Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 20 seconds to finish my statement.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me say to my friends and colleagues from New Mexico, Senators Bingaman and Domenici, I very much appreciate the bipartisan leadership they are exercising in moving us forward in grappling with the imperative of national energy independence. I believe the National Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a first step in the right direction, and we must take additional steps. It is because I believe we must take additional steps that I rise today in support of this amendment for energy independence and energy security. Our amendment will add about $3.5 billion to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs authorized in the bipartisan energy bill of last year; $500 million for the LIHEAP program to help low-income families heat their homes; it importantly extends the production tax credit and clean energy bonds for renewable energy. This is a fiscally responsible way of fulfilling our mandate to lead America to energy independence. In his State of the Union Address, we heard the President commit to replace 70 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by the year 2025. This is actually a modest goal. I am a member of a bipartisan group of Senators--six Republicans and six Democrats--that supports S. 2025, the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act. That legislation would lead our country on a path to save 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by the year 2016, 7 million per day by 2026, and 10 million barrels per day by the year 2031. We can reach these goals and the President's goals, but we can only do it if we invest adequate resources in renewable and energy efficiency programs for the Nation. The importance of making these investments now could not be more clear. Today we import almost 60 percent of our oil, accounting for one-quarter of the U.S. trade deficit. At our current rate of consumption, we will be importing 70 percent by 2020. We are currently held hostage by our dependence on foreign oil, jeopardizing our national security and our Nation's economic stability. This amendment takes concrete steps toward the goal of energy independence. It builds on proposals we have been working on in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, ideas we have laid out in S. 2025 and ideas that I have discussed with the President in his recent trip to the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO. Our amendment would speed up development of renewable energy technologies, incentivize alternative fuels production, and improve energy efficiency in our cars and homes. Currently, transportation accounts for two-thirds of domestic oil consumption. That is why this amendment is so important, because it will provide full funding for the Energy Policy Act advanced vehicle deployment programs. We want to accelerate the development of hybrid vehicle technology, create fuel cells for school buses and transit buses, and improve the technology in biodiesel engines. Our amendment makes smart investments in renewable energy to make it affordable and accessible to all Americans. It will fund research and development for renewable energies to the levels we authorized last year as a Senate in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This amendment will double the funding for renewable energy development at DOE's top renewable energy lab, the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO. By supporting the technological advances occurring at places such as the National Renewable Energy Lab, we will usher in a new era in solar production, wind power, and biofuels. It extends existing production tax credits for electric power and liquid fuels produced from renewable resources until 2011. This will provide greater predictability for manufacturers and purchasers that want to make renewables a viable alternative. Our amendment will also place an additional $296 million into clean coal R&D. We are on the brink of breakthroughs in coal gasification and clean coal technology that will allow us to take full advantage of America's unparalleled coal resources. We must support these technologies and get them to the market as soon as possible. This energy independence amendment will also provide funding for the production incentives for cellulosic ethanol that we authorized in last year's Energy bill. Cellulosic ethanol is an untapped and potentially massive energy source. I appreciate the President's expression of support for its development. Current methods of producing ethanol have an energy return of about 35 percent. We can do much better.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of Senator Akaka's amendment to provide an additional $1.5 billion in funding for veterans' healthcare. As our Nation struggles with a growing healthcare crisis, we can all agree that the VA healthcare system serves as an example for how healthcare should be provided. In addition, through its medical research programs, the VA is frequently responsible for great strides in medical science that contribute significantly to the quality of healthcare services across the country. We owe it to our service members, our veterans, and our Nation to be honest about our needs, and to provide funding adequate to meet those needs. While this budget represents an improvement in terms of VA healthcare over last year's budget, it continues to propose revenue-generating policies that would increase costs for our Nation's veterans and serve to drive many of those veterans out of the system. For example, the administration has once again proposed to raise premiums and co-pays for Priority 7 and 8 veterans. But we all know the impact these policies will have on veterans in our States--over 27,000 veterans in my State of Colorado alone would be forced out of the system. This amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, would add $1.5 billion in funding for VA medical services, and would offset that increase by closing corporate tax loopholes. It would ensure adequate funding for VA healthcare without increasing costs for Priority 7 and 8 veterans, and would provide needed resources for the specific areas of mental health, readjustment counseling, and rehabilitative care. At a time when some of our veterans are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is important that we stand up as a Senate in full support of our veterans. Our veterans deserve better. They deserve our support of Senator Akaka's amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to honor and celebrate the accomplishments and service of an outstanding civic organization, the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments. Having accomplished its task of working with Federal and State officials to transform Rocky Flats from a nuclear weapons facility to a wildlife refuge, the coalition will cease to exist on March 6, 2006. It is fitting that we pause to reflect on and to learn from the record of service and success of the governments and people of this coalition. The Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments was established in February 1999 by agreement of the seven local governments that neighbored the Rocky Flats nuclear production site in central Colorado--Boulder County, Jefferson County, the city and county of Broomfield, the city of Arvada, the city of Boulder, the city of Westminster, and the town of Superior. The coalition was formed to serve as the representative of these local communities and to advise the State and Federal governments in the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats and the future use of the site. Since its inception, the coalition has provided an effective vehicle for communities to work together on issues such as workforce safety, outreach, and advocacy, as well as future use and long-term stewardship of the site. The Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments created a forum for governments and elected officials to come together to proactively discuss and address extremely complex issues and contributed to a rapid, successful, and cost effective resolution. The Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments has shown us by example what can be accomplished through effective advocacy expressed in a spirit of cooperation. As Colorado's attorney general, I worked closely with the coalition to refine cleanup standards to better match community interests. Together, we developed strategies to address long-term management needs of Rocky Flats, issues concerning mineral rights, and other concerns central to the protection of Rocky Flats as an asset for future generations. The coalition also worked with Senator Allard and Congressman Udall in developing and securing the passage of The Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001, one of their most significant achievements, and a milestone in the history of the Rocky Flats cleanup. I rise today not only to recognize the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments but also to celebrate the successful completion of its work and to acknowledge the significance of the coalition's accomplishments to the State of Colorado and to the Nation. The site has come a long way since the closure of the weapons plant that once stood there. After years of cleanup, hazardous material disposal, and rehabilitation, the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility is well on its way to becoming the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. The dissolution of this coalition coincides with the completion of the physical cleanup and the beginning of the process to transfer oversight over much of the site from the Department of Energy to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As the focus of efforts shifts from cleanup to future management, the members of the coalition now join with other local governments, organizations, and individual representatives to form the Rocky Flats Stewardship Council, which will continue local oversight of postclosure plans for the site. The Stewardship Council will facilitate ongoing discussion between Federal and local officials and will ensure that the best interests of Colorado citizens will be served as Rocky Flats makes its transition to wildlife refuge. For their devoted advocacy of the interests of fellow citizens, for the work they have done to ensure the safe and thorough cleanup of the Rocky Flats weapons facility, for the example that they have given us of what can be accomplished when governments work together, and for the tremendous success they have helped to achieve at Rocky Flats, I offer my sincere thanks and congratulations to the members of the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great man from Colorado, Jim Robb. A memorial celebration was held for him earlier this year and I ask for unanimous consent that this letter celebrating his life be printed into the Record. The letter follows. January 23, 2006. Dear Friends: I wish I could be with you personally today to honor Jim Robb. Colorado lost a remarkable advocate with the death of Jim Robb on February 20, 2005 at age 69. Jim served Mesa County and the Western Slope as an attorney, as a school board member, as a state representative and as a federal magistrate judge. He served us ably and well in all of these capacities, but it is in his work outside of his career, his amazing dedication to doing all he could to make his community a better place that keeps him in our hearts and minds. Jim had a vision for his community that is perhaps best exemplified in his work on the Riverfront Trail, he could look at that collection of junkyards and rotting tires and see past it to a time when there would be a beautiful trail along the Colorado River, running from Island Acres east of Palisade to Corn Lake to Connected Lakes to Fruita. He had the quiet ability to bring interested parties together to work on a problem and find a solution without ever taking credit for himself. His vision of a trail along the river where others saw only junkyards has become a reality and the State of Colorado has honored Jim Robb by renaming the Colorado River State Park as the James M. Robb Colorado River State Park. Mesa County and Western Colorado are very blessed to have benefited from a man with a vision, a man who knew how to get things done by working quietly with all of the interested groups, a very special man, whose love for the state of Colorado, and Mesa County in particular lives on in the River Front Trail he helped create, in the Old Spanish Trail he worked to have declared a National Historic trail, in the Kids Voting Program he envisioned and nurtured and in the lives of those he left behind, most especially, his family, his loving wife, children and grandchildren who continue his legacy and were the light of his life. Those who were privileged to know him are better people for it and our community is a better community for his energetic proposals for improvement. He was a great leader for the Western Slope and for Colorado. And he was a good friend to me. We are grateful for the life of James Montgomery Robb, and thank his family for sharing him with us. Sincerely, Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I discuss the pending reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. We are near the end of what has been a very long process. For the past year, Congress has grappled with the need to renew a handful of provisions of the PATRIOT Act. As my colleagues know well, this legislation has embodied the debate over how to balance the needs of law enforcement in the war on terrorism and the paramount importance of protecting Americans' civil liberties. The greatest Americans have always understood our shared responsibility as citizens of this great country to ensure that we get this balance right. And many times over the course of the debate about the PATRIOT Act, I have thought of Benjamin Franklin's words, ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' I have thought about how Daniel Webster reminded us that ``God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.'' I believe that it is worth taking pains to be sure that we produce the very best balance, and the very best legislation, we can. Last week, several Senators with whom I have worked closely over the past year announced that they had reached an agreement with the White House on a proposal to renew these controversial provisions. Let me say at the outset that I do not believe this agreement is by any means perfect. My colleagues who were involved in negotiating this compromise would be the first to agree with me on that point. But it does contain a number of critical improvements over the original law. Our ultimate goal was to place reasonable checks on the law enforcement powers provided by the original PATRIOT Act. Although it is not as strong in some areas as I would prefer, the legislation today accomplishes that goal. This proposal would produce a PATRIOT Act that includes a number of specific improvements over the law that was passed 4 years ago. Section 215 of the original PATRIOT Act allowed the government to obtain business, library, and a whole host of other personal records simply by claiming the records were related to a terrorism investigation. The current proposal provides greater protection for the most sensitive records, by requiring senior level FBI-approval for orders related to library, book, education, gun, medical or tax records, and by limiting the retention and dissemination of information regarding Americans. The original law did not provide for judicial review of Section 215 orders, National Security Letters, or for the accompanying gag orders. The current proposal does. The original law did not allow the recipient of a Section 215 order or a National Security Letter to consult with an attorney. The current proposal does. The original law allowed delayed notification of property searches-- so-called ``sneak-and-peek'' searches--for undefined ``reasonable'' periods. The current proposal establishes hard limits on those delays, while continuing to allow extensions when they are warranted. The original law allowed the government to target libraries with National Security Letters. The legislation exempts libraries from NSLs unless they meet the statutory definition of an Electronic Communications Service Provider. The original law allowed the use of ``John Doe'' roving wiretaps, which don't specify the target or the phone or computer. The current proposal imposes limits on the use of such wiretaps. Finally, the current proposal once again sunsets the Act's most controversial provisions--Section 215 and roving wiretaps--in 4 years, increases public reporting requirements about the use of the powers authorized by the Act, and requires the Inspector General in the Department of Justice to audit the use of Section 215 and National Security Letters. These safeguards are not simply cosmetic; they make meaningful improvements to the original law, and will go a long way toward protecting Americans' rights and freedoms. In spite of these safeguards, the proposal before us is not perfect. I would have preferred a stronger standard for obtaining a search order under Section 215. I would have preferred that the expanded authority to issue National Security Letters be sunset. But we will have the opportunity to review these provisions--both with the sunsets contained in this legislation and its increased reporting and auditing requirements. I am committed to taking advantage of those provisions to fight for strong and appropriate civil liberties safeguards, and I know my colleagues are, too. I joined with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to push for the very best PATRIOT Act we could realistically get. We have come to the point where the very best achievable version of the PATRIOT act is the one before us. I thank Senators Craig, Durbin, Sununu, Feingold, and Murkowski--my fellow SAFE Act cosponsors--for all of their hard work over the past several years on this critical issue. Without their efforts, we would not have the civil liberties protections contained in this proposal. I express my sincere gratitude for allowing me to become involved in these efforts. The vote on this agreement by no means marks the end of this process. Whether or not we differ on the legislation before us, I know we will continue to work together to provide law enforcement with the tools they need to fight terrorists, and to protect and preserve Americans' basic rights and freedoms. That has been, and will continue to be, a fight that demands our most vigorous efforts.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, earlier this week, our Nation mourned the passing and celebrated the life of one of the civil rights era's greatest leaders. Coretta Scott King was the wife of civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., and an incredible leader in her own right. Mrs. King's death came just days after the Nation commemorated the contributions her late husband made to our country and only a few months after the passing of Rosa Parks and Constance Baker Motley, two pillars of our country's civil rights movement. I spent Martin Luther King Day with my family. As we discussed the progress our great country has made in its quest to be a more inclusive America, I was reminded of the personal sacrifices of so many in the struggle for equality and dignity. Coretta Scott King was not troubled by these sacrifices. Years later, she reflected ``I understood when I married Martin that I did not just marry a man. I married a vision. I married a destiny.'' Upon his untimely passing, Mrs. King carried on this vision, sharing his message with other generations and even other continents. Coretta Scott King was exposed to the injustice of segregation at an early age. She grew up poor, in segregated Alabama, where she helped support her family by working in the cotton fields. She graduated first in her high school class, and she and her sister became the first two African-American graduates of Antioch college in Ohio. She studied education and music. After graduation she enrolled at the New England Conservatory of Music. Through the course of her life, she received over 60 honorary doctorates from colleges and universities. After her husband's assassination, Mrs. King continued raising her 4 children while her presence as a civil rights leader was growing. Only four days after his death, she led a march of 50,000 people through the streets of Memphis. The following year, she took her late husband's place in the Poor People's Campaign at the Lincoln Memorial in June of 1968. But she did not simply represent her late husband. A unique role evolved over time for Mrs. King. She made her own contributions through many venues, including more than 30 Freedom Concerts during the 1960s. At these Freedom Concerts, Mrs. King lectured, read poetry and sang to raise awareness and money for the civil rights movement. In her lifetime she authored three books, and helped found dozens of organizations including the National Black Coalition for Voter Participation and the Black Leadership Roundtable. After the death of her husband, Mrs. King began gathering support for the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Nonviolent Social Change in 1969. She devoted herself tirelessly to the establishment of a national holiday to honor her late husband. In 1983, she brought together more that 800 human rights organizations to form the Coalition of Conscience. In 1985, Mrs. King and three of her children were arrested at the South African Embassy in Washington, DC for protesting apartheid. She stood with Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg when he became South Africa's first democratically elected president. In 1987, she helped lead a national Mobilization Against Fear and Intimidation in the Forsyth March on Washington. In preparation for the Reagan-Gorbachev talks, in 1988, she served as head of the U.S. delegation of Women for a Meaningful Summit in Athens, Greece. In 1993, Mrs. King was invited by President Clinton to witness the historic handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Chairman Yassir Arafat at the signing of the Middle East Peace Accords. She further lent her support to democracy movements worldwide and served as a consultant to many world leaders. In the later years of her life she struggled tirelessly fighting for women's rights and working to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Mrs. King fulfilled one of her life's major goals and Dr. King's birthday is now celebrated annually in over 100 nations. I wish to commemorate the incredible message of this woman. Recent celebrations commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education and the 40th anniversary of the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, remind us of just how far our country has come. Mrs. King once remarked, ``Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really won--you earn it and win it in every generation.'' Our country has lost a giant who took on the struggle for freedom. If we truly wish to honor her, we must all assume the responsibility to fight injustice and inequality. I thank Mrs. King for her incredible contributions to this country and to the world. Her family will continue to be in my thoughts and prayers. While she will be deeply missed, her message will never be forgotten.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to explain why I will vote against Judge Samuel Alito's nomination for Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. After reviewing his record, I believe Judge Alito will move the Supreme Court too far to the conservative side of American jurisprudence. I believe Judge Alito's judicial philosophy will also dangerously increase Executive power, injuring the checks and balances built into our Constitution that protect all of us. Judge Alito's confirmation may roll back important civil rights protections, protections which were achieved in our country through the sacrifices of many and are crucial to the future of the United States. I hope, if Judge Alito is confirmed, history will prove my concerns wrong. But given his record, including his extensive written record, I cannot in good conscience support him. I thank the Senate Judiciary Committee. It held fair, serious, and dignified hearings. Chairman Specter, Ranking Member Leahy, the members of the committee, and the majority and minority staff have again earned our gratitude. Judge Alito's confirmation vote is particularly important for our country because this seat on our Supreme Court has been held by a champion of justice and mainstream America for a quarter century: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Our Nation owes Justice O'Connor a great debt of gratitude. Justice O'Connor served as an exemplary role model for all of us, including women succeeding at the very highest level of our National Government. Unfortunately, this nomination signals an undesirable retreat from diversity on the U.S. Supreme Court. Women make up more than half of the people of our country. Yet women have been represented in the Supreme Court in our entire history for more than two centuries by only two female Justices--Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg. Now Justice Ginsburg is left to be the only role model on the Court for the hopes and aspirations of women and for all of us in America who believe that all men and all women are truly created equal. I regret that result, especially after it was the radical right of America that derailed the nomination of Harriet Miers. We all know there are thousands of highly qualified women lawyers and judges across America, and they could have provided exceptional service to the United States on the Supreme Court. Regardless of the merits or demerits of Judge Alito, I am saddened, at the daybreak of the 21st century, that the United States has retreated from a cause that rightfully embraces the inevitability of the equality of women in our society. Beyond the principle of gender diversity, Justice O'Connor consistently defined the center of the Supreme Court on many issues. She used her wisdom and her judgment to advance reasonable, commonsense, and mainstream legal doctrines that affect the lives of all Americans. That is why the choice of the replacement for Justice O'Connor is so important for our collective future. The confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is a solemn task. It is among the most important constitutional duties of the Senate. I have evaluated Judge Alito's qualifications using the same criteria I used to evaluate Chief Justice John Roberts for whom I voted. I have reviewed Judge Alito's record for evidence of his fairness, impartiality, and his proven record of upholding the law. However, I have decided that my concerns require that I vote against him. My concerns with Judge Alito start with the 1985 memorandum he included with his job application to the White House. Judge Alito was then 35 years old. To me, this document is a very powerful document. It is evidence of how Judge Alito the man views the law and the Supreme Court. The document is very carefully written. It is packed full of Judge Alito's political and jurisprudential ideas which he has adhered to over the years. In that memorandum, Judge Alito declared he strongly disagreed with the opinions of the Warren Court. Those opinions are now and then widely accepted. They encompass important constitutional protections such as opinions on reapportionment in Baker v. Carr, the case that established the principle of one person, one vote. They concern well-established rules about the relationship between church and state. I find Judge Alito's views to be outside the mainstream of legal thought in 1985. Since that time, based upon his decisions as an appellate judge and in his other writings, Judge Alito has ruled consistently with the legal philosophy he described in 1985. I believe that legal philosophy is wrong for our Nation. Specifically, I believe Judge Alito's legal philosophy about the structure of our government under our Constitution will harm our country if ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court. The Framers of our Constitution were geniuses. They created a legal structure for our country that has endured and prospered for more than two centuries. The Framers were not successful because they were abstract thinkers; they were successful because they were practical thinkers, practical Americans. The Framers knew human nature. Their view of human nature focused on the common frailties of people placed in positions of great power, human desires to gather more power, human tendencies to credit one particular view of the world above all others, and a very human unwillingness to understand the perspectives of others. Out of their genius, the Framers created a system of checks and balances. The Framers made rules which require that the power must be shared. They created a system with three coequal branches. They then distributed the powers of Government among and within the three branches. They created a system with explicit and implicit limits for the power of each branch. They created a system where the people who govern the United States are in constant tension with and against each other, always limiting and checking excesses that are all too human. Judge Alito's judicial philosophy will diminish our system of checks and balances. He will expand the powers of the executive branch to an extent that is dangerous to us all. I believe Judge Alito would grant the Executive power to overwhelm the congressional and judicial branches. Let me cite a few examples from his record. First, I am troubled by Judge Alito's 1984 brief in the Mitchell case in which he asserted absolute immunity for high Government officials accused of illegal wiretapping. I am troubled by his support in 1986 for the idea that Presidential signing statements--a President's remarks accompanying the signing of a bill--can change the intent of Congress, which debated and passed the bill into law. A President executes the law; a President does not rewrite or alter the law. I am troubled by Judge Alito's firm belief in a unitary executive--in an unwillingness to acknowledge checks and balances that exist within the executive branch itself. I am troubled by Judge Alito's pattern of great deference to the executive branch. Judge Alito's judicial philosophy in this area is particularly striking against the backdrop of current events. The current administration has adopted a widespread, concerted legal strategy to increase Executive power under our Constitution. It is wrongly pushing beyond the well-established edges of Executive power in many cases, based on a carefully calculated position that the current concentration of political power allows the executive branch to transcend the rule of law. This is not a ``strict construction'' of our Constitution; it is the opposite. It is an activist legal strategy to expand beyond reason our constitutional law that has served our country very well for more than 200 years. Let me be clear. My concerns are not based exclusively on my view of the current President or my ideas about how he would or would not wield dominant Executive power. We are talking about changes in the Court that could affect our Government for decades, as Presidents of both parties take office and govern. Dominant Executive power is not a ``safe bet'' for anyone, regardless of one's views of the current President. When considering a potential Supreme Court Justice, we must look beyond the politics of our time and we must protect the basic structure, the system of checks and balances among coequal branches. Administrations of varied ideology and vision must recognize that system of checks and balances. I briefly want to turn to civil rights. When I rose on this floor on September 27 of last year to speak on behalf of Chief Justice Roberts, I spoke of the ``age of diversity'' in this country. I spoke of this country's long history of slavery and our lengthy struggles--including our own Civil War--to put behind us the unequal treatment of our citizens. I talked about Brown v. Board of Education and the central role our Supreme Court played to guide our country on to the path of equality and equal treatment for all. I spoke of the growing diversity of people in our country, and of the need to foster all the powerful strengths our diversity brings to our Nation--a richness of cultures and spirit, a wealth of ideas, and a widely varied community bound together by the common values of truth, honesty, and fair dealing among ourselves. My life experiences and my years of public service convince me that recognizing and encouraging the strengths of diversity is the true constitutional path for our country. I also believe in the very practical wisdom of this approach. In fact, I believe it is the only way our country will thrive and prosper over the long run. I will vote against Judge Alito because I am convinced he is unlikely to support these principles of diversity. Here is only a small part of the evidence that Judge Alito will lead our Nation in the wrong direction on issues of equal opportunity and diversity: In Riley v. Taylor, Judge Alito was overturned by the entire Third Circuit when he, alone, concluded it was proper to exclude all Black jurors from sitting in judgment of a Black man. In Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Judge Alito registered the lone dissent among 13 judges, voting to prevent a woman who had presented evidence of employment gender discrimination from going to trial. In PIRG of New Jersey, Judge Alito again denied access to the courts for a group of environmental plaintiffs who had won below. In Doe v. Groody, Judge Alito would have upheld the strip search of a 10- year-old girl, denying her access to relief in the courts. And in Chittester, Judge Alito would have precluded State employees from seeking damages in court under the Federal Medical Leave Act. Analyses discussed during the Judiciary Committee hearing show Judge Alito almost never ruled for African Americans in employment discrimination cases. Analyses also show Judge Alito rarely sided with individuals in their cases against large and powerful institutions and corporate interests. I believe Judge Alito will continue to rule that way on the U.S. Supreme Court. I think that is wrong because it will usher in an era of insensitivity to the weakest and the poorest among us. I hope and I pray I am wrong. In conclusion, I believe Judge Alito will move the Supreme Court too far to the conservative side of American legal jurisprudence. Judge Alito's judicial philosophy will dangerously increase Executive power, injuring the checks and balances built into our Constitution to protect us all. And Judge Alito's confirmation will roll back important civil rights protections--protections that were achieved in our country through the sacrifices of many and which are critical to our Nation's future. I, therefore, will vote against this nomination. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in the Record concerning Judge Alito. One is a letter from the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the other is a letter from the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association, in which they raise their opposition to the confirmation of Judge Alito.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from Arizona.

Mr. SALAZAR. I only have 2 minutes left. Through the Chair, I will make my 2 remaining points and I will yield for a question. That Rocky Mountain gun shop business would also be subjected to a permanent gag order, and there is jurisprudence in our case law that says that those permanent gag orders in fact are violative of the first amendment. I believe in the Senate legislation that we approved unanimously with 100 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, that moved those issues forward in a manner that would have protected the civil liberties of Americans under the section 215 provisions of the PATRIOT Act. With respect to national security letters, I have the same concerns, and that is with respect to the 30,000 national security letters that go out--the question and the reality that there is currently no court review of those national security letters. Second of all, there is no avenue for relief with a permanent gag order that applies to the recipients of the permanent gag order. With that, I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SALAZAR. Let me point to two provisions that have been debated widely in this body on the PATRIOT Act. The first is section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which deals with firearms, business records, and medical records. The conference report that came out basically set a standard that says it is the relevance. My view and legal reading of that provision of the statute is that it would allow for fishing expeditions into your private records, into your business records, into the records of gun owners and gunshops. For example, in my State, I think about a business named The Rocky Mountain Gun and Ammo Shop. Well, if you have a business record by having conducted some transaction with that particular shop, then those business records become available to the Federal Government without you ever having any knowledge that in fact the Federal Government has gone after those records. In addition to that, besides having the opportunity to access those records----

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me at the outset say to my friend from Arizona and my friend from Oklahoma that I think in the years ahead, hopefully, we can embark on programs such as pay-go to make sure that both on the revenue side and the expenditure side of the program we are able to bring our budget into balance. I look forward to working with them on those issues in the future. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak briefly, first, about the spending reconciliation conference report. The spending reconciliation conference report, from my point of view, falls short of making sure we are funding the most significant priorities of the American people. Now, today, there will be debate about many of the points over which there is disagreement. I wish to focus, very briefly, on two things that, to me, are very essential in terms of what we prioritize and fund in this Government for the American people. First, with respect to the forgotten America--with respect to agriculture, with respect to those counties and communities that are out there in every one of our States all across this great land of America, those communities that are mostly dependent on agriculture, where rural economic development means one job at a time and sometimes losing one or two jobs at a time, those communities that are withering on the vine--when I look at this reconciliation measure, what we have here is a $934 million cut for Conservation Programs. I do not think that is standing up for the farmers who are so dependent on these very important programs across America. Secondly, we have a cut of roughly $400 million for rural development. We think about counties such as some counties in my State. In fact, my native county has an unemployment rate of close to 12 percent. We look at creating economic opportunities for those communities. It is, from my point of view, a step in the wrong direction to be taking money from rural development. I think we, as a Senate, as a Congress, and the President of the United States, should be putting more of a focus on these communities that have been forgotten decade after decade. My hope is we are able to change course on the future agenda for rural America. Secondly, I wish to briefly comment on student programs. Student programs in this budget we have before us are going to be cut $12 billion. Some of us understand the importance of what student programs have done for all of us. I come from a family where we have eight first-generation college graduates. Born, like some other Members of this Chamber, into humble circumstances, we did not have electricity and we did not have telephones when we were growing up. But we had parents who strongly believed in education, and we had an America that said: There is an America of opportunity for everyone regardless of your background. The result of that was that all eight of us became first-generation college graduates. Yet when you look at this budget that is before us today, it will cut $12 billion from student programs. To me, that is a disinvestment in America's future. It is something that causes me to say I will vote against this reconciliation measure that is before us today. Mr. President, in the time remaining, many comments have been made on the PATRIOT Act. I will make a few brief comments on that this afternoon. I see my great friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, who has labored on this matter for a long time. I step aside to no one in my own desire to fight the terrorist threat that we face in America and in my support for giving my brothers and sisters in law enforcement and our Federal agencies, including the FBI, all the authority they must have in order to keep America safe. We need to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. That is my goal. I believe that is our responsibility as a Congress. Mr. President, I believe that the political games surrounding the debate over the last several weeks are not worthy of this body, not worthy of America. Instead of a reasonable debate between patriots on how best to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, we get political threats and our patriotism is questioned. The President of the United States says that Senators wanting to protect the Constitution are acting irresponsibly. These assertions, in my view, are wrong. The Constitution still matters today. Our liberties still matter. If someone does not believe these things, I believe they are wrong. There can be no greater patriot than the Republicans and Democrats who come together to fight for upholding principles of our Constitution and giving law enforcement the tools they need to protect our homeland. Senator Gregg, one of the fiercest defenders of the second amendment in this Senate is a true patriot. Senator Hagel, one of this body's distinguished military veterans, is a true patriot and I am proud of him. Senators Murkowski, Sununu, Feingold, and Durbin are all good patriots. All of my colleagues who have been working to try to come to some resolution, I believe, are doing the right thing because they are standing up to protect America's freedoms as enshrined in our Constitution. Mr. President, I believe we can do what is the responsible thing, and with the potential expiration of the PATRIOT Act at the end of 2005 under current law, the responsibility lays with the White House and with this body to make sure we extend the PATRIOT Act so we can continue to come to a conclusion with respect to a PATRIOT Act that both protects the civil liberties of Americans and at the same time gives law enforcement the tools they need. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity today to speak yet again on reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I spoke earlier in the day on my dedication to fighting terrorism and in my support for giving law enforcement the tools to fight terrorism, the need and desire to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, the political games surrounding extension of the PATRIOT Act, and the true patriotism of my colleagues in striving to uphold the Constitution and its liberties. The President acts irresponsibly when he refuses--for purely political purposes--to allow the extension of the PATRIOT Act. If the PATRIOT Act expires at the end of 2005, the responsibility lies with the President alone and with those Members of the Senate and the House who rubberstamp his irresponsible direction. We can act today to resolve this impasse over the PATRIOT Act. It simply requires good faith. Surely in the final few days before Christmas we can come together, set aside political posturing, and pass another extension of the PATRIOT Act so that we can continue in good faith to fix it. But what we are witnessing with the PATRIOT Act is something more troubling--the abuse of absolute power. It is an age-old self-portrait of America that we are a nation and people governed by the ``rule of law.'' Since before the American Revolution, we have held ourselves out to the world as a country and as a people different from all others. We have rejected for our country the tyranny of the powerful, the despotic kingships and the dictatorships that have oppressed mankind throughout its history. The ``rule of law'' also of course includes the ``rules of law''--how we create laws at every level of government. In our country, the rule of law protects the rights of those not in control of the levers of power--from the Bill of Rights to the rules of the Senate, our laws and rules aim to protect those out of power from the abuses of those who are in power. But notwithstanding the ideal of our Nation--that we are governed by the rule of law and not by the whims of the powerful--all too often in our history the convictions that ``might makes right'' degrades the rule of law. Earlier this year, those in power threatened to break the rules of the Senate to force their will on the Senate. It is happening again this week. I have witnessed over the last few days the naked display of ``might makes right'' and the corrupting influence of absolute power. Instead of an honest debate on differences of opinion between patriots on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, our commitment to fighting terrorism is questioned. In the closing hours of the session of Congress, we witness the amazing switch of ANWR from the budget reconciliation bill to the Defense Appropriations bill and the trashing of Senate rules. And why? Simply because those in power believe that might makes right. We have an administration that has admitted it ignored our intelligence surveillance laws because it found them to be inconvenient. When people dare to question the legality of these actions, they are called unpatriotic and obstructionist. That is wrong. Now Mr. President, let me turn my attention in more detail to the PATRIOT Act. In March of this year, I joined a group of three Republicans and three Democrats in introducing legislation known as the SAFE Act. This legislation would have extended every single one of the expiring portions of the PATRIOT Act, while at the same time imposing reasonable checks on those powers. In keeping with that spirit of compromise, the Senate Judiciary Committee worked tirelessly this spring and summer to draft a reauthorization bill that could garner broad support. With the participation of two of the original cosponsors of the SAFE Act, members of that committee, in conjunction with our colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee, worked together to make tough choices and hammer out a bipartisan compromise. The legislation passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee--a group not known for its ability to achieve complete consensus on many issues--and it passed the Senate with the support of all 100 Senators-- Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike. We stood together behind the principle that we can give law enforcement officers the tools they need without sacrificing our basic freedoms--freedoms that Americans are fighting and dying for in Iraq and Afghanistan, freedoms that Americans have fought and died to establish and preserve throughout our history. But, once again, we were faced with the need to find compromise--this time, with the House. And again, my colleagues and I did not expect to get everything we wanted. It is worth repeating that the Senate bill passed with the support of all 100 Senators, while the House bill passed in the face of stiff opposition. It is also worth noting that, in separate votes, a bipartisan majority in the House supported stronger civil liberties protections than were included in the final conference report. Unfortunately, after the House delayed for months in appointing conferees, the conference committee filed legislation that failed to provide the modest--but critical--civil liberties protections that Americans deserve. Once again, I joined with the cosponsors of the SAFE Act--this time in a final effort to bring the conference committee back from the brink and to pass reauthorization legislation worthy of broad, bipartisan support. Our requests were modest. We asked the conference committee to address four specific provisions: section 215 of the PATRIOT Act itself, which allows the government to obtain sensitive personal and business records without any meaningful limitation and no ability to challenge the permanent automatic gag order; national security letters, which allow the government to obtain certain categories of records without prior judicial approval, again without the ability to challenge the gag order; the need for periodic congressional review of these authorities; and sneak-and-peek searches, where the government can wait up to 30 days before notifying the target of a property search. Last week, my colleagues and I introduced legislation to extend the PATRIOT Act by three months to give Congress time to make the final changes to the conference report necessary to protect civil liberties. That proposal was summarily rejected by the majority leadership and by the White House. When we have repeatedly this week attempted to propose extending the PATRIOT Act to allow for necessary improvements, those efforts have been again summarily rejected. When the minority leader even attempted yesterday to propose the Senate simply re-pass its version of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, that effort was rejected by the very same Senators who supposedly supported the Senate version the first time around. It is eminent1y clear that those of us who have worked to improve the PATRIOT Act over the course of the past days, weeks, and months are entirely focused on extending these important powers as we continue to fight the war on terror. But, given that we have been labeled ``obstructionists'' and told that we are putting the nation at greater risk, it is worth examining some of the arguments over the bill's substance in greater detail. Over the past few days, some on the other side of this debate have asserted that the changes we have proposed are unnecessary, because intelligence investigations authorized under the PATRIOT Act are no different from the routine law enforcement investigative activities that occur throughout our Nation thousands of times a day. At the heart of this disagreement is section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which revises substantially the authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, for seizure of business records, including third party records of individuals' transactions and activities. Section 215 broadened the authority to seize business records under FISA in two ways. First, it expanded the scope of the kinds of records the government may obtain using this authority from ``records'' to ``any tangible things.'' Second, it eased the requirements for obtaining an order. Previously, FISA required the government to present to the secret FISA court ``specific articulable facts giving reason to believe'' that the subject of an investigation was a ``foreign power or the agent of a foreign power.'' Under section 215, the government is required only to assert that the records or things sought are needed ``to protect against'' international terrorism--in effect, that they are relevant in some way to a terrorist investigation. There is no requirement for an evidentiary or factual showing and the judge has no real discretion in reviewing an application. If the judge finds that ``the application meets the requirements'' of the section, he or she must issue an order as requested ``or as modified.'' In addition, section 215 prevented the recipient of a search order from disclosing the fact that the FBI has sought or obtained records, and prohibited the recipient from challenging that gag order. Both the SAFE Act and the Senate reauthorization bill retained the PATRIOT Act's expanded scope of the FISA records provision, but both restored a standard of individualized suspicion, and permitted the recipient of a search order to challenge that order in court. National security letters have also been at the center of this debate. NSLs allow the government to obtain certain narrow categories of records without the prior approval of a judge. The PATRIOT Act expanded the use of national security letters, and authorized a much larger number of government officials to issue them. It has been asserted that the number of NSLs has exploded since passage of the PATRIOT Act, possibly by as many as 30,000 a year. In addition, as with section 215 orders, the act prohibited the recipient of an NSL from disclosing information about the order, and from challenging that order in court. In contrast, the Senate bill would have permitted recipients of an NSL to challenge the gag order and to receive meaningful review of that order in court. Although many of my colleagues and I would have preferred to require a standard of individualized suspicion before an NSL was issued--as would have been required by the SAFE Act--we understood that NSLs are distinct from section 215 orders in that they are much more limited in scope, and supported the Senate compromise. As I mentioned previously, supporters of the conference report have argued against the changes in the Senate bill on the grounds that the government already has the authority to obtain broad categories of third-party records without the prior approval of a judge, and without having to demonstrate even relevance to an investigation, let alone individualized suspicion. In fact, it has been asserted that there are 335 specific cases in which the government is authorized to subpoena information without the prior approval of a judge. It is important to point out that a vast majority of the administrative subpoena powers the government possesses are related to the ability of regulatory agencies to obtain records to ensure compliance by the industry being regulated. This is vastly different than government intelligence agents seeking information about U.S. citizens engaged in lawful activities. Moreover, the administrative subpoena powers not related to regulatory enforcement are far narrower than the authorities provided by the PATRIOT Act. Secondly, and more importantly, intelligence investigations are inherently different from criminal investigations, because criminal investigations are limited to cases involving unlawful conduct. In contrast, intelligence investigations may focus on lawful activity by law-abiding Americans. Accordingly, it is inappropriate--and just plain wrong--to compare the authority provided to the government for intelligence investigations with the subpoena powers the government currently possesses with respect to regulatory enforcement, or under the criminal code. Mr. President, there is still time to get this right. I am confident that, by working in the same spirit of bipartisanship and compromise that the cosponsors of the SAFE Act have exemplified all year, we will get this right. That, Mr. President, is my goal.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to honor and celebrate the remarkable life and legacy of Vine Deloria, one of the most influential American Indian people of our time, who through his writings and activism reframed the social debate about the identity of Native American people. Deloria was born in South Dakota in 1933 to a distinguished Yankton Sioux family. He served in the Marines and graduated from Iowa State University. He earned a master's degree from the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, initially planning to become a minister. He then went on to earn a law degree from CU in 1970. He is survived by his wife of 47 years, Barbara; two sons, Philip and Daniel; a daughter, Jeanne Deloria; a brother, Philip; a sister, Barbara Sanchez; and seven grandchildren. Deloria began his writing and advocacy work as executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, NCAI, in 1964. The 1960s were a crucial era for American Indians, as their community leaders worked together to combat the cumulative legacy of desperate economic conditions, political disenfranchisement, and religious repression on the reservations. While at NCAI, he challenged the century-old Federal assimilation policies of termination and relocation, and helped set the foundation for the American Indian civil rights movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. His leadership at NCAI marked a turning point in American Indian policy. Mr. Deloria opened the Nation's eyes both to wrongs it had wrought on American Indian people and to the solutions available to mend the disparities. Among the many areas of American Indian policy issues that he influenced, he helped to craft the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Indian Self-Governance Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. His political passion also drove him to write the transformative 1969 book ``Custer Died for Your Sins,'' which helped frame the modern debate about the boundaries of sovereignty for modern Indian nations. The book also challenged the Federal Government's unjust treatment of our Nation's tribal governments. When academic critics challenged his intellect and sophistication, he responded by writing ``The Metaphysics of Modern Existence.'' A lively discussion with Vine was an invigorating and thought-provoking sport enriched by his extraordinary and pointed sense of humor. Deloria taught history at the University of Arizona from 1978 to 1990 and then at the University of Colorado, where he taught until his retirement in 2000. In 2002, Deloria received the Wallace Stegner Award, the highest honor presented by CU-Boulder's Center for the American West. The inscription on Deloria's award, given to people who have made a sustained contribution to the cultural identity of the West, reads as follows: Always grounded in the stories told by plains and ridges of your Sioux homeland, and guided by your vision of tribal sovereignty, you have become a hero for the ages in Indian country and far beyond, you have changed the West and the world through your activism during the termination crisis, your spirited leadership ever since, your vast and influential writings, and your encompassing mind and matchless courage. I rise today on the floor of the Senate to honor and celebrate the life's work of Vine Deloria, Jr. We are a better, stronger people for having been blessed with his wisdom.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, once again I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont and the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for their leadership on this effort. I wish to take this opportunity to once again express my serious concerns about the PATRIOT Act conference report that is currently before the Senate. As I stated yesterday, as a former attorney general, I am very familiar with the needs of the more than 800,000 men and women working in law enforcement throughout our country, including those engaged in the fight against terrorism. For that reason, I support extending all the expiring powers of the USA PATRIOT Act. I firmly believe we can extend those powers while at the same time providing sufficient checks on those powers to protect America's fundamental civil liberties. That is what the bipartisan SAFE Act did. That is what the bipartisan, unanimously supported Senate bill did. That is what this conference report could have done if it simply addressed the modest concerns my colleagues and I laid out in our letter to conferees with respect to section 215, national security letters, and sneak-and-peek searches. Unfortunately, these concerns were not addressed in the conference report, and I am left with no choice but to work with my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to defeat the bill before us. This morning, the Washington Post and New York Times reported that President Bush signed an Executive order authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant. These reports suggest that the phone calls and e-mails of hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of Americans have been monitored over the past 3 years without the approval of a judge or even the approval of the secret FISA court. These allegations, if true, are deeply troubling. If we needed a wake-up call about the need for adequate civil liberties protections to be written into our laws, this is the wake-up call. The bill before us does not contain the needed protections. We still have the time to get it right. Several of my colleagues and I have introduced legislation to extend the current PATRIOT Act for 3 months so we can get back to the table and make the necessary and vital improvements that will protect our rights under our Constitution. I urge my colleagues to vote against invoking cloture and in favor of giving Congress the time it needs to preserve the basic rights and freedoms of all Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I stand here today to not only say thank you but to congratulate the Senator from New Jersey, the Governor-elect of New Jersey, Jon Corzine. For me, my whole life has been touched by many people who have helped me live the American dream. But it is an American dream, too, that has come with challenges in dealing with the issues of poverty and in dealing with the issues of racism. There was a time in my life when I thought anything was possible for anyone in America. There was also a time in my life when I thought there were limitations placed on myself personally that I could never overcome because of the history of racism and the effects of poverty within my own life. Notwithstanding the fact that I was a proud son of that great generation of World War II, soldiers who fought in World War II, and steeped in the history of New Mexico and southern Colorado, there were many people who, when I decided to seek this position in the Senate, thought that it could not be done. There were many people who brought up reason after reason why this was not a place where I could serve. One of the people who disagreed with those conclusions was Jon Corzine. Jon Corzine told me that, yes, it was possible to still believe in the American dream, that no matter what your background is and no matter what your economic circumstance might be, everything is still possible here in America. His inspiration and his vision and his leadership contributed to my serving today in the Senate. When I characterize my friendship with Jon Corzine and look at him as a person and as a leader, the words that come to my mind are ``an authentic leader.'' He is who he is. He is a very successful businessperson, but he is the kind of person whom we ought to have in the Senate all of the time; that is, people who care about our Nation and the people whom we represent here every day. He has put them and our Nation ahead of his own self-interest. That is the legacy that we now pass on to New Jersey, the legacy that New Jersey has grabbed for itself, as they take him as the next Governor of New Jersey. I know he will continue to do great things in New Jersey as the Governor of that State, in the same way he has done great things in the Senate--those things my colleagues have spoken about on the floor of the Senate today. I wish him well, and I know his continued leadership is something we will continue to see in the days and years ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. The Rocky Mountain News said last month that we in the Senate should hang tough because fundamental freedoms of America are at stake. The Colorado Springs Gazette, a very conservative newspaper, said those insisting on added protections for civil liberties and stricter sunset provisions are doing the right thing by holding their ground. The Denver Post editorial said: We support a bipartisan effort to block final passage unless safeguards are reinstated. I believe the Senate can do better in helping us move forward in the fight against terror, giving law enforcement the tools they need in that ongoing battle, and at the same time assuring that we are protecting the cherished freedoms of our democracy enshrined in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, first and foremost, I want to say that I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Pennsylvania as a leader and mentor of all of us. Second, I disagree with his conclusions with respect to the protections for civil liberties because when there is a secret court and the leadership of the FBI essentially in charge of giving those protections to these kinds of provisions in the PATRIOT Act, it is not going to the point where we need to go to protect our civil liberties. I yield the floor and I thank my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, a point of inquiry: May I respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania on his time for 30 seconds?

Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, another controversial provision of the PATRIOT Act is section 505, which authorizes the use of national security letters. National security letters are requests for certain specific categories of information, including financial records, business dealings, and telephone and e-mail records. Under the conference report, NSLs can be issued without the prior approval of a judge and can be authorized by any of several dozen FBI field offices. The Washington Post recently reported that the Government now issues 30,000 NSLs a year--100 times more than historic norms. I respect and honor my friends and the leadership in the Federal Bureau of Investigation with whom I have worked for many years, but when we start issuing 30,000 NSLs a year, we ought to make sure there is some oversight with respect to how those NSLs are issued. As with section 215, the conference report does not allow meaningful judicial review of an NSL's gag order. Because the Government does not need a judge's approval to send an NSL, meaningful judicial review of a gag order is a critical safeguard and is simply missing in the conference report. I wish to finally spend just a second speaking about the sneak-and- peek searches under section 213. My colleagues and I expressed concern about the sneak-and-peek searches where the target of the search is not identified or notified for a period of several days or even weeks. Prior to the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, law enforcement could delay notification of a search warrant in certain limited cases. The PATRIOT Act significantly lowered the standard for delayed notification, allowing sneak-and-peek searches in any case where ``immediate notification of the warrant may have an adverse result.'' The conference report before us is not much better, as it allows the Government to wait up to 30 days to notify the target of a property search. I believe we can do better, and I believe the proposal which has been introduced on a bipartisan basis to allow us an additional 90 days to try to work through some of these issues on the PATRIOT Act could, in fact, result in the kind of PATRIOT Act that receives a unanimous vote of the Senate. In my own State, liberal and conservative newspapers have said that this Senate has an obligation to protect the constitutional liberties of Americans.

Mr. SALAZAR. Approximately 10 minutes.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I today recognize the extraordinary contributions of the San Luis Valley, in my home State of Colorado, to our national heritage and to the history of the West. As a native son of the San Luis Valley, I know how hard the peoples of the region have fought to protect their traditions, their language, their art and architecture, and the stories of their ancestors. They have fought to protect treasured ranchlands, sand dunes, waterways, and mountain peaks. And they have fought to protect a rural way of life that cherishes family, faith, and hard work. To support the stewardship efforts of the valley's peoples, and to ensure that the national treasures of the region are preserved for generations to come, I have introduced legislation to create the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area in the San Luis Valley. This legislation will direct the National Park Service to assist citizens, organizations, and local governments in Alamosa, Costilla, and Conejos Counties in developing a management plan to guide the continued stewardship of the region's cultural and natural resources. Though this bill provides local communities assistance from the Federal Government, I am proud that the National Heritage Area Program rewards a consensual, locally driven approach to management rather than a top- down, federally dominated approach. This bill provides economic assistance to a region that has paid an economic price for preserving its rural way of life. The towns of San Luis and Antonito, among the oldest settlements in Colorado, have successfully preserved their moradas, placitas, historic churches, religious celebrations, and historic festivals, yet the counties they are in, Conejos and Costilla, are two of the four poorest in America. This bill helps these communities leverage their cultural capital to spur economic development by providing up to $10 million to rebuild historic structures, develop interpretive exhibits, and attract tourism. The cultural and historic value of the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area is immeasurable. Since people first settled in the San Luis Valley over 11,000 years ago, the region has been home to Ute, Navajo, Tiwa, Tewa, Kiowa, Hispano, and Anglo peoples, among others. The cultures, lifestyles, and cosmologies of the valley's settlers have converged, conflicted, and coalesced through the centuries, and have left an unmistakable imprint on the peoples who inhabit the Valley today. The region was dubbed ``The Land of the Blue Sky People'' in honor of the Utes, the oldest continuous residents of what is now Colorado, and is the home of Mount Blanca or Sisnaajini, the sacred mountain that, according to folklore, marks the eastern boundary of the Navajo world. Seventeenth century Spanish, still spoken by about 35 percent of the population of the Sangre de Cristo region, testifies to the strong influence of Hispano settlers, while the narrow gauge rails of the Rio Grande Railroad recall America's era of westward expansion. In addition to its remarkable historical landmarks and cultural treasures, the San Luis Valley's natural wonders attract visitors from around the world. The valley is home to 3 National Wildlife Refuges, 15 State Wildlife Refuges, a National Forest, 2 National Forest Wilderness Areas, and the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve. These public lands, and thousands of acres of private lands in between, are home to a rich array of plants and animals, from the pika of the alpine tundra to the pronghorn of the prairie and the sandhill cranes among the dunes. This legislation will help protect these crown jewels of the American landscape by supporting a local, consensus-based approach to land management. Because the best management policies come through cooperation, not coercion, this bill maintains strong protections for private property owners. The Federal funds in this bill cannot be used to purchase private property and the management plan cannot restrict the rights of property owners on their own lands. For generations the peoples of the San Luis Valley have worked hard to be good stewards of their land and water. They have worked hard to preserve their culture and a rural way of life. And they have worked hard to create this National Heritage Area. They are looking for our help now to protect a place so central to Colorado peoples, so emblematic of the Western landscape, and so much at the core of the American experience. Let us honor the contributions of the San Luis Valley to our Nation's heritage by designating the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area.