Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the classic pay-go amendment and commend my colleagues, especially Senator Feingold for his leadership on this issue. We took the first step in opening one of the country's most pristine areas for potential development. I would have preferred to have given my daughters Melinda and Andrea that choice to make in the future. Let me put it plainly. I do not want to let my daughters down again. When we pass budgets with enormous deficits, that is the same as taxing our children and our grandchildren. They will be taxed to pay for our spending. They will be taxed to pay for our unwillingness to say that enough is enough. Our kids and grandkids don't get to vote for the Senators and Congressmen who are imposing these future taxes on them. That is taxation without representation, and that is something the leaders of our War for Independence had some thought about. It is wrong and it is un-American to impose taxes on our children and our grandchildren to pay for the spending spree of the Federal Government. It is long past time to restore to Congress the same commonsense budgetary approach that every family in America has to live by. That approach is simple. If you can't pay for it, don't spend it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. I do.

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I yield myself 20 minutes.

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today, first of all, to acknowledge the work of the chairman of the Budget Committee, Chairman Gregg, as well as Ranking Member Conrad, and the work of their staff in putting together this very complicated budget that we are debating on the Senate floor this evening and throughout the week. I know how hard they are working because last night, even at 10 and 11 o'clock, we were getting e-mails from the work they are performing. So I thank them for their hard work on this most important of matters for the U.S. Senate. Secondly, I also want to say, with respect to the budget resolution in general, I come from a place in the West which is very far removed from Washington, DC. As I was growing up on this farm and ranch in the San Luis Valley, south of Denver by nearly 300 miles, my father and mother taught me a lot about the most important values of America. One of those most important values was the value of honesty and the value of candor. I grew up in the West where a handshake across a fence line meant that your word was going to be true. And it meant that you would not mislead anyone in terms of the direction you were taking with respect to anything that was important to you or your family, your country, or your God. Yet when I look at what has happened here with the President's budget, the fact of the matter is that the American public is, in fact, being misled. We are being misled because we have been presented a budget that continues the fiscal recklessness that I believe future generations of Americans simply cannot afford. It would be my fervent hope that as this Senate moves forward dealing with this budget, and the pay-go amendments that will be offered here tomorrow, we can, in fact, put this Government back on the kind of budget of conservatism that will truly bring us back to a place where we can, in fact, pay our debts. I want to take a minute and speak about the Social Security issue because that is a major issue that we have been debating in Washington for some time and which the President has been taking around the country, to talk about the importance of Social Security changes.

Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, I say to the great Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the Senator. Let me make several quick points of what is happening, in my view, with respect to Social Security. I do so because the President of the United States will actually be, I hear, in my State next week to talk about the importance of the issue of Social Security. I think it is important that as the President talks to the people of America, he talk to the people of America, not simply to groups that are controlled with making sure that only people who have his point of view are heard on the issue of Social Security. In that regard, it is important for the people of America to know the facts; that is, that Social Security has, in fact, worked, that we have gone from a time and place in our Nation where we had millions of people in poverty--50 percent of older Americans who were in poverty-- to a point now where less than 10 percent of older Americans are in poverty. That is an important fact that I think the President needs to tell people. Secondly, he also needs to make sure that he is candid with the American people, and that when we talk about the issue of solvency for Social Security, that we are solvent in Social Security. In fact, not my office, not a Republican office, not a Democratic office, but the Office of the Congressional Budget Office says that we are solvent until the year 2052. So we do not have the kind of emergency crisis on our hands that has been exaggerated by this President to the American people. The American people need to have realism with respect to what is happening with respect to Social Security. And third, my belief is that the President's proposal on Social Security will continue to add to the kind of red ink that we already have in this Government, which is absolutely unwarranted. We need to recognize that a very significant amount of the current Federal deficit is being masked by the huge amount of money that is currently being borrowed from the Social Security surplus. Over $160 billion a year is borrowed from the Social Security surplus to mask the size of the deficit. The President's proposal shows that we have a deficit of $332 billion. But when you take out the omitted costs for the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the homeland security efforts, and when you take out the amount that is being borrowed from the Social Security surplus, the fact is our current deficit for this fiscal year alone is $579 billion. When you continue on down the road, in the next fiscal year it goes up to $584 billion, and so on, to $594 billion. So that is a huge red sea of ink that is being created for the United States of America that I do not believe we should pass on to our children or grandchildren. When you look at what the Social Security transition costs will be, it would even deepen the deficit further, to the point where we would have a $621 billion deficit in the outyears. Now, I don't know about you, but at least when I look at what conservative values are, one of the things about those values is having fiscal integrity and making sure that we are paying our debt. We are not doing that today. We don't have a long-term plan with which to deal with the deficit. I believe it is the obligation of our National Government to make sure that we deal with the American people with candor and the kind of honesty that they deserve. Madam President, I rise to speak about my support for protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil exploration and development, and also to oppose any measure included in this year's budget reconciliation bill to open this land. At the outset, let me say I have always believed in balance between the development of our natural resources and at the same time the protection of our lands. I had the honor of serving as the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources in my State for 4 years, and I worked closely with industry in the development of our oil and gas resources throughout the State of Colorado. I worked closely with the proponents of oil and shale development to see where that resource could be taken in the future. As we move forward in dealing with the issue of energy, which is important to our country, I strongly believe we need to achieve that same kind of balance we tried to achieve during the time I was Director of the Department of Natural Resources. Let me say that no matter what happens with ANWR--and I am going to be opposed to the opening of the Arctic Refuge--no matter what happens with respect to this issue, which will be debated tonight, tomorrow, and it will be decided on the floor, it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure what we are doing is working in a bipartisan manner to create the kind of Energy bill that will help us get rid of our overdependence on foreign oil and will help us push forward with a new ethic and era of renewable resources and conservation. Beyond this debate, I want to work closely with leaders on both sides of the aisle, with Senator Bingaman and Chairman Domenici, to make sure that what we deliver to the President for signature is an energy bill that has the support of the American people and the support of at least most of the people in this body. Let me spend a few minutes talking about the Arctic Refuge. First, the Arctic Refuge itself, when we think about the amount of land that would actually be affected, we have heard the figure that it would only be 2,000 acres. That is the footprint out of this 1.9 million acres, in area 1002; 2,000 acres would be involved in oil and gas exploration and drilling activities. The National Academy of Sciences, and others who have looked at this, believe the amount of land that would be affected is much greater than those 2,000 acres because you have to put in pipelines and other facilities that ultimately would end up having a greater effect than just the 2,000 acres that have been talked about. Secondly, there are the risks with respect to the transportation of hazardous materials. The Department of Environmental Conservation for Alaska last year alone said the current activity on the North Slope creates over 500 spills a year. So we will see spills and other toxic substances if this area is opened for exploration and drilling. Third, we need to all be very candid with respect to the oil we would get from area 1002. According to the DOE's own energy administration report dated March 2004, they predicted there would be about 300,000 barrels a day that would be produced by 2015. Their projection showed that would be about 1 percent of world oil production in that year. When you look at the fact that that is only 1 percent of the world's oil production, it means the current energy dependence that we have on oil and gas that we import from other countries would only be very marginally affected, by 1 percent. It is predicted that instead of importing 63 percent of our oil, we would be importing only 62 percent of our oil. So for a 1-percent solution, we are saying to the people of America that we are opening up the Arctic Refuge for exploration and development. My concern is not only with the opening of the refuge, but also what it would do with respect to other areas of special importance, including the over 500 refuges that we have all around our country, including the National Wildlife Refuges that we have in our States. Even the major oil companies, many of whom I have met, and many of whom I have worked with--I have friends who work there--they have expressed their own concern about drilling in the Arctic Refuge. In a recent New York Times article, dated February 21, the ExxonMobil CEO was quoted as saying during a previous interview: I don't know if there is anything in ANWR or not. There are other leading industry leaders who say they do not believe that we ought to be opening the Arctic Refuge for exploration or drilling, in the same kinds of words my colleagues believe we should move forward. Let me say I do not believe we should take what is such a precious and unique natural resource and open it for exploration and drilling, when we know that at the end of the day we are dealing with only 1 percent of the oil and gas that is needed in this country. Let me conclude by saying I believe we need a new energy vision that frees America of our dependence on fossil fuels. We need to provide adequate resources for research and development and alternative sources. We need affordable, cleaner, and safer energy, and a policy that protects special places in wilderness. We need the opening of areas that do have oil and gas in them, but from my point of view that does not include the Arctic Refuge. I believe opening the Arctic would also reinforce the view that we as a nation lack a commitment to humbling ourselves to the natural wonders God has bestowed upon this Earth. We are, at the end of the day, merely stewards of those gifts. I want to make two quick points here. The budget projections that have been used in this budget reconciliation measure are, from my point of view, fantasy. I think to base our Nation's revenue projections on the opening of the refuge is not candid and not fiscally responsible. The Department of the Interior's 2006 budget assumes that the Federal Government will realize $2.4 billion from the first lease sale in 2007--$2.4 billion from the first lease sale in 2007. For the Federal Government to realize $2.4 billion, the leases would have to sell for between $4,000 and $6,000 an acre. That is not going to happen. This is not the fiscally responsible way that we should be moving forward as we develop the budget for the following year. Let me conclude by reading this letter written by President Jimmy Carter concerning the Arctic wildlife area: Dear Senator Salazar: This year marks the 25th anniversary of my signing the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act into law. I am proud to have been a part of crafting this landmark legislation, which is widely recognized as the most extensive land and wildlife conservation action in American history. Now it seems possible that some in Congress may try to subvert parts of ANILCA by inserting a provision in the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution that is designed to circumvent normal legislative procedures and allow for oil drilling and exploration in the coastal plain 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I have been fortunate enough to visit the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge as tens of thousands of caribou passed around me in their timeless migration into their vital calving and nursery grounds--the very area targeted for oil development. I have watched a herd of Musk oxen circle their young to protect them. But that defensive behavior will not save them from industrial development. The same is true of the polar bear and the millions of migratory waterfowl that nest on this coastal tundra. This is their wilderness home. I urge Senators to vote for removing any provisions from the fiscal 2006 budget resolution that would turn over the Arctic refuge Coastal Plain to oil development. Keeping the Arctic refuge wild and free of development is part of fulfilling our moral obligations, not only for the present but for future generations of Americans who will be grateful for our foresight and stewardship in protecting their interests. Sincerely, Jimmy Carter. How much time do I have, Madam President?

Mr. SALAZAR. I say to the Senator from Alaska, I would like to speak. I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes of our time. I very much respect my colleague from Alaska, not only for his heroism for our country but also for his leadership on a whole host of issues. I very much look forward to working with my colleague from Alaska. I just want to respond to one point my colleague raised. He went through a very eloquent statement about Alaskan interests and the legislation and history with respect to this area. When you read the law specifically from 1980 it says: Until otherwise provided in law, from 1980, all public lands within the coastal planes area are withdrawn from all forms of entry or appropriation under the mining laws and from operation of the mineral leasing laws of the United States. That was in 1980. It happened that they ended up with that consensus language in that legislation because there was not consensus about what ought to happen with respect to the ANWR area. Today we are in exactly the same place. I suggest to my esteemed colleague from Alaska that we are having this debate on this floor today as part of the budget reconciliation measure because we have not yet as a country been able to come to a consensus on how exactly to treat the area 1002. If we had moved forward in a manner that would have arrived at a consensus which they anticipated might have been arrived at when they wrote the legislation in 1980, we might be in a different place today. But we are not there. There is still an absolute lack of consensus on the part of this Senate and the people of the United States about how we ought to move forward with respect to area 1002. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. I will take 30 seconds. At the end of the day, I believe there is a very balanced approach to how we develop our resources. I am a person who has supported development of our oil and gas resources. I do not believe the Arctic Refuge is a place we should go to for development. I say that with all due respect to my colleagues from Alaska and my colleague from New Mexico and my other colleagues on the other side of this particular issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation important to my great State of Colorado. Last week, I introduced one bill and proudly cosponsored two others to make good on our Nation's promise to honor and care for our veterans. Today, I am introducing a bill to discharge our debt to another group of patriotic Americans who served our Nation during the cold war--our nuclear weapons workers. Many Americans contributed to our victory over communism in the cold war, including dedicated and brave men and women working in the laboratories and factories that fashioned the nuclear weapons that helped bring the former Soviet Union to its knees. As a result of this patriotic service, many of these nuclear weapons workers contracted cancer and other disabling and fatal diseases. In 2000, Congress recognized the sacrifices made by our nuclear weapons workers by enacting the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act to provide benefits to nuclear weapons workers for their work-related illnesses, or to their survivors when these illnesses took their lives But today, a combination of missing records and bureaucratic red tape prevents many nuclear weapons workers from receiving the benefits that Congress intended, including many workers who served at the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado Through five decades, men and women worked at Rocky Flats, producing plutonium, one of the most dangerous substances in creation, and crafting it into the triggers for America's nuclear arsenal. These men and women served a critical role in a program deemed essential to our national security by a succession of Presidents and Congresses. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. These men and women were exposed to radioactive elements and other toxic compounds that we are still trying to identify, in amounts that we can only guess at. We don't know what they were exposed to, how much or when. Part of the problem is that the existing science and technology did not allow us to monitor accurately. Part of the problem is that critical records have been lost or, in many cases, were never created by the government and its contractors. Thankfully, Congress had the foresight in the Energy Employees Act to realize that some workers might not be able to prove that their cancers were caused by their work in nuclear weapons facilities, whether due to the lack of records or other problems that make it difficult or impossible to determine the dose of radiation they received. To protect these workers, Congress designated a Special Exposure Cohort to receive benefits if they suffered from one of the specified cancers known to be linked to radiation exposure The bill I am introducing today would extend Special Exposure Cohort status to workers employed by the Department of Energy or its contractors at Rocky Flats according to the stringent requirements of the 2000 Act As a result of this designation, a Rocky Flats worker suffering from one of the 22 listed cancers can receive benefits despite the inadequate records maintained by the Department of Energy and its contractors My bill is a companion bill to the bipartisan House bill introduced by my friends, Congressman Mark Udall and Congressman Bob Beauprez from Colorado. I look forward to bipartisan support in the Senate. I am also proud to introduce a separate bill, this one to re-inject a small dose of humanity into our Federal bureaucracy. Betty Dick is an 83-year-old woman who has spent much of the past 25 years on property within the boundaries of Rocky Mountain National Park. Over the course of those 25 years, Betty Dick has become a cherished part of the Grand Lake community. She has been a good citizen and has been happy to share her family's beautiful cabin for civic events, and she has been a good neighbor to the National Park. But now, the National Park Service believes that it is compelled to evict Betty Dick. My bill, and a bipartisan companion bill introduced by Congressman Mark Udall and supported by Congressman Tom Tancredo, will authorize and instruct the Park Service to allow Mrs. Dick to spend her last few summers at her cherished Grand Lake home. Mrs. Dick has been living on this property subject to a 25 year lease with the Park Service. Fred Dick, Betty's husband, died in 1992. Mrs. Dick knows she doesn't have too many summers left, but she would like to spend them in her home. The Park Service is apparently concerned that it does not have the authority to extend or renew this lease or it is worried that to do so would set a bad precedent. On this, I respectfully disagree with my friends at the Park Service. I think evicting an 83-year-old woman from her family cabin would set a bad precedent. My bill would simply require the Secretary of the Interior, as boss of the National Park Service, to enter into an agreement that will allow Betty Dick to continue to occupy her family cabin and property within Rocky Mountain National Park for the rest of her life. Mrs. Dick will continue to pay the rent that has been due under the prior lease. Mrs. Dick's children and grandchildren will have no right to occupy the property after her death, and the cabin and property will then be managed by the Park Service. I hope we haven't reached the point where we can't find a way to play a role in helping Betty Dick spend her last summers on the land that she loves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation important to my great State of Colorado. Last week, I introduced one bill and proudly cosponsored two others to make good on our Nation's promise to honor and care for our veterans. Today, I am introducing a bill to discharge our debt to another group of patriotic Americans who served our Nation during the cold war--our nuclear weapons workers. Many Americans contributed to our victory over communism in the cold war, including dedicated and brave men and women working in the laboratories and factories that fashioned the nuclear weapons that helped bring the former Soviet Union to its knees. As a result of this patriotic service, many of these nuclear weapons workers contracted cancer and other disabling and fatal diseases. In 2000, Congress recognized the sacrifices made by our nuclear weapons workers by enacting the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act to provide benefits to nuclear weapons workers for their work-related illnesses, or to their survivors when these illnesses took their lives But today, a combination of missing records and bureaucratic red tape prevents many nuclear weapons workers from receiving the benefits that Congress intended, including many workers who served at the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado Through five decades, men and women worked at Rocky Flats, producing plutonium, one of the most dangerous substances in creation, and crafting it into the triggers for America's nuclear arsenal. These men and women served a critical role in a program deemed essential to our national security by a succession of Presidents and Congresses. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. These men and women were exposed to radioactive elements and other toxic compounds that we are still trying to identify, in amounts that we can only guess at. We don't know what they were exposed to, how much or when. Part of the problem is that the existing science and technology did not allow us to monitor accurately. Part of the problem is that critical records have been lost or, in many cases, were never created by the government and its contractors. Thankfully, Congress had the foresight in the Energy Employees Act to realize that some workers might not be able to prove that their cancers were caused by their work in nuclear weapons facilities, whether due to the lack of records or other problems that make it difficult or impossible to determine the dose of radiation they received. To protect these workers, Congress designated a Special Exposure Cohort to receive benefits if they suffered from one of the specified cancers known to be linked to radiation exposure The bill I am introducing today would extend Special Exposure Cohort status to workers employed by the Department of Energy or its contractors at Rocky Flats according to the stringent requirements of the 2000 Act As a result of this designation, a Rocky Flats worker suffering from one of the 22 listed cancers can receive benefits despite the inadequate records maintained by the Department of Energy and its contractors My bill is a companion bill to the bipartisan House bill introduced by my friends, Congressman Mark Udall and Congressman Bob Beauprez from Colorado. I look forward to bipartisan support in the Senate. I am also proud to introduce a separate bill, this one to re-inject a small dose of humanity into our Federal bureaucracy. Betty Dick is an 83-year-old woman who has spent much of the past 25 years on property within the boundaries of Rocky Mountain National Park. Over the course of those 25 years, Betty Dick has become a cherished part of the Grand Lake community. She has been a good citizen and has been happy to share her family's beautiful cabin for civic events, and she has been a good neighbor to the National Park. But now, the National Park Service believes that it is compelled to evict Betty Dick. My bill, and a bipartisan companion bill introduced by Congressman Mark Udall and supported by Congressman Tom Tancredo, will authorize and instruct the Park Service to allow Mrs. Dick to spend her last few summers at her cherished Grand Lake home. Mrs. Dick has been living on this property subject to a 25 year lease with the Park Service. Fred Dick, Betty's husband, died in 1992. Mrs. Dick knows she doesn't have too many summers left, but she would like to spend them in her home. The Park Service is apparently concerned that it does not have the authority to extend or renew this lease or it is worried that to do so would set a bad precedent. On this, I respectfully disagree with my friends at the Park Service. I think evicting an 83-year-old woman from her family cabin would set a bad precedent. My bill would simply require the Secretary of the Interior, as boss of the National Park Service, to enter into an agreement that will allow Betty Dick to continue to occupy her family cabin and property within Rocky Mountain National Park for the rest of her life. Mrs. Dick will continue to pay the rent that has been due under the prior lease. Mrs. Dick's children and grandchildren will have no right to occupy the property after her death, and the cabin and property will then be managed by the Park Service. I hope we haven't reached the point where we can't find a way to play a role in helping Betty Dick spend her last summers on the land that she loves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a simple piece of legislation. The idea underlying this bill is simple: words matter. How we characterize what we do sends a message, and nowhere is that more clear than in the question of survivor benefits for survivors of military fatalities. The Senate this year is considering major increases in survivor benefits for military families. That is as it should be, and I am proud to support two specific proposals to increase that assistance. We have an historic opportunity to raise both the direct DoD assistance and the life insurance payouts to families from $12,420 to $100,000 and to provide an extra $150,000 in life insurance payouts. We also have an opportunity to allow full concurrent receipt of the DoD's Survivor Benefit Plan and the VA's Dependency & Indemnity Compensation. We also have the opportunity to improve the help that military survivors get in navigating the bureaucracies of the VA and the DoD to get the benefits they deserve. And finally we have the opportunity to protect military families from predatory life insurance companies. All of these reforms are needed, and all are within our reach this year. As I studied this issue, I was struck by the term ``Death Gratuity.'' That is the name for the assistance that taxpayers make available to military survivors. The term gratuity means gift. I believe that not one of the widows, widowers, or children left behind think of that money as a gift. These families and these heroes are the ones who have given the gift to us. They are the ones who have given the ultimate sacrifice. I know that the name of the assistance is not as important as the assistance itself, but I am sure that hearing the term ``gratuity'' is a bitter pill for survivors who have just received the worst news of their lives. I for one refuse the term ``Death Gratuity,'' and I am introducing legislation today to change it to ``Fallen Hero Compensation.'' This is a simple change, but it more properly reflects the sacrifices military survivors have made and more properly expresses the gratitude and dignity we owe these families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a simple piece of legislation. The idea underlying this bill is simple: words matter. How we characterize what we do sends a message, and nowhere is that more clear than in the question of survivor benefits for survivors of military fatalities. The Senate this year is considering major increases in survivor benefits for military families. That is as it should be, and I am proud to support two specific proposals to increase that assistance. We have an historic opportunity to raise both the direct DoD assistance and the life insurance payouts to families from $12,420 to $100,000 and to provide an extra $150,000 in life insurance payouts. We also have an opportunity to allow full concurrent receipt of the DoD's Survivor Benefit Plan and the VA's Dependency & Indemnity Compensation. We also have the opportunity to improve the help that military survivors get in navigating the bureaucracies of the VA and the DoD to get the benefits they deserve. And finally we have the opportunity to protect military families from predatory life insurance companies. All of these reforms are needed, and all are within our reach this year. As I studied this issue, I was struck by the term ``Death Gratuity.'' That is the name for the assistance that taxpayers make available to military survivors. The term gratuity means gift. I believe that not one of the widows, widowers, or children left behind think of that money as a gift. These families and these heroes are the ones who have given the gift to us. They are the ones who have given the ultimate sacrifice. I know that the name of the assistance is not as important as the assistance itself, but I am sure that hearing the term ``gratuity'' is a bitter pill for survivors who have just received the worst news of their lives. I for one refuse the term ``Death Gratuity,'' and I am introducing legislation today to change it to ``Fallen Hero Compensation.'' This is a simple change, but it more properly reflects the sacrifices military survivors have made and more properly expresses the gratitude and dignity we owe these families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, we are all very impressed by the results of the Iraqi elections in January. The results exceeded our expectations, and I am hopeful it is evidence that Iraq is moving toward democracy. I wanted to add my voice to the letter sent by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice commending IFES. Without the tremendous work of our troops who provided security at over 10,000 polling places around Iraq and the work of IFES, these historic elections would not have happened. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Rice to IFES President Richard Soudriette dated February 28, 2005, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bipartisan resolution to disapprove the opening of the Canadian border. My position on this is clear. Until we resolve comprehensively the underlying issues comprehensively in the interest of health and safety in support of our family farms and ranchers, we should keep the border closed. Today, I speak on behalf of those men and women who are on farms and ranches across America, whose livelihood depends on being able to have a quality livestock industry in place in their States. I join organizations such as the Colorado Cattlemen's Association which said it is not now time for us to lift the ban on Canadian imports. I have spoken with Secretary Johanns about this issue. I have told him that I am for the lifting of the Canadian ban at the appropriate time. For me, that means we are not yet ready to do it because there are too many questions that still have to be answered prior to getting to that decision. Many of the questions we have asked Secretary Johanns and the Department of Agriculture are questions to which we have not received any answers at this point in time: How many inspectors will we have at the border as the million, more or less, cattle from Canada start coming across the Canadian border and flooding the markets in our Nation? How many cattle will they actually check as they come across the border? How will they determine which of those cattle are 30 months or less of age? I have been around cattle for most of my life, and I can tell you it is difficult to tell which cows or cattle are more than 30 months of age, or more than 3 or 3\1/2\ years. My father might have been able to tell us that. When you are talking about that kind of prediction, we don't have an answer from the Department of Agriculture. How will the entire BSE risk mitigation system be documented? What are the segregating procedures for the processing of cattle in Canada at this point? How are we integrating the efforts in trying to deal with the BSE issue and opening up markets in South Korea and Japan with the efforts that we are dealing with now in Canada? Those are very serious questions that will impact the American farmer and rancher for a long time to come. It seems to me it is a very reasonable request that many of us have made to Secretary Johanns--that there ought to be a delay in the opening of the Canadian border until we can have faith that these questions that have been appropriately asked by the ranchers and farmers of America are answered. With that, I urge my colleagues to join in approval of the resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from the Senator from New Jersey. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about two bills I am introducing today and to speak out in support of rural Colorado and rural America. The two bills--one to increase investment in broadband technology in rural areas, and another to permanently fund the payment in lieu of taxes program--are the first bills I am introducing as a Senator. I am proud they are both targeted at rural Colorado. Over 400 years ago, in 1598, my family helped found the oldest city in what is now these United States. They named the city Santa Fe--the City of Holy Faith--because they knew the hand of God would guide them through the struggles of survival in the ages ahead. For the next four centuries, that faith in their future guided them to overcome extremely painful and challenging times. As humble and poor farmers, the circumstances of their lives forged the priceless and tireless values of my father Henry and mother Emma. And they instilled those values in their children. My family has now farmed the same lands in southern Colorado, 110 miles north of Santa Fe, for almost 150 years. On that ranch, we did not have a telephone, and the power lines did not reach us until 1981. Although we were poor in material goods, we were rich in spirit. My parents were part of the World's ``greatest generation''--my father a proud veteran of World War II and my mother a proud servant in the War Department. Although neither had a college degree, they taught us about the values and the promise of America. All eight of their children became first-generation college graduates, inspired by their dedication to God, family, community, and country. As Colorado's U.S. Senator, I am proud of my values and roots in rural Colorado. Rural America is the heart of our great Nation. The values my parents taught me are the fundamental values that make this country the place I am privileged to call home. Unfortunately, the America where I grew up is vanishing, left behind by a Washington DC that has lost touch with what is important to the people of the heartland. I fear that rural Colorado, like the rest of rural America, has become ``the forgotten America.'' Rural America has given up its sons and daughters to the cause of freedom without hesitation and in numbers that far exceed its proportion of the country's population. It has worked quietly to put food on our tables, and remains humbly grounded, seeking neither praise nor thanks. Yet when the President reported on the State of the Union, there was not a word on the state of the more than 3,000 counties that make up rural America--not a word. And in the administration's budget, the programs and investments vital to those communities--PILT, block grants, conservation programs, investments in animal and food safety, and investments in technology, schools and law enforcement--were drastically cut. Last week, I traveled nearly 2,000 miles to every corner of Colorado and convened 17 meetings with elected officials representing Colorado's 64 counties. In those meetings, I heard the state of rural America in the words of the people who are fighting for their families everyday. The state of rural America is sadly the state of the forgotten America. In rural Colorado, residents face lower incomes and are far more likely to be unemployed than people in urban and suburban areas. In Crowley County, east of Pueblo, there is only one nurse practitioner to serve a county of nearly 6,000 people. If you get sick in Crowley County, you have three choices: wait, go to the emergency room, or hope you get better. In Routt County, veterans have to travel nearly 200 miles to Grand Junction to see a doctor in the VA clinic. A few months ago, there was no waiting list to see a doctor. Now, there's a waiting list of 400, which means veterans in western Colorado wait 5 months to see a doctor. The Dolores County Sheriff, Jerry Martin, has to make hiring decisions based not on public security demands but on the ability of his department to provide health care to the prospective employee. Health care premiums have risen 20 percent every year the last 3 years in Dolores County. Across the State, people told me that their health care premiums dwarf their mortgage payments because in many cases they pay over $1,000 per month for health insurance for their families. Between 1996 and 2000, one in three of our rural schools saw its enrollment drop more than 10 percent. Though they continue to excel on State tests, too many of our rural schools have been forced to divert valuable resources to fulfill the unfunded mandates of No Child Left Behind. In Kiowa, Moffat, and Custer Counties, our teachers are paid much less than teachers in the big cities. In Kit Carson County, where teachers sometimes teach two and three subjects, only half of our teachers right now would meet new Federal standards requiring them to be certified for each subject. And in the town of Rico, half of Main Street is boarded up: there's a liquor store, but not much else. According to the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, that may be part of a larger trend: Main Street in rural Colorado is losing its storefronts at an alarming rate. Compare those needs to the budget the Administration recently proposed. While we are facing a shortage of qualified and trained health care employees, the administration budget this year cut health professions training by almost two thirds, $290 million. While our State tries to deal with a devastating budget crisis, the Administration dramatically reduced funding for the Community Development Block Grants on which towns, from Greeley to Grand Junction to Denver, depend. For the fifth year in a row, the Administration's budget fails to fulfill the funding promises made in the No Child Left Behind law, but still heaps mandates on local schools. Moreover, the proposed budget eliminates low-interest loans for students who have the grades but can't afford to go to college and eliminates funding for vocational training that many rural Colorado students use. The proposed budget cuts $250 million from one of the most successful small business investment programs and decimates USDA investments in rural economic development. While we combat methamphetamine production and invest precious resources in meth lab clean up, the budget cuts Safe and Drug Free School grants, the COPS program by nearly $500 million, and State and local homeland security training programs by 60 percent. I want to propose two small steps in my effort to reinvest in rural America. In coming months I intend to introduce measures to strengthen rural law enforcement, revitalize rural health care, invest in Main Street, strengthen rural education, help ensure efficient and equitable sharing of water resources and underscore the values that shape every rural community in Colorado. The first bill is on the PILT program. I know that education in rural America is funded through a variety of means, including through resources passed to rural counties through the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program. The idea behind the PILT program is simple. It makes sure that local communities in States like Colorado--States that have seen large parts of land set aside by the Federal Government for public use--do not lose valuable resources from foregone property taxes. Those resources fund programs from education to law enforcement. Unfortunately, this year the administration's budget is again proposing to cut that funding. Thanks to the efforts of my Democratic and Republican colleagues, such as Senator Bingaman, some of that funding has been won back over the last several years, and I am hopeful we will do so again this year. But our local communities should not have to wait and wonder every year whether their resources for schools, roads and law enforcement will make it into the budget, and that is why I am introducing a bill to make permanent the funding for the payment in lieu of taxes program. I am also introducing a bill to increase investment in broadband technology in rural communities. Bringing broadband to our rural schools will give our students there access to technology that millions of other students take for granted. With broadband will come world class research and access to AP courses at Colorado's universities. And with broadband we will see the economic development for which rural Colorado has been waiting. The benefits of this investment do not stop in education and business. Telehealth is increasingly vital in rural Colorado, held back in some cases by the lack of investment in infrastructure. That same infrastructure limits investment opportunities in rural communities. With this bill I am building on the hard work of others and saying that it is long past time for us to invest in the world class broadband that rural communities need and are right to expect. My bill does that in three ways. First, it will establish our Nation's first Rural Broadband Office to coordinate all Federal Government resources as they relate to broadband. Second, it will help broadband providers keep pace with our rapidly changing technology. And third, it calls on the Congress to live up to its responsibility to fully fund rural utilities. It has been a long road that has carried me from that ranch in the San Luis Valley, growing up as one of eight siblings and proudly attending college and law school before having the privilege to serve in U.S. Senate. In all of this, I have never forgotten where I come from. In my office, I have a sign on my desk that reads ``No Farms, No Food.'' Every day I look at it, and I am reminded of just how dependent we are on the people of rural Colorado, and in rural communities all across America. At a meeting with leaders from Colorado's farmer and rancher community last month, a wheat farmer from southeastern Colorado told me this: ``Senator, you'd never believe how many farmers refuse to go to the doctor when they get sick. It's not that they aren't really sick. It's that they can't afford the doctor.'' Unfortunately, Mr. President, I do believe that wheat farmer, and I know rural America needs our help. In America, the most powerful, prosperous, idealistic country the world has ever known, we can do better. And protecting that way of life--in our churches and town halls, Main Streets and living rooms, ranches and independent drug stores--demands it. Together, we can make sure that no one anywhere in this country feels that he is part of a ``Forgotten America'' any longer. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about two bills I am introducing today and to speak out in support of rural Colorado and rural America. The two bills--one to increase investment in broadband technology in rural areas, and another to permanently fund the payment in lieu of taxes program--are the first bills I am introducing as a Senator. I am proud they are both targeted at rural Colorado. Over 400 years ago, in 1598, my family helped found the oldest city in what is now these United States. They named the city Santa Fe--the City of Holy Faith--because they knew the hand of God would guide them through the struggles of survival in the ages ahead. For the next four centuries, that faith in their future guided them to overcome extremely painful and challenging times. As humble and poor farmers, the circumstances of their lives forged the priceless and tireless values of my father Henry and mother Emma. And they instilled those values in their children. My family has now farmed the same lands in southern Colorado, 110 miles north of Santa Fe, for almost 150 years. On that ranch, we did not have a telephone, and the power lines did not reach us until 1981. Although we were poor in material goods, we were rich in spirit. My parents were part of the World's ``greatest generation''--my father a proud veteran of World War II and my mother a proud servant in the War Department. Although neither had a college degree, they taught us about the values and the promise of America. All eight of their children became first-generation college graduates, inspired by their dedication to God, family, community, and country. As Colorado's U.S. Senator, I am proud of my values and roots in rural Colorado. Rural America is the heart of our great Nation. The values my parents taught me are the fundamental values that make this country the place I am privileged to call home. Unfortunately, the America where I grew up is vanishing, left behind by a Washington DC that has lost touch with what is important to the people of the heartland. I fear that rural Colorado, like the rest of rural America, has become ``the forgotten America.'' Rural America has given up its sons and daughters to the cause of freedom without hesitation and in numbers that far exceed its proportion of the country's population. It has worked quietly to put food on our tables, and remains humbly grounded, seeking neither praise nor thanks. Yet when the President reported on the State of the Union, there was not a word on the state of the more than 3,000 counties that make up rural America--not a word. And in the administration's budget, the programs and investments vital to those communities--PILT, block grants, conservation programs, investments in animal and food safety, and investments in technology, schools and law enforcement--were drastically cut. Last week, I traveled nearly 2,000 miles to every corner of Colorado and convened 17 meetings with elected officials representing Colorado's 64 counties. In those meetings, I heard the state of rural America in the words of the people who are fighting for their families everyday. The state of rural America is sadly the state of the forgotten America. In rural Colorado, residents face lower incomes and are far more likely to be unemployed than people in urban and suburban areas. In Crowley County, east of Pueblo, there is only one nurse practitioner to serve a county of nearly 6,000 people. If you get sick in Crowley County, you have three choices: wait, go to the emergency room, or hope you get better. In Routt County, veterans have to travel nearly 200 miles to Grand Junction to see a doctor in the VA clinic. A few months ago, there was no waiting list to see a doctor. Now, there's a waiting list of 400, which means veterans in western Colorado wait 5 months to see a doctor. The Dolores County Sheriff, Jerry Martin, has to make hiring decisions based not on public security demands but on the ability of his department to provide health care to the prospective employee. Health care premiums have risen 20 percent every year the last 3 years in Dolores County. Across the State, people told me that their health care premiums dwarf their mortgage payments because in many cases they pay over $1,000 per month for health insurance for their families. Between 1996 and 2000, one in three of our rural schools saw its enrollment drop more than 10 percent. Though they continue to excel on State tests, too many of our rural schools have been forced to divert valuable resources to fulfill the unfunded mandates of No Child Left Behind. In Kiowa, Moffat, and Custer Counties, our teachers are paid much less than teachers in the big cities. In Kit Carson County, where teachers sometimes teach two and three subjects, only half of our teachers right now would meet new Federal standards requiring them to be certified for each subject. And in the town of Rico, half of Main Street is boarded up: there's a liquor store, but not much else. According to the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, that may be part of a larger trend: Main Street in rural Colorado is losing its storefronts at an alarming rate. Compare those needs to the budget the Administration recently proposed. While we are facing a shortage of qualified and trained health care employees, the administration budget this year cut health professions training by almost two thirds, $290 million. While our State tries to deal with a devastating budget crisis, the Administration dramatically reduced funding for the Community Development Block Grants on which towns, from Greeley to Grand Junction to Denver, depend. For the fifth year in a row, the Administration's budget fails to fulfill the funding promises made in the No Child Left Behind law, but still heaps mandates on local schools. Moreover, the proposed budget eliminates low-interest loans for students who have the grades but can't afford to go to college and eliminates funding for vocational training that many rural Colorado students use. The proposed budget cuts $250 million from one of the most successful small business investment programs and decimates USDA investments in rural economic development. While we combat methamphetamine production and invest precious resources in meth lab clean up, the budget cuts Safe and Drug Free School grants, the COPS program by nearly $500 million, and State and local homeland security training programs by 60 percent. I want to propose two small steps in my effort to reinvest in rural America. In coming months I intend to introduce measures to strengthen rural law enforcement, revitalize rural health care, invest in Main Street, strengthen rural education, help ensure efficient and equitable sharing of water resources and underscore the values that shape every rural community in Colorado. The first bill is on the PILT program. I know that education in rural America is funded through a variety of means, including through resources passed to rural counties through the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program. The idea behind the PILT program is simple. It makes sure that local communities in States like Colorado--States that have seen large parts of land set aside by the Federal Government for public use--do not lose valuable resources from foregone property taxes. Those resources fund programs from education to law enforcement. Unfortunately, this year the administration's budget is again proposing to cut that funding. Thanks to the efforts of my Democratic and Republican colleagues, such as Senator Bingaman, some of that funding has been won back over the last several years, and I am hopeful we will do so again this year. But our local communities should not have to wait and wonder every year whether their resources for schools, roads and law enforcement will make it into the budget, and that is why I am introducing a bill to make permanent the funding for the payment in lieu of taxes program. I am also introducing a bill to increase investment in broadband technology in rural communities. Bringing broadband to our rural schools will give our students there access to technology that millions of other students take for granted. With broadband will come world class research and access to AP courses at Colorado's universities. And with broadband we will see the economic development for which rural Colorado has been waiting. The benefits of this investment do not stop in education and business. Telehealth is increasingly vital in rural Colorado, held back in some cases by the lack of investment in infrastructure. That same infrastructure limits investment opportunities in rural communities. With this bill I am building on the hard work of others and saying that it is long past time for us to invest in the world class broadband that rural communities need and are right to expect. My bill does that in three ways. First, it will establish our Nation's first Rural Broadband Office to coordinate all Federal Government resources as they relate to broadband. Second, it will help broadband providers keep pace with our rapidly changing technology. And third, it calls on the Congress to live up to its responsibility to fully fund rural utilities. It has been a long road that has carried me from that ranch in the San Luis Valley, growing up as one of eight siblings and proudly attending college and law school before having the privilege to serve in U.S. Senate. In all of this, I have never forgotten where I come from. In my office, I have a sign on my desk that reads ``No Farms, No Food.'' Every day I look at it, and I am reminded of just how dependent we are on the people of rural Colorado, and in rural communities all across America. At a meeting with leaders from Colorado's farmer and rancher community last month, a wheat farmer from southeastern Colorado told me this: ``Senator, you'd never believe how many farmers refuse to go to the doctor when they get sick. It's not that they aren't really sick. It's that they can't afford the doctor.'' Unfortunately, Mr. President, I do believe that wheat farmer, and I know rural America needs our help. In America, the most powerful, prosperous, idealistic country the world has ever known, we can do better. And protecting that way of life--in our churches and town halls, Main Streets and living rooms, ranches and independent drug stores--demands it. Together, we can make sure that no one anywhere in this country feels that he is part of a ``Forgotten America'' any longer. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from the Senator from New Jersey. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be our Nation's second Homeland Security Secretary. Our next Homeland Security chief will face a number of urgent challenges. I believe the most pressing of those will be better coordinating our Federal, State and local homeland security personnel. When I was Colorado's attorney general, I started a new effort to bring district attorneys, police departments and sheriffs together to foster interagency cooperation. That was tough, but it allowed us to coordinate and fund better law enforcement training, and better prosecute gang violence, fight senior financial fraud, establish school hotlines and many other vital efforts to fight crime that knows no jurisdictional boundaries. The challenge for DHS is, of course, even larger. Unfortunately, 3 years after 9/11 there is a huge gap between Washington and our first responders on the ground. In his fiscal year 2006 budget, the President proposed consolidating and reducing funding for State and local heroes. At a time when our law enforcement agencies are being asked to do more with less, the President apparently believes they should have even less. The President's budget for next year eliminates funding for new hires under the COPS grants, which have helped to put 1,289 additional officers on the streets in Colorado. The President's budget also calls for a 24 percent cut in homeland security grants to States and a complete elimination of grants to rural fire fighters. At the same time, the Homeland Security grant money that is available is not flowing effectively to State and local agencies. Police, fire and emergency medical departments are not getting the help they need. Worse yet, critical anti-terrorism intelligence is not getting to the law enforcement personnel on the ground who can act on it. I met with Mike Chertoff and he promised me that he would work to better coordinate Federal, State and local agencies. I appreciated his candor in our meeting, but I am very disappointed to see his unwillingness to respond to a series of very straightforward questions posed by Senators Levin and Lieberman. Here is why this matters: we need a straight-shooting and straight- talking person in this job. Judge Chertoff will face the awesome task of wrangling the 180,000 employees and 22 agencies that form the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary Tom Ridge started the process of cutting the bureaucratic red tape and integrating the department. DHS took a number of steps, including establishing an Operational Integration Staff, but a great deal is still left to do. Judge Chertoff has experience moving unwieldy bureaucracy in times of crisis. As Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice from 2001-2003, Chertoff shared information and coordinated antiterrorism efforts not only across DOJ, but also with DHS and foreign law enforcement. Chertoff also pushed resources to the field where they were needed most. Chertoff was essentially the Nation's attorney as it prosecuted the war on terrorism. I know a little about this. As Colorado's former top attorney, I can tell my colleagues that one needs a good lawyer to fight crime and prevent terror. Chertoff will also have to balance the need to fight terrorism with the need to preserve our freedom. This is a difficult balance to achieve. In the last few years, we have faced some difficult choices. The administration has detained terrorism suspects for long periods without access to an attorney. They have tried to use military tribunals instead of civilian courts. And worst of all, the administration's uneven record on adherence to the Geneva Convention and on the use of torture is an affront to our American ideals. Chertoff has expressed his belief that torture is wrong. He expressed his philosophy during his confirmation hearing: ``We cannot live in liberty without security, but we would not want to live in security without liberty.'' Judge Chertoff has said all the right things about preserving civil liberties. But we will face numerous threats to our security over the next 4 years, and we will be faced with even tougher choices. It is my sincere hope that Chertoff will do a better job than his predecessors have done in allowing us to live with both security and liberty. What strikes me most about Mike Chertoff is his commitment to public service. Two years ago, Chertoff was confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Chertoff could easily have kept that seat forever, but he stepped down from that secure job to face another political gauntlet. In short, when duty called, Judge Chertoff answered. You could not ask for a tougher job in Washington than Homeland Security Secretary. I am hopeful Judge Chertoff is the right person for the job.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment which has been offered by the Senator from Arkansas. I have a great deal of respect for the National Association of Attorneys General. I also served in that position in the past, as well as the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Arkansas. Let me very quickly make three points. First, as has already been alluded to by both the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Delaware, the intent of this bill is to have no effect whatsoever on the powers and duties of the attorneys general to enforce their consumer protection responsibilities. I believe that point should be very much a part of the legislative history of this legislation as it moves forward. Second, the powers and duties of the attorneys general in our States are very important powers and duties. Those are in those cases powers and duties that result from elections of the people of their States who elected individuals to serve in the capacity of attorney general. In the context where we are limiting the ability for class actions to be brought under S. 5, that ability of the attorneys general to protect vulnerable consumers is all the more important. It is important for us to make sure as this legislation is being considered that we all understand it is going to have no impact on the powers and duties of the attorneys general. The letter that came in from our 46 of our former colleagues, interestingly, is an accumulation of almost all of the attorneys general from around the country. It includes Democrats and Republicans alike. It includes Republicans such as my successor, John Suthers, from the State of Colorado, and Democrats such as Tom Miller from the State of Iowa. I think their letter and Senator Pryor's amendment with respect to some of those are indeed just an effort to make sure the legislative intent that has been talked about here would impact the legislation; that is, that this legislation, S. 5, is not going to have any diminishing effect whatsoever on the powers and duties of the attorneys general to proceed forward under the laws of their States, both constitutionally and also consumer protection laws. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today because I want to address the allegation that we have heard in this Chamber over the last several days that the debate around the nomination of Judge Gonzales to be the next U.S. Attorney General is somehow occurring because of the fact that he is Hispanic. I want to let the President, the Members of this Chamber, and the people of the United States know that in my view, that is not at all the case, and it is a notion that we should, in fact, reject. We should reject it because it is divisive. Instead, what we ought to be doing in the United States of America is moving forward with a sense of unity and a celebration of diversity that can unite us as a country. The fact is, the debate that has occurred in this Chamber over the last several days concerning Judge Alberto Gonzales is an appropriate debate. We do not have a king in these United States. We have a President who appoints, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. And for the Senate to have engaged in the debate and dialog, as it has over the last several days, is the appropriate constitutional role for this Senate. The questions that have been raised about Judge Gonzales are questions that are very serious about international law and international accords and the laws of these United States. For my colleagues who have stood up and who have raised questions about Judge Gonzales's role with respect to these issues, they have been carrying out their constitutional duty. I believe that constitutional duty should be respected. I, for one, after doing my constitutional duty and reviewing the record and meeting with Judge Gonzales, talking to him about civil rights, talking to him about his opposition to torture, concluded that I would cast my vote in support of Judge Gonzales's nomination, and I will do so in a few minutes. That vote will not change. But I think it is a mistake for this Chamber to allow the race card of being Hispanic to be used to destroy or erode the institutions that we have in the Senate. As I say that, I say it because I have seen the journey of civil rights in America. That journey of civil rights in America is one which has taken us a long time to get to where we are today. When we think about the history of our country, for the first 250 years from the founding of Plymouth Rock and Jamestown to the civil war, we were a country that divided ourselves by the race of our skin, so that if one was one race, they were able to own as property members who were from another race. It took a very bloody civil war--in fact, the bloodiest of all wars that this country has been engaged in--to end that system of slavery and to usher in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments that said we are equal in this Nation. Notwithstanding that bloodiest of wars and notwithstanding the fact that we had amended the Constitution in those ways, it took another 100 years for us to legally end the system of segregation in this country because it was not until 1954 and the decision written by Justice Warren in Brown v. The Board of Education that we said that segregation was wrong and that we would not tolerate it under our system of law. As we have evolved in our relationships within groups over the last half a century, there have been leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, who have embraced the doctrines of diversity and an inclusive America. In the 1960s, that effort was lead by Democrats, such as John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson. It was the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s that created opportunities for all of us in America to recognize that we are, in fact, one Nation. But it was not just the Republicans or the Democrats who were in the lead in that role. There were also others who were involved, Republicans like President Gerald Ford. A few years ago, President Ford wrote an article in the New York Times which was entitled, ``An Inclusive America.'' In that article in the New York Times, President Ford talked about the importance of bringing all of our community together and giving everybody an equal opportunity, regardless of their background. So as we move forward to making this decision on Judge Gonzales, which I anticipate and fully expect is going to be a decision to affirm his nomination as the Attorney General of the United States of America, let us not use this moment to divide this country and let us not use this moment to divide this Chamber. My view is that those Democratic colleagues of mine, who are people I admire, are very much champions of diversity and champions of civil rights and, in my view, they were exercising their appropriate role and their duty to make sure that the scrutiny of the Senate of one of the President's nominees was, in fact, exercised. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 in relation to the nomination of Judge Alberto Gonzales to be the next Attorney General of the United States. Before making my comments about Judge Gonzales, I also want to say that earlier this afternoon I had a highly enlightening and very rewarding discussion with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. Senator Byrd spoke just before me. He is a man of tradition and hard work. I am very grateful for his leadership and his inspiration. As I make my comments about Attorney General-nominee Gonzales, I want to tell you that I do so because my brothers and sisters in law enforcement have endorsed him. I do so as well because he has given me his written commitment to fight for civil rights. I do so because Judge Gonzales has given me his written pledge that he opposes torture in all of its forms and will use the power of his office to prosecute any American--anywhere--who uses torture. Many of my colleagues and citizens across America have spoken eloquently about their concerns with Judge Gonzales. The most grave of those concerns has been the flawed legal analysis and conclusions regarding torture. That analysis and those conclusions were wrong and they have been rejected. Any policy that condones torture is reprehensible for three reasons. First, a torture policy violates U.S. law and the cornerstone of the Geneva Conventions. Second, a torture policy endangers our men and women in uniform. And, third, a torture policy diminishes America's standing around the world. Because of these concerns, I have had numerous conversations and meetings with Judge Gonzales, and I am confident that as Attorney General he will not sanction torture in any form and will uphold the laws of the United States and the international accords that make torture illegal. In fact, I specifically asked Judge Gonzales to respond to my concerns and the concerns of the American public in writing. In his letter to me of January 28, 2005, Judge Gonzales wrote: I do not condone torture in any form. I confirm to you that the United States of America does not condone the torture of anyone by our country or by anyone else. The laws of the United States and the international obligations of the United States prohibit torture in all its forms. These international obligations include the Geneva Conventions, which I consider binding upon the United States. I reaffirm to you that, if confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce these laws and international obligations aggressively to prohibit torture in all its forms. He continues in his letter: I pledge to do so for two reasons. These are the laws of the United States, and I am obligated to uphold those laws. And secondly, any action by the United States that undermines the Geneva Conventions threatens the safety and security of our troops. Judge Gonzales's statement is clear and unequivocal. Simply stated, torture is illegal and wrong and that will be the position of Judge Gonzales as Attorney General. As the Nation's top law enforcement officer, Judge Gonzales will be accountable for this position as he denounces torture, and I and the American people will make sure this is, in fact, the case. Before proceeding further, I ask unanimous consent Judge Gonzales's letter to me be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I have spent the last 6 years of my life as the attorney general of the great State of Colorado working with people I consider to be my brothers and sisters in law enforcement. I have met with the widows of fallen officers, and I led our State efforts to train Colorado's 14,000 peace officers. I have deep respect for the 750,000 men and women in law enforcement who risk their lives every day to keep each of us and our communities safe. These men and women will be the backbone of our Nation's Homeland Security efforts. I respect their judgment and opinion. In that regard, I stand with the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the FBI Agents Association, and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, all of whom have endorsed Judge Gonzales as Attorney General. I have spoken to Judge Gonzales about the needs of law enforcement around the country. He has pledged his support and has pledged to come to Colorado to meet and learn from Colorado's heroic law enforcement officers about their experiences and their needs. Finally, Judge Gonzales, I believe in his heart, knows about the importance of civil rights and liberties. He knows first hand of the indignities of a society that turns a blind eye to discrimination and prejudice. Because he knows that reality of the American experience, I expect him, as Attorney General, to help lead the way for the creation of an America that despises hate and bigotry and recognizes that every human being deserves a government that will fight for the dignity and equality of all. I will vote to confirm Judge Alberto Gonzales to be the next Attorney General of the United States. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.