations today in the country that carry E-85. We have the technology on the road that allows cars to run on biofuels, but because consumers cannot pump E-85 fuel at their local filling station, we are not taking full advantage of the oil-saving rewards of the flex-fuel technology, which is now being deployed into our national fleet. S. 2025 would solve this problem. It would solve this problem by helping to build the pumps and filling station infrastructure needed to deliver biofuels to consumers. The bill provides loan guarantees and tax incentives to farmers and business owners for the construction of pump stations to dispense fuels. It also uses CAFE penalties that have already been collected by the Government from foreign manufacturers to expand funding for grants to finance alternative fueling infrastructure. One of the DOE grantees from this year alone, the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, will be able to build 300 stations with its $2 million grant. With at least 10 times the amount of that funding available, we should be able to equip at least 3,000 filling stations across America with the infrastructure that delivers biofuels to consumers who are in search for these alternative fuels. The economic benefits of giving these fuel choices to consumers are clear. If consumers can rely on filling their tank with E-85 fuel wherever they go, demand for the fuel and demand for cars that run on E-85 will increase dramatically, cutting demand for petroleum-based fuel. Not only will this help us deal with gas prices, but it will also stabilize them. We can count on our farmers to harvest their crops, but we cannot count--we cannot count--on Iran or the Middle East to sell us their oil. Finally, S. 2025 will help us retool our national vehicle fleet. S. 2025 sets goals for improving the efficiency of our vehicle fleet and for getting more advanced vehicles on the road. It sets these goals and then helps manufacturers retool their vehicle fleets to meet them. The bill sets targets for manufacturers to produce alternative fuel vehicles, plug-in hybrids, fuel cell vehicles, flexible-fuel vehicles, and other technologies which can run on regular gasoline or biofuel alternatives. By 2012, 1 in 10 vehicles produced will be advanced vehicles. By 2016, 1 in 2 vehicles produced will be advanced vehicles that can run on these alternative fuels or these advanced technologies. We will help manufacturers make these changes to their fleets. The bill establishes a tax credit for the costs the manufacturers incur when they are retooling or expanding their facilities to produce advanced vehicles. The bill also authorizes support for research that will provide lightweight materials to the auto industry and for technology for electric drive trains, batteries, and plug-in hybrids. The bill closes the SUV tax loophole, limits idling by buses, and requires that fuel economy standards be set for heavy duty vehicles so we can stop burning fuel we do not need to burn. For each 1 mile per gallon efficiency we find in this country, we save 1 million barrels of oil per day, or $20 billion a year. These are sensible, easy-to-implement solutions. Many of them, many of these ideas, have now been included in two bills that Senator Bingaman, Senator Chafee, Senator Lieberman, Senator Coleman, Senator Cantwell, and I and others have introduced. These are the Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006, which will push the Federal Government to save 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2016, and at least 10 million barrels per day by 2031, and the new energy tax bill, which provides multiple incentives to manufacturers, businesses, and consumers alike to utilize energy-efficient programs and alternatives themselves. The provisions of S. 2025 and the energy tax bill will give consumers more choices at the pump and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Each of us should be asking: What if we do nothing? What if we do nothing? What if we continue our malignant neglect of the long-term energy policy of the United States of America? If we do continue this malignant neglect, we will become increasingly vulnerable to the instabilities and whims of countries across the globe. The American consumer will continue to suffer, and the American economy will have lost an opportunity that has come its way. We have devoted a lot of time to many issues over the last 6 months of this year in this Congress. We have not devoted enough time on this floor to the issue of energy and of energy independence. We need to do so because to do otherwise is to neglect the national security of the United States. When you have a system that starts to break down, you have to address the cause as well as the symptoms of the problem. If your roof keeps springing leaks, you don't just put more and more buckets out. What you do is you eventually build yourself a new roof. We need to build a new energy policy in America, one that is built on the promise of renewable energy, technology, and conservation. I believe Americans are eager for us as a Senate to do this. In States across the country, people are enacting renewable portfolio standards and demanding access to alternative energies. They imagine a renewable energy future that harnesses the business and work ethic of rural America and which breathes new life into sagging rural economies. They look at fields of corn, soy, and sunflowers and see the raw materials for biodiesel and for ethanol. The renewable energy revolution is already underway in America thanks to farmers and ranchers and businesspeople who have been leading it, who have been doing their part. We now, as a Congress, need to do our part to push the renewable energy revolution forward. I urge our Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, following the template of last year's national Energy Policy Act, to move forward to secure America's renewable energy future by making ``25 by 25'' our national goal. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the flag desecration amendment and talk about the nature of the debate we have seen in the Senate over the last 2 days. First, let me be clear. I support the amendment that came before the Senate today, and I just cast my vote for it. The American flag is a unique symbol of our heritage, our principles, and everything the citizens of this great country have done to sacrifice for it. I do not believe laws narrowly prohibiting the desecration of our flag in any way undercut the principles embedded in the first amendment. However, it is important to emphasize certain points as we debate these issues. First, as is often the case when we consider whether to amend the Constitution, this is not a simple question. It is not a question that is cut and dried. I understand the strong feelings of those who oppose this amendment. I understand their argument that the freedoms the American flag stands for, including the freedom of speech and expression, are as important as the flag itself. We must not separate the flag from the cherished principles that it represents. In keeping with that concept, I believe it is wrong for proponents of the flag desecration amendment to question the patriotism of those who oppose it. Simply because Senator Durbin, Senator McConnell, Senator Feingold, Senator Bennett, and others oppose this amendment does not mean they believe the flag should be desecrated, nor does it mean that they view the flag as any less important a symbol. As anyone who has worked with these Senators knows, nothing could be further from the truth. Finally, my support for this amendment is based on the premise that the flag is unique and deserves special protection. But for the same reason I believe the flag should be protected, I also firmly believe it should not be politicized for partisan gain. The American citizens who pledge allegiance to this flag, who believe in what it represents, and who live and work under it every day deserve better. I also believe that we should be working as a Congress and as a Senate just as hard to strengthen our national and homeland security, improve our energy security, relieve the health care crisis that faces America's businesses and America's families, educate our children, and strengthen the American family. I yield the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a critical issue facing thousands of Americans. Many of my colleagues have heard me talk about the importance of rural America. As I have said before, in many ways, the very fabric of rural America is fraying, thread by thread. The America where I grew up--the America of farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and generations of close-knit families--is slowly slipping away. And the Federal Government is simply not doing enough to reverse this troubling trend. This America--rural America--has sadly become the ``Forgotten America.'' As we approach the Fourth of July recess, I want to talk about the challenges facing a community within the Forgotten America: rural veterans. In rural communities across the country, men and women have devoted themselves to the cause of freedom without hesitation and in numbers greatly beyond their proportion to the U.S. population. Yet we consistently overlook the unique challenges these men and women face after they return home to their families and friends in the heartland of America. When it comes to the VA health care system, we fail our Nation's rural veterans by not doing more to ensure they can access the high-quality health care they have earned. We owe them much better. Over and over, I hear from veterans in my State about obstacles to care. I recently met with a veteran from northeast Colorado who told me he had to travel 500 miles roundtrip just to get a simple blood test at a VA hospital. I think most of my colleagues would agree with me that this is ludicrous. I wish I could say this represents an isolated incident. Unfortunately, it does not. Because of gaps in the network of VA hospitals and clinics, and because the VA health care system is not equipped to fill these gaps, we hear stories like this all the time. Every day, veterans from rural communities throughout the country are forced to put off crucial treatment because they live too far from VA facilities and can't get the care they need. As a result, rural veterans die younger and suffer from more debilitating illnesses--all because our system is not equipped to address their needs and provide care accordingly. A 2004 study of over 750,000 veterans conducted by Dr. Jonathan Perlin, the Under Secretary for Health at the VA, consistently found that veterans living in rural areas are in poorer health than their urban counterparts. Still, despite the fact that 23 percent of the Nation's veterans live in rural areas, the VA does not have a high-level office responsible for coordinating care to this vital constituency. This is simply unacceptable. We need policies that address the plight of our rural veterans, and we need them now. With that objective in mind, Senator Thune and I recently introduced legislation that would significantly enhance our approach to rural veterans' health care. Thanks to the support of the 12 cosponsors of this legislation and to the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee who worked to ensure its fair, insightful, and constructive review, we were able to include many of this legislation's provisions as part of S. 2694, a broader legislative package that passed out of committee last week. In keeping with the objectives of our original Rural Veterans Care Act, this legislation would create an Office of Rural Health within the Veterans Health Administration. The new office would be responsible for taking a number of steps aimed at improving the way we provide care to rural veterans. Specifically, the Office of Rural Health would be charged with conducting, promoting, and disseminating research into issues affecting rural veterans, and developing and refining policies and programs to improve care and services for rural veterans. Because nearly one in every four veterans is from a rural area, the creation of this Office of Rural Health is crucial if we are to live up to our promise to provide all of our Nation's veterans with high-quality services. Through specifically designated officials in each of the country's 23 Veterans Integrated Service Networks, this office will have a real and effective presence in rural veterans communities. These individuals will serve as regional officers responsible for consulting on and coordinating research and policies in their respective service networks. Their insight into how to provide rural veterans in their areas with the best health care possible will be incredibly useful and will help expand the reach of the new office outside the beltway, and to all corners of the country. The Office of Rural Health will also be required to conduct a study on the feasibility of expanding the use of fee-basis care, whereby the VA contracts its services out on a limited basis to third party providers. I continue to believe we should carefully explore every available option when it comes to improving access to care for veterans living in rural areas, and I am happy that this legislation will provide a way to do just that. With almost one-quarter of our Nation's veterans living in rural communities, and with the obstacles they face with respect to accessing high-quality care so pronounced, it is obvious we need to do better. I am pleased that the Veterans' Affairs Committee has taken an important first step toward that goal, and I am committed to working with my colleagues in the Senate, with the VA, and with veterans across the country to build on this momentum. This legislation may not be the whole answer, but it is a start, and the dialogue we have helped to start on this critical issue is long overdue. I want to thank Senators Thune, Akaka, Burr, Murray, Baucus, Burns, Conrad, Dorgan, Pryor, Lincoln, Murkowski, Thomas, and Enzi for cosponsoring the Rural Veterans' Care Act. I also want to thank Chairman Craig and his staff for working with me and the rest of the bill's sponsors to include a provision creating a new Office of Rural Health as part of S. 2694. I know that each and every one of my colleagues deals with veterans issues and feels a deep sense of gratitude toward the brave men and women who have fought for our freedom. I hope we can join together in support of our rural veterans. We owe it to them to make sure our actions match our rhetoric when it comes to expressing our gratitude and fulfilling the promises we have made. Toward that end, I look forward to seeing this legislation passed by Congress and sent to the President for his signature.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007. I was pleased to vote in favor of this bill. I wish to express my deepest gratitude and respect to Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin for their tireless dedication to making sure this legislation was passed in a spirit of bipartisanship. I am honored to be part of their efforts to build a stronger, safer America. This legislation is good for our troops, good for Colorado, and good for America. Our troops--the men and women who selflessly defend the democratic way of life both here and abroad--deserve nothing less than our steadfast support. I was pleased that we were able to show that support in a significant way with the passage of this Defense Authorization Act. First of all, starting at the beginning of next year, all military personnel will receive a 2.2-percent pay raise. This extra money in the pockets of our servicemembers will go a long way as they continue to simultaneously serve our country and work to provide for their own families. Second, the Senate has sternly rejected the Pentagon's ill-conceived increase in the medical fees for retirees. This is important to our long-term commitment to provide for those who have served our country with dedication and determination. As part of this Nation's commitment to taking care of the families of our servicemembers, this legislation also authorizes a pilot program to promote early childhood education for military children affected by the relocation of military units or overseas deployments. For our wounded soldiers, we are enacting strong requirements to make sure they receive an audit of their pay, and setting up a toll-free call assistance center for military personnel and next of kin who are experiencing pay problems. We need to take care of our wounded veterans, and this is one small step that will go a long way in meeting that goal. Along those same lines, we are also authorizing $10 million for pilot projects to address the growing problem of post-traumatic stress disorder. This legislation will also strengthen our troop levels for ground forces, adding 30,000 more troops to the Army's end-strength, 5,000 more troops to the Active-Duty Marines, and 17,000 more troops to the Army National Guard. I strongly support these provisions. Additionally, the Defense Authorization Act supports several programs that our troops rely on to successfully complete their missions. There is money for new helicopters to replace those lost in Operation Iraqi Freedom: $71.0 million to purchase UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters, and $333.1 million to purchase CH-47 Chinook helicopters. There is over $950 million for protective equipment for our fighting men and women, including over $550 million for up-armored HMMWVs. This legislation also provides over $2 billion in funding for new technologies to help keep our troops protected from improvised explosive devices, IEDs. Every American knows that IEDs pose one of the most terrible threats to the safety of our servicemembers currently in Iraq. It is our responsibility to protect our fighting men and women from that evolving threat to the best of our ability. All told, the Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2007 is very strong on providing for our troops, and I wholeheartedly support that effort. In addition, Mr. President, I am proud of the significant, Colorado- specific funding in this bill that will solidify Colorado as America's crown jewel for national defense and homeland security. Specifically, the bill designates $130.7 million for military construction projects in Colorado. This includes $26 million for Fort Carson to build a combat services support complex for special operating forces and another $24 million for the next phase of construction of the airfield arrival/depart complex. At Buckley Air Force Base, $10.7 million is authorized for construction of the consolidated fuels facility, and another $7 million is authorized for a new Air National Guard Squadron operations facility. At Schriever Air Force Base, $21 million is set aside for construction of the Space test and evaluation facility. And finally, there is $42 million authorized for chemical weapons demilitarization construction for Pueblo Chemical Depot. Funds for the Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, authorized in this legislation will bring another $202 million to Fort Carson. There is $118 million for the construction of a brigade combat team complex and $84 million for the construction of a division headquarters for the 4th Infantry Division relocating from Fort Hood, TX. I am also pleased to note that this legislation authorizes $10 million to purchase interoperable communications equipment for NORTHCOM. Earlier in the year I added an amendment to the budget resolution to provide that $10 million for NORTHCOM. Interoperable communications are absolutely necessary for NORTHCOM to be able to respond as quickly and effectively as possible to a homeland security emergency. I am also extremely pleased that several amendments I offered were passed by the Senate. My Chemical Weapons Convention amendment sends an extremely strong message to the Department of Defense that the Senate will no longer stand for schedule or funding delays regarding the destruction of chemical weapons. Pueblo Chemical Depot needs to be rid of its chemical weapons stockpiles. The Department of Defense needs to commit the resources to ensure it happens as quickly as possible. With my amendment, the entire Senate spoke with one voice in agreement. Another amendment I offered and had included in the Senate bill will change the name of the death gratuity to fallen hero compensation. I have stated this before, but I believe the term ``death gratuity'' to be a poor description of the compensation this Nation provides to the families of fallen servicemembers. To my way of thinking, anyone who has worn the uniform of the Armed Forces is an American hero, and this small name change will be extremely meaningful to the bereaved families of those servicemembers who die while on active duty. I am also pleased that Chairman Warner and Senator Levin have worked with me to accept an amendment that requires the Secretary of the Army to complete a study on the High Altitude Aviation Training Site, HAATS, in Eagle County, CO. HAATS is operated by the Colorado National Guard, and I could not be prouder of the school and its mission. Helicopter pilots trained at HAATS are safer in mountainous and environmentally challenging terrain. This study I have proposed will strengthen the school and will help raise its level of visibility in the Army. I also cosponsored a number of important amendments that have been included in the Senate's bill. One amendment will ensure the Pentagon provides the citizens of southeastern Colorado with the information they have been asking for regarding the Pinon Canyon Maneuvering Site. Another helps provide contractors at Pueblo Chemical Depot with incentives to finish by the deadline. On a national level, I was proud to cosponsor a fiscally responsible amendment authored by Senator McCain that requires future money for ongoing military operations to be properly budgeted and paid for, instead of continuing to use emergency funding in a way that avoids oversight. And I was pleased to cosponsor a successful amendment to strengthen the mandate of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. During consideration of this bill, the Senate engaged in many hours of debate regarding the course of U.S. policy in Iraq. I was proud to be a cosponsor of the Levin-Reed amendment that built upon last year's Senate consensus that 2006 should be a year of transition in Iraq. While this amendment was not successful, I believe that the debate was important, and that Congress must continue to search for constructive and responsible ways to help ensure success in Iraq by insisting on more direction and clarity in U.S. policy. Our brave men and women in uniform are doing such a remarkable job in Iraq. We need to work hard here in Washington to ensure that our policy is worthy of their efforts. Our troops need every opportunity for success. This funding bill, and the amendments and projects it contains, send a powerful message to our troops and the enemies they bravely face: this country supports our men and women in uniform. Our brave service men and women are the best in the world, and this bill will ensure they have the training, supplies, and materials they need to continue to produce such positive results.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment of the Senate's time to remember a Coloradan who was lost to us last week in defense of this Nation. Shaw Vaughan was a loving and supportive son and older brother, an avid hunter and fly fisherman. One of his most prized possessions was his 1969 Jeepster Commando, an off-roading vehicle he had personally rebuilt, affectionately named Hercules. Hercules sits quiet today, its red finish gleaming undimmed in the mountain sun. U.S. Army LT John Shaw Vaughan, of Edwards, in Eagle County in my State of Colorado, was killed on June 7 in Mosul, Iraq. Lieutenant Vaughan was a young man with his entire life before him: He was a mere 23 years old, and had been in Iraq only a month. As a middle school student, Shaw Vaughan caught the eye of our military leaders for his regional science fair project: comparing the accuracy of store-bought ammunition with that assembled by him. He graduated Battle Mountain High School in 2001 and attended the prestigious Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, FL. Upon graduation, Lieutenant Vaughan was 1 of only 70 cadets, out of 5,000, to receive a much-sought-after assignment in military intelligence in the infantry. It was a high honor, reflecting his intellect, work ethic, and commitment to our Nation. Lieutenant Vaughan was stationed in Alaska, a part of our country he had visited with his family years earlier. I guess you could say that Alaska had ``hooked'' the fisherman in Lieutenant Vaughan, and he was looking forward to his service there after he completed his time in Iraq. Lieutenant Vaughan was eager to get to Iraq, to serve with his unit. In his e-mails and phone calls back home, Lieutenant Vaughan spoke of how strongly he felt about America's mission in Iraq. He told stories of Iraqi families leading him into their homes, telling him horror stories of their families' sufferings under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. As one newspaper in my home State observed, it seems that every story about Shaw Vaughan was different, and yet, the same: ``one of a great guy and a courageous man lost too soon.'' In Act III of William Shakespeare's classic Henry V, King Henry says with pride, ``As I am a soldier, A name that in my thoughts becomes me best '' I will think of this today as I bow my head in prayer for the loss of Lieutenant Vaughan, a life of such great promise that was snuffed out too soon. LT Shaw Vaughn took pride in his life as a soldier, and it is truly a name that, in all of our thoughts, becomes him best.