Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Levin-Reed amendment on our Iraq policy. The United States of America has already invested mightily in helping the Iraqi people. It is now time for the United States to make a clear and specific statement that the Iraqi people must assume the responsibility for finding Iraqi solutions to the challenges they face. Indeed, that is exactly what the Iraqi government has said it wants. Just a few days ago, the new Iraqi National Security Advisor, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, stated that the Iraqi government anticipates some drawdown in U.S. troop numbers by the end of this year and continuing in 2007. He also said: The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to engage with some of our neighbors that have to date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance because of what they call the ``coalition occupation.'' Finally, he made the statement: The removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people. The security adviser continued and essentially said that there would be a gradual transition from the American troop presence there in Iraq. So our amendment builds on what the Iraqi Government is telling us that they want. America has invested life, blood, and treasure in Iraq over the past 3\1/2\ years. Mr. President, 2,506 U.S. servicemen and women have been killed; Over 18,500 servicemen and women have been wounded: and some $320 billion taxpayer dollars have been appropriated. We all recognize that U.S. forces cannot and should not remain in Iraq indefinitely. Yesterday the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to retain language indicating that the U.S. will not construct permanent bases in Iraq precisely because they wanted to send a signal to Americans and to Iraqis--we don't plan on staying forever. Last year the Senate joined together in calling for 2006 to be the year of transition in Iraq. That was a positive step, one that helped bring unity and cohesion to a debate too often marked by partisan rancor. Now we can take another constructive step together by supporting this well-thought-out amendment. The Levin-Reed amendment affirms the statement that the Senate made last year: 2006 should be a year of transition in Iraq. It asks the President to present a flexible plan for that ongoing transition--one that can give some shape and direction to the oft-repeated mantra that ``as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.'' Let me just outline what this amendment does. It states that an open-ended commitment in Iraq is unsustainable, and urges the following actions be undertaken to help the American people and the Iraqi people achieve success. The Iraqis should take steps to promote more power sharing in Iraq, including through Constitutional changes, to avert civil conflict. The President of the United States should convene an international summit on Iraq to increase burden-sharing in efforts to stabilize the country. The government of Iraq should disarm militias and insist on integrity in the Iraqi armed forces and police. The U.S. President should begin the transition of U.S. forces to a limited, three-fold mission. That mission would involve continued training of Iraqi forces, protecting U.S. assets and personnel, and targeted counter-terrorism activities, and by the end of 2006, the President should submit a plan to Congress for continuing the phased redeployment. The U.S. should continue heavy diplomatic engagement in Iraq for the foreseeable future. The President should assess the impact that our operations in Iraq are having on the overall US campaign against terrorism worldwide. One thing that has become apparent in recent months is that many Americans are losing confidence in our Iraq policy--not in our servicemen and women, but in our policy. I know that history tells us that the U.S. is most successful in undertakings of this magnitude and difficulty when the American people are wholeheartedly behind the effort. It is my sincere hope that this amendment, and the plan for phased redeployment appropriate to conditions on the ground that it calls for, will help contribute to success in Iraq by giving the American people new confidence that we are moving toward a clear destination, along a distinct path. It is precisely because I recognize that stability in Iraq is important, and because I want this mission to succeed, that I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment. The only path to sustainable stability in Iraq requires Iraqis assuming responsibility for their own security and making the political accommodations necessary to avert civil war. The U.S. cannot do this for them. An open-ended policy in Iraq is not helping matters--it is letting extremist and divisive elements hide behind the cloak of nationalism, and it is providing a rationale for postponing tough choices which must be made by the Iraqi people. And so those who would rather engage in mudslinging, those who would rather politicize this vital national security issue than deal with the reality that the only choices before us are tough choices, need to think again. We all in this Chamber, I believe, want success in Iraq. We need to work with the democratically-elected Iraqi government to get there. This amendment is in step with their vision. I want to succeed in Iraq, and I also want our broader foreign policy goal to succeed--the goal of defeating the terrorist networks that wish to do us harm. It is precisely because I am concerned about the consequences for our national security of an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq that I support the Levin-Reed amendment. The fight against terrorism is a global endeavor, and for years Iraq has been sucking up most the resources, the troops, and the political will and capital in this room. This amendment calls on the administration to responsibly assess and adjust our policies so that we don't strain our military to the breaking point even as a global struggle rages on for years and perhaps decades to come. The very fact that this amendment is likely to be criticized from both sides in the Iraq debate is, in my view, an endorsement of its language. This amendment rejects any call for an immediate withdrawal, because that would be irresponsible and would not serve our national interests. A failed Iraqi state would further destabilize an already volatile region, creating a lasting haven for terrorists. Our national security imperatives mandate our commitment to Iraq's success. There is no cutting, there is no running in this language. There is no deadline. There is no arbitrary timeframe. But it also rejects the fingers-crossed, stay the meandering-course approach favored by those whose strategy seems to involve little more than hoping for the best. Optimism is a terrific attitude, but it's not a policy. Success in Iraq is dependent on several factors: controlling violence, creating a stable government of national unity, delivering basic services and the promise of economic development to the Iraqi people, and establishing strong and supportive relations between Iraq and its neighbors in the region. If any of these pillars are missing, Iraq's future becomes uncertain and unstable. America can help, but ultimately the Iraqis must achieve these goals on their own. This amendment calls for us to begin shifting that responsibility, even as we work to shore up international cooperation and support and reaffirm our commitment to intense ongoing engagement. Since I became a United States Senator, I have twice traveled to Iraq to get a better sense of the status of our mission. Each time, I have been overwhelmed with admiration for our servicemen and women who are serving so honorably, and who, along with their families, are sacrificing so much. I am so proud of our troops and we must do right by them. Sitting on our hands while policy drifts from one goal and mission to another with no end in sight just isn't good enough. By the end of this year, we will have been in Iraq nearly as long as we were engaged in World War II, but as sectarian violence is on the rise, the picture is getting murkier and murkier. Congress needs to get into the mix--but to get in responsibly. I hope that my colleagues, both those who support this amendment and those who find fault with it, will engage in this debate in that spirit. Our men and women in uniform, and the American people, deserve nothing less. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

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

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to state that I will vote for the emergency supplemental conference report that is before us, and I will do so without hesitation. I expect that most of my colleagues will also join in that vote. We will vote in that way because we know our brave men and women in uniform are currently in harm's way. They are in harm's way, and they need the resources this bill provides for them to move forward. I also strongly support the hurricane relief and the reconstruction element of this conference report. Those funds are very much needed to address the urgent issues we are facing in the gulf coast and the reconstruction of that area from the disaster which was caused by Hurricane Katrina. I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Cochran and the rest of the delegation from the Gulf Coast States that has brought this matter to the urgent attention of the American Nation. But I also rise to express my disappointment in what is not in this conference report and to help give voice with my colleagues to the millions of farmers, ranchers, and rural communities where needs have not been met in this report. I am disappointed with the prevailing attitude in our Nation's Capital for the men and women who produce an abundant supply of the safest and highest quality food in the world. This bill is literally leaving them out to dry. Last year, a bipartisan group of Senators recognized the dire situation that was facing our Nation's farmers and ranchers. We introduced the Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2006. That bill would provide $3.9 billion in emergency disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers who suffered losses due to natural disasters. This was an excellent piece of legislation which could have only been written by a consensus, hard work, and a bipartisan approach. We are all extremely proud that the Senate included both provisions in the emergency supplemental but in part because it included this assistance for farmers and ranchers. And there was a Presidential veto that came on the bill we passed out of the Senate. Because these provisions were stripped from the supplemental bill, our rural communities will suffer an unnecessary wrong. I stand with the farmers and ranchers of rural America today because I recognize that this problem we face today in rural America will not go away. It will not simply disappear when the Senate stands adjourned until the final vote on this emergency supplemental. As I travel across Colorado, I hear from farmers and ranchers who have been consistently hit by disaster emergency after disaster emergency. With the rising cost of fuel and other interest costs, this problem can and will only get worse. The 2005 winter wheat crop in Colorado was the fifth below-average crop in 6 years, with potential losses for producers of $50 million in my State alone in 2005. Corn producers are reporting that their crops will be 20 percent below average. Sugar beet growers in my State of Colorado will see a decline of almost 50 percent. Farm fuel has increased 79 percent from where it was in September of 2004. It cost $2.60 a gallon in September 2005. It was $1.40 in December 2004, and we expect it will probably be higher this September of 2006. One of my constituents, a farmer in Kit Carson County, a very rural and very remote place in the eastern plains of Colorado, estimated that he will need an additional $46,000 to cover the increased cost of fuel alone this year. I have often heard here on this Senate floor that rural America is ``the forgotten America.'' I very much agree with that characterization of rural America. The conference committee, faced with the looming threat of a Presidential veto and pushed by House leadership which is out of touch with rural constituencies, abandoned this opportunity for a renewed commitment to rural America. I will join with my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, in making sure we do not abandon rural America. I will continue to stand with the hard-working folks of rural America and with my colleagues who understand the hardships that are faced in more than 50 percent of the counties of our great State. The drought in my State of Colorado has not miraculously ended in 2006. It continues. Flooding and other natural disasters are still affecting producers across the country. Therefore, my colleagues and I will be back, and again we will push for agricultural disaster assistance to ensure that our farmers and ranchers in rural communities have a real voice here in Washington, DC. I am also deeply disappointed that a small but very important amendment I authored--an amendment that was accepted by the Senate--was stripped in conference. That provision would have increased the funds available to deal with the wildfire season which is upon us right now and particularly to address the hazards presented by the massive infestation of beetles that has turned vast swaths of our forests into swaths of dry fuel for wildfires. There was never any doubt in my mind or in the minds of the people of the West that this was, in fact, an emergency situation we face. There was never any doubt that these resources were needed--and they are needed at this time. Try to imagine how painful it is for communities to brace themselves for the worst when they have approved mitigation plans that are simply sitting on the shelf just waiting for resources so they can be implemented and wood fuel can be safely removed. We had an opportunity to help ease this pain and to do it in this supplemental. Now that opportunity has passed us by. I was heartened when my Senate colleagues joined in support of the amendment, just as I am so disappointed that it is not finally included in the conference report before us. When across our State the fires start burning during this summer, I will again remind my colleagues that we had a chance to avert this disaster and to address this emergency we know exists, and again we were not able to do so. But on this point, too, I will not give up. I do not believe our Senate should give up. We should keep fighting to address the urgent threat and the underlying causes of the tremendously dangerous wildfire situation in which Colorado communities and communities across America find themselves. That truly is a disaster emergency we face. Finally, I regret that almost $650 million in funding for important port security programs included in the Senate-passed version was left out of this conference report. Those funds would have been used to pay for new imaging machines to allow inspectors to look inside cargo containers as they arrive in American ports, to add Customs inspectors at dozens of foreign ports, and to place more U.S. Coast Guard inspectors at foreign and domestic ports. These should be high priorities, especially given the bipartisan concern about foreign ownership of U.S. ports and the fact that port inspectors currently check less than 5 percent--that is less than 5 percent--of the more than 11 million containers that enter American ports every year. As a cosponsor of the Greenlane Maritime Cargo Act, a bipartisan bill to shore up our port security system, I regret the action that has been produced by this conference report, stripping it of the $650 million we included in the bill for port security. In conclusion, I will vote for the emergency supplemental because it is before the Senate and we must make sure we are reconstructing the gulf coast and supporting our men and women in uniform. However, the supplemental emergency conference report is flawed because it does not do what it should be doing for farmers and ranchers who have been dealing with disaster emergencies, and it does not take care of the looming fire emergency we will face across America over the summer months. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate my good friend, Senator Robert Byrd, on becoming the longest serving Senator in the history of our great Nation. Senator Byrd has now served as Senator for 17,327 days. That is almost as long as I have been alive. I fully expect to continue serving with him for many more days. I know that during those 17,000-plus days in the Senate, Senator Byrd has inspired many. I also know that as we continue to witness his service in the days ahead in the Senate, he will continue to provide inspiration to this body and to all of my colleagues and to me. I am sure that in those days, just as he has in the past, Senator Byrd will continue to implore our colleagues to respect the wisdom of the Founders and the brilliance of our Constitution, which he so proudly carries as a symbol on his lapel every day, and during those days in the future, he will continue to remind us all in the Senate of how much we can and should learn from the history of our great country and the experience of this democracy. He will continue, as he always has, fighting for the hard-working people of his beloved West Virginia, and he will, as he always has, continue to provide generous counsel to those of us who have far less experience than he does, for Senator Byrd truly has been and continues to be a mentor to all of us, and always, with his grace and with his dignity, setting an example for all Senators to act with that dignity, with that courtesy, and with that eloquence which is truly a legacy of Robert Byrd in the Senate. For me, as the No. 99 Senator and as one of the most junior in this body today, I am personally inspired and grateful to Senator Byrd for his achievements and for his example. Just as my family has given me strength in my life, I know Senator Byrd's remarkable service would not have been possible without the love and support of his own family. I have often been moved by Senator Byrd's words about the power of the love and the bond he and his late wife Erma shared for decades. So as we honor Senator Byrd today, as we honor this institution, we also honor the memory of Erma, and we honor the rest of Senator Byrd's family as well. It is a great privilege for me to represent the people of Colorado in this great Chamber. It is also a true honor to be a colleague to a historic figure in the name of Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. Once again, I congratulate him. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I recognize and commend the fantastic work and accomplishments of the students and staff at the Collbran Job Corps located in Collbran, CO. Last year, the Collbran Job Corps was awarded the outstanding Organization of the Year award by the Colorado Special Olympics Hall of Fame for their outstanding service and dedication to the Special Olympics in Colorado. This recognition was well deserved as Collbran Job Corps has actively participated and supported the Colorado Special Olympics for almost 20 years. Recently, the students and staff at the Collbran Job Corps Center collaborated to form a robotics team that competed in national competitions against other robotics teams from universities, colleges, and the private sector. In May, Collbran team was awarded 1st place honors in a regional robotics competition in Denver and won an opportunity to compete in the International Robotics Competition in Atlanta against robotics teams from around the globe. The judges at the international competition in Atlanta awarded Collbran the Engineering Inspiration Award for their ability to inspire other competitors. The students and staff at the Collbran Job Corps certainly live up to their mission statement: ``Believe, Achieve, and Succeed.'' Their first place victory at the Denver regional competition and excellent showing and award at the International Robotics Competition demonstrates that Collbran is meeting and excelling above and beyond this mission statement. Collbran Job Corps students are well known throughout western Colorado for their achievements and commitment to the betterment of their community. They have actively been involved in community projects that utilized the skills of students in the construction trades, including the CISCO Networking Program, business technology occupations, as well as those in culinary arts training. The longstanding sense of commitment to enhancing community spirit and outreach serves as a benchmark to other Job Corps sites throughout the country. Recently, the Department of Labor national Office of Job Corps selected Collbran Job Corps as a Career Success Standards, CSS, Pilot Center and national trainer. The CSS sets a standard for behavioral expectations of students participating in the Job Corps program in support of the President's High Growth Training Initiative. The Collbran Center was selected as a result of their outstanding core values, positive and engaging student culture, and consistent high performance. Collbran Job Corps highlights the positive impacts the Job Corps opportunity has had on the lives of the disadvantaged youth who participate and the positive effect those youth contribute back to their communities and the strong values of community. As the budget and appropriations process proceeds, I hope the Senate will continue to support the Job Corps program and keep the wonderful example of Collbran Job Corps in mind. I know I will. I commend the Collbran Job Corps Center for believing, achieving, and succeeding.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent during confirmation vote on the nomination of Michael Hayden to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency because I had returned to Colorado to honor commitments to my family. I want the Record to reflect that had I been here, I would have voted in favor of confirmation. I was also necessarily absent during the cloture vote on the nomination of Dirk Kempthorne to be Secretary of the Interior. I support this nomination, and I want the Record to reflect that had I been here, I would have voted in favor of invoking cloture. And I was necessarily absent during confirmation vote on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the DC Circuit. I want the Record to reflect that had I been here, I would have voted against confirmation. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent during the vote on final passage of S. 2611, the comprehensive immigration reform bill, because I was traveling to Colorado to attend my youngest daughter's high school graduation. I want the Record to reflect that had I been here, I would have voted in favor of the bill. The legislation that passed the Senate will help this country to reestablish meaningful control of our borders. It will promote real law and order at ports of entry and in the interior, improving employer verification mechanisms and establishing a tough but fair path to citizenship for qualified immigrants. It rejects the idea that America can be the country we wish to be while tolerating a permanent underclass, a shadow society, within our midst. It is my hope that the most important elements of this comprehensive bill will be retained in conference with the House, and will be sent to the President's desk for signature. Mr. President, I was also necessarily absent during the cloture vote on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the DC Circuit. I want the Record to reflect that had I been here, I would have voted in favor of invoking cloture.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from North Dakota. I understand his heartfelt concerns as he comes to the floor to argue on behalf of American workers. But I have to reluctantly oppose his amendment which would sunset the temporary worker program. While his amendment is well-intentioned, the amendment would undermine the carefully crafted compromise that has been struck in the underlying bill. We know that one of the fundamental causes of undocumented immigration is that too few visas exist to meet employers' demands for short-term immigrant labor. The basic logic of this bill is to fix our broken immigration system. Earned legalization for those already here is an important part of the solution. But on its own, legalization will not solve the problem of future flow. What we need here is a solution that is comprehensive and long-lasting. When you put the kind of sunset which is being proposed by my friend from North Dakota on this, it will only have a temporary solution in place. I yield the remainder of our time to my friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. SALAZAR. Again, to reiterate my understanding of the proposed amendment, it is that you would request and require the Census Bureau to conduct a study on the impact of undocumented workers in this country on reapportionment?

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask a question of the Senator from Montana. Some on our side have been concerned that the amendment would give new mandates or authorities to the Census Director beyond the study which you have described. Is this amendment intended to give any additional authority to the Census Bureau other than conducting a study as you described?

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I inquire about the amount of time remaining on both sides.

Mr. SALAZAR. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I have no objection.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, we cannot yet come to agreement on the modification on amendment No. 4108 by Senator Sessions.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Idaho in opposition to the Chambliss amendment, with all due respect to my colleague and friend from Alabama. Over the last several weeks, I have heard many times from the agricultural community in Colorado. The agricultural community in Colorado is strongly in support of the AgJOBS Program. It is only in the last 2 or 3 weeks that I met with the dairy farmers of Colorado. We have 156 dairy farms in my State. They told me that AgJOBS and its passage was so important to them that without having AgJOBS, our dairy industry in Colorado would basically go down the tubes. From their point of view, in their way of articulating the need for this workforce, what they said is the very revitalization of great parts of rural Colorado was very dependent on the passage of AgJOBS. That is why I have been a cosponsor of AgJOBS with my friend from Idaho, because it is the kind of legislation we need to create stability within the agricultural workforce of America. It is not only the dairy farmers, it is also the meat growers, it is the nursery association, and it is all of those agricultural jobs which are so dependent on making sure they have the kind of workforce to keep agriculture as a viable industry within our communities. The Chambliss amendment is one that also makes it very expensive for people to enter into the program. According to the amendment, it would raise the fine for obtaining a blue card from $100 to $1,000. I think about the fact that these farmworkers are not paid $20 an hour, $100 an hour, $300 an hour. They don't make the kind of money other people in America make. A farmworker is lucky if he can make $10,000 to $12,000 a year. And with that kind of a wage, we are asking farmworkers to pay $1,000 in order to enter into this program if this amendment gets adopted. The amendment as well doubles the amount of previous agricultural workdays a farmworker has to be employed. In the reality of agriculture and how it works, it is a seasonal kind of labor need where you have potato farmers who require people to come and work sometimes for 2 or 3 weeks at a time. That expectation would essentially exclude a vast swath of farmworkers who otherwise would be coming in through the funnel of the AgJOBS Program. At the end of the day, what the proposed amendment does is it takes away the opportunity we have to create stability within the AgJOBS Program. I would ask my colleagues to join us in making sure we have stability for American agriculture and hiring labor. I ask my colleagues to join us as well in standing up for those farmworkers who are out there toiling in the fields. I don't think there is a State that any of us cannot drive through and where we haven't walked or driven through those fields and seen the people who are out there toiling in the hot Sun, in the hot summer, July and August Sun, as many of us in this room may have done in the past. The reality is we need to create a program that will, in fact, work with the agricultural workers of America, as well as for the agricultural industry of America. That is why I am asking my colleagues to join us in opposition to amendment 4084. Mr. President, may I ask how much time is left on this amendment?

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the life of a fellow Coloradoan: Army MSG Robert H. West. Master Sergeant West was killed last week near Baghdad in service to this Nation. He was 37 years old, and lived with his wife and daughter in Arvada, CO. Master Sergeant West arrived for his second tour of duty in Iraq just 3 months ago. He was there to train Iraqi police officers, shouldering the difficult burden of helping to build lasting peace and democracy in Iraq at a very personal level. Master Sergeant West felt that his firsthand experience as a drill instructor made him a better fit to train Iraqis than many of the young U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq with him. Master Sergeant West's family was not happy about his decision to return to Iraq, but he did so with confidence and courage, telling his aunt, ``I'm a trained professional, it'll be all right.'' One of the hallmarks of Master Sergeant West's life was his commitment to excellence in everything he did. As a high school football player he spent countless hours in the weight room, and helped lead Elyria Catholic High School's football team to back-to-back Ohio State championships in the mid 1980s. After graduating high school in 1987, Master Sergeant West joined the Army in 1988, eventually rising to become a tank commander and drill instructor. In this capacity, Master Sergeant West spent countless hours molding wide-eyed, inexperienced young men and women from around the country into strong, confident soldiers. It was this experience that gave him the confidence to return to Iraq to work with that country's growing police force. In Iraq, Master Sergeant West was assigned to an armored cavalry division, where he conducted house-to-house searches looking for insurgents. During one of these patrols, an improvised explosive device was detonated near his Humvee, and he was killed. Master Sergeant West's wife Jeannie and their daughter Shelby must know that Robert's service to this Nation, and his sacrifice on behalf of all of us, does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. Robert's service and sacrifice are a profound reminder that the liberty and freedoms we enjoy do not come without a sometimes very personal and terrible cost. As a country and community, we are all humbled by his commitment and offer our grateful support during his family's time of unimaginable grief.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, through the Chair, I say to my friend from Tennessee, there was an Executive order issued on limited English proficiency and the importance of reaching out to people who are limited English proficient so they could recognize and understand the language of the Government, an Executive order dated August 11, 2000. Is the Senator's reading of the Inhofe amendment that it would essentially eviscerate the Executive order issued by then-President Clinton concerning limited English proficiency?

Mr. SALAZAR. I would be happy to do so on my time. Through the Chair, I ask the manager.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified with the change that is at the desk.

Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, would my friend from Oklahoma yield for a question?

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, again, if I may ask a question of my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. SALAZAR. This is not on the substance----

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, what I would like to do as we move forward in this discussion is also lay down the amendment that I have which I believe accomplishes the objectives which have been articulated by the Senator from Oklahoma and, hopefully, after the Inhofe statement, I can lay down my proposed amendment which I think addresses some of the questions we are talking about on the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me first say that the amendment I send to the desk is sponsored as well by Senators Reid, Durbin, Bingaman, and Kennedy. I would first like to start by reading the amendment in its basic entirety. I think that it reflects what it is we are talking about in the Chamber this afternoon. My amendment reads as follows: English is the common and unifying language of the United States that helps provide unity for the people of the United States. The government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as a common and unifying language of America. Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the law of the United States relative to services or materials provided by the Government of the United States in any language other than English. That is the essential and substantive part of the amendment which we are sponsoring today. As I start to speak about this amendment, I want to say this amendment is a unifying amendment because it speaks to the common language of America. It unifies us from whatever particular language or background we come from. It is my hope that when we complete this debate today we could have 100 Senators standing up in support of this amendment. Let me say, for me--as we have approached this debate over immigration and as we approach this debate over official English and other aspects of amendments that have been offered by my friend from Oklahoma--it has been also a time for me to reflect back to the history of America and to the history of my own family in this country. My family came in and founded the city of Santa Fe in 1598, 408 years ago. And the language that is still the language of my home--the language still spoken on our ranch 110 miles north of Santa Fe--is still the spoken language from the 12th and 13th centuries. It is a very old language. I remember during those days when I was a young man going to school in the 1960s in Conejos County, in the southern part of Colorado, those who spoke Spanish in our school were punished because of the fact they spoke Spanish. I remember seeing the incident where young people would have their mouths washed out with soap because of the fact they happened to be speaking a language other than English in the public school. I have seen these kinds of incidents through a lifetime of personal experience. I think those kinds of incidents and those kinds of experiences run counter to what America is all about. America becomes richer and stronger because of our diversity. We have learned through the hard times of history that America is stronger when it stands together, when we find those issues that unite us as opposed to those issues that divide us. We found those issues that divided us in the Civil War and over half a million Americans died in that war. We found those issues that divided us in the era of segregation that led to Brown v. Board of Education and led to the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s. Those acts were intended to bring us together as a country. My fear is that the proposal which has been presented by my good friend from Oklahoma will serve to divide this country and not unite the country. That is why the amendment I have offered, along with my colleagues, is intended to be an amendment that says we believe the English language is the common language of the United States and that it is a unifying language of the United States and we stand behind that language as the common language of America. Let me also make a couple of observations regarding Senator Inhofe's amendment. First, when you read the language itself and read the technical language of it, you have to ask yourself the question: Why is that language there? You can read in the second part of the second page of his amendment essentially the language that says ``no official will communicate, provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English.'' I know there have been exceptions written into the language to try to accommodate times and places where the language other than English might have to be spoken. We have to ask the question: Why is the language written the way it is which says it is in these narrow, tailored exceptions where we will make the exception that a language other than English can be spoken? It causes me concern because I am not exactly sure what that means. If I am a public official working in law enforcement for one of our Federal agencies, if I work for the U.S. Postal Service, or wherever I might work in any agency of the Federal Government, I might read the language that says officials cannot communicate or provide materials in a language other than English. As someone who might not be a lawyer but a public servant serving within the Federal Government, it might give me a signal--and I think it would--and lots of our Federal employees the signal that perhaps providing services to the citizens of the United States in a language other than English is wrong and violative of the rule of law. They will not have the opportunity that we have had today to go through the fine review of this legislation in the way that we have, and even after having gone through that fine review of this language there are still many of us who have questions as to how this proposed amendment will take away rights from the people of America. As I was listening to my friend from Oklahoma speak about the importance of this amendment, one of the things he said is that he thought it was important that we stand together in opposing national origin discrimination. For sure, we can all agree in this Chamber that we are not to discriminate against someone because they happen to be Irish or French or if they happen to be of Mexican descent, whatever it is; we stand united in this country's belief in the proposition that we oppose any kind of discrimination based on national origin. Yet, it seems to me, from what I was hearing from my friend from Oklahoma, that the same thing does not apply with respect to language discrimination; if you happen to speak a language other than English, or if you happen, perhaps, to have an accent that indicates you may be of a native tongue that is other than English, that perhaps discrimination on the basis of language then would be sanctioned under our law in America. That is not the American way. The American way is to say that we are a stronger country when we recognize the differences among us, when we tolerate those who are different among us, and that we create a much stronger country when we stand together. I believe the amendment which Senator Inhofe has proposed will create division within the country. I think it is putting a finger on a problem that does not exist today. The statistics which Senator Inhofe cited, which are also cited by the National Council for Larussa, indicates that most Americans, including most Hispanics, speak English. The National Council for Larussa cites a GAO study in which it was consistently found that U.S. Government documents are printed in English only. In fact, less than 1 percent of U.S. Government documents are published in any language other than English. They also found that the English language is not under attack in our country. In the U.S. census findings, they found that 92 percent of Americans had no difficulty speaking English. We also found in poll after poll that immigrants in America come because they want to learn English. They want to learn English. They want to assimilate into our society because they know that English is, in fact, a keystone to opportunity. The Inhofe amendment does nothing in terms of including or encouraging people to move forward and learn the English language. We are already a country that speaks English. Senator Inhofe's amendment does not do anything with respect to moving the English language acquisition forward. Let me finally say that it is true there are many States that have made English their official language. I believe that English being made the official language is also a matter of States rights. It is true that in my State of Colorado, as well as in other States, English has been adopted as the official language of those particular States. I believe we ought to leave it to the States; let the States decide we are a Federal system. I think States ought to decide the way we ought to go with respect to dealing with this issue. Let me conclude by saying the amendment which I have proposed, along with my colleagues, Senators Reid, Durbin and Bingaman, is an amendment that would unify America and not divide our country. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the amendment which we have offered and oppose the Inhofe amendment. I yield the floor.