Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Camp Hale Study Act of 2009. This is a companion bill to the one my Colorado colleague, Rep. Doug Lamborn, has introduced in the House of Representatives, H.R. 2330.

This bill was first introduced by Rep. Lamborn in the last Congress and I was proud to cosponsor that bill. The bill passed the House of Representatives last session, but was not taken up by the Senate. H.R. 2330 has passed the House of Representatives in this Congress and I hope that the Senate can do the same.

I am again pleased to join my colleague Representative Lamborn in reintroducing this bill. It concerns an important military legacy from the WWII era. Camp Hale, located in the mountains of central Colorado, was a facility that trained a number of soldiers for combat in high alpine and mountainous conditions. Principally, it was a training venue for the Army's 10th Mountain Division and other elements of the U.S. Armed Forces. The geography of the area was ideal for winter and high- altitude training, with steep mountains surrounding a level valley suitable for housing and other facilities. The camp itself was located in Eagle County along the Eagle River, and its training boundary included lands in Eagle, Summit, Lake, and Pitkin Counties.

In addition to the 10th Mountain Division, the 38th Regimental Combat Team, 99th Infantry Battalion, and soldiers from Fort Carson were trained at Camp Hale from 1942 to 1965. Throughout this time, the Army tested a variety of weapons and equipment at Camp Hale.

Between 1956 and 1965, the camp was also used by the Central Intelligence Agency as a secret center for training Tibetan refugees in guerilla warfare to resist the Chinese occupation of their mountainous country.

In July 1965, Camp Hale was deactivated and control of the lands was returned to the Forest Service in 1966. Today the camp is part of the White River and San Isabel National Forests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is working to clean up potentially hazardous munitions left over from weapons testing at the camp, particularly in the East Fork.

Camp Hale was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992. The bill I am introducing today would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of establishing Camp Hale, near Leadville, CO, as a national historic district.

Specifically, the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, to complete a special resource study of Camp Hale to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Hale as a separate unit of the National Park System, and also to consider other Federal, State, local, private or nonprofit means of protecting and interpreting the site. That would include an analysis of the significance of Camp Hale in relation to the defense of our Nation during World War II and the Cold War, including the use of Camp Hale for training of the 10th Mountain Division and other elements of the United States Armed Forces; and use of Camp Hale for training by the Central Intelligence Agency of Tibetan refugees seeking to resist the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

The study would also examine the opportunities for public enjoyment of the site, any operational, management, and private property issues that need to be considered if Camp Hale were to be added to the National Park System, the feasibility of administering Camp Hale as a unit of the National Park System considering its size, configuration, ownership, costs, and other factors, and the adequacy of other alternatives for management and resource protection of Camp Hale and for appropriately commemorating the role of Camp Hale in connection with training of United States troops and assistance to Tibetans opposed to the occupation of Tibet.

The bill also contains language ensuring that existing private property rights are not affected by this study, including water rights. The bill in this Congress contains a small change from the last bill in that it makes clear that the bill does not affect the ability to construct needed water infrastructure in the area subject to the study.

Camp Hale is an important part of our nation's proud national defense legacy and it deserves to be recognized and protected. The people who trained there are proud of their accomplishments and I am proud to join Representative Lamborn in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, due to unexpected travel delays, I missed a recorded vote on the Senate floor on Monday, June 22, 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on rollcall vote No. 211.

Mr. President, there is an old saying that ``you don't know what you've got until it's gone.'' It is true, especially when you are talking about water. We have a tendency to take water for granted when we turn on our faucets or showers and when we want to water our yards. We tend to use it inefficiently. We let the faucet run when we are brushing our teeth, or we water our lawns in the middle of the day when evaporation rates are at their highest.

When you grow up in the desert, as I did, you learn to treasure water. Everything in the West is shaped by it, and you know that it might not always be there when you need it. This will become-- particularly in my part of the country, but also in the Presiding Officer's State as well--more apparent as we see lower snowpack and decreasing precipitation in the Southwest. Because of climate change dynamics and drought cycles, we are already experiencing those situations.

Water is the lifeblood of the West. Recent droughts in the Southeast of our country remind us that no one is immune from water shortages. It is with an eye to those experiences that I rise today to introduce legislation that would take a measured and practical step toward conserving it.

The Water Accountability Tax Efficiency Reinvestment Act of 2009-- that is a mouthful, but if you boil it down to its acronym, it is the WATER Act--creates a tax incentive for individuals and businesses to purchase products and services that use water at least 20 percent more efficiently than comparable technology.

It is very similar to the existing tax credit we receive now for purchasing energy-efficient Energy Star products. Certainly, you see Energy Star products all over homes, and increasingly customers are purchasing them.

I thank my friend and colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Mike Coffman, for introducing this measure in the House. I am pleased to work with him in a bipartisan way, as he is a Republican, and in a bicameral way.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill. Why? The more we can conserve today, the more we can decrease the demands on existing water resources. Better yet, we can save our constituents and ourselves literally hundreds of dollars in the process.

What would the WATER Act do? It would create a 30-percent tax credit on the purchase of products that have earned the EPA's WaterSense label, with a maximum lifetime cap of $1,500. That is a handsome incentive for us as consumers.

Like the Energy Star label awarded by the EPA and Department of Energy, the WaterSense label would be reserved for those products that consume at least 20 percent less water than comparable items. These products are becoming much more common. They include many brands of faucets, toilets, shower heads, even irrigation services.

The predictions are that soon entire homes would become WaterSense certified.

Not only is it a bonus for the environment when we conserve water, but it is helpful to our wallets. The cheapest gallon of water, frankly, like the cheapest barrel of oil, is the one we don't use.

It is estimated by the EPA that with some simple adjustments in the way we use water, the average household can save close to $200 a year on their water and sewer bills.

There is an interesting nexus as well between energy and water use. If we conserve energy water, we use less energy. Less water means less energy to heat the water in our showers, our sinks, our dishwashers, and the energy that is used to supply and treat public water. EPA estimates if 1 percent of American households used WaterSense-certified toilets, each year we could save enough electricity to power 43,000 homes for a month, lower water bills, and reduce demands on the environment. That is something we ought to be striving to accomplish.

Numerous groups already support this legislation as it is written. I focus in particular on my home State of Colorado where industry groups, water authorities, and local leaders in Colorado have signed on to this concept.

I wanted to also say that moving forward on this legislation gained added importance for me last month when I attended a briefing that the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research held. This particular briefing was focused on the ways we will have to adapt our management of water resources in response to the effects of climate change. I know the Presiding Officer and I share a real concern about climate change.

I used to think any discussion of adapting to climate change was misguided because we were giving in to the problem. We were saying we are going to let climate change occur. I have come to believe adapting to climate change is a recognition of reality. It is having impacts all across our country. If we do not act now, we will not be meeting our responsibilities to not only our constituents today but our children and their children in the future.

In my State, all you have to do is look, for example, at the Colorado River. Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada, and the country of Mexico have an agreement that was reached about 80 years ago on how to divide up the Colorado River. When that agreement was reached, I believe, in 1922, we thought there were 16.5 million acre feet of water we could divide among all those States and communities. We now believe that time period, when we took those numbers interest account, was a particularly wet period in the history of the Colorado River Basin. Our best guess now is there is only about 14.5 million acre feet available, and 16.5 million versus 14.5 million--there is a 2-million-acre-foot deficit there, and it is causing increasing concern.

So these water shortages that are possible because of climate change, combined with drought cycles that are normal, have the potential to cause great political tension and controversy. The river levels in the Colorado basin most likely are going to get lower, and that means serious impacts for businesses, homes, and farmers in seven States and two counties. The longer we wait to take practical steps to adjust the steps of climate change, the harder it will become to deal with them.

The good news is we have options that will do more than help address global climate change. These are policies we ought to be adopting anyway. They simply have added significance now, and they make perfect common sense.

To return to the Water Act, which I came to the Senate floor to discuss, this is a prime example of how we can adapt and take some steps today that benefit all of us. If consumers in the Colorado River Basin install WaterSense products, they will decrease the demand on the overallocated Colorado River Basin, reduce their water and energy bills, and help head off an impending problem as a result of climate change. This is a win-win-win across the board.

Again, I come to the Senate floor to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting what is a commonsense, bipartisan, bicameral effort to save taxpayers money and take a big practical step toward greater water conservation.

As I close, I also add once again that we would be leading the world as it develops and the demand for water around the world increases. These products would be available in the marketplaces in China, India, Brazil, and the developing world, which would help our economy and help create jobs as well, which we are focused on singularly as Senators. I know that is important in the Presiding Officer's home State as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there is an old saying that ``you don't know what you've got until it's gone.'' It is true, especially when you are talking about water. We have a tendency to take water for granted when we turn on our faucets or showers and when we want to water our yards. We tend to use it inefficiently. We let the faucet run when we are brushing our teeth, or we water our lawns in the middle of the day when evaporation rates are at their highest.

When you grow up in the desert, as I did, you learn to treasure water. Everything in the West is shaped by it, and you know that it might not always be there when you need it. This will become-- particularly in my part of the country, but also in the Presiding Officer's State as well--more apparent as we see lower snowpack and decreasing precipitation in the Southwest. Because of climate change dynamics and drought cycles, we are already experiencing those situations.

Water is the lifeblood of the West. Recent droughts in the Southeast of our country remind us that no one is immune from water shortages. It is with an eye to those experiences that I rise today to introduce legislation that would take a measured and practical step toward conserving it.

The Water Accountability Tax Efficiency Reinvestment Act of 2009-- that is a mouthful, but if you boil it down to its acronym, it is the WATER Act--creates a tax incentive for individuals and businesses to purchase products and services that use water at least 20 percent more efficiently than comparable technology.

It is very similar to the existing tax credit we receive now for purchasing energy-efficient Energy Star products. Certainly, you see Energy Star products all over homes, and increasingly customers are purchasing them.

I thank my friend and colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Mike Coffman, for introducing this measure in the House. I am pleased to work with him in a bipartisan way, as he is a Republican, and in a bicameral way.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill. Why? The more we can conserve today, the more we can decrease the demands on existing water resources. Better yet, we can save our constituents and ourselves literally hundreds of dollars in the process.

What would the WATER Act do? It would create a 30-percent tax credit on the purchase of products that have earned the EPA's WaterSense label, with a maximum lifetime cap of $1,500. That is a handsome incentive for us as consumers.

Like the Energy Star label awarded by the EPA and Department of Energy, the WaterSense label would be reserved for those products that consume at least 20 percent less water than comparable items. These products are becoming much more common. They include many brands of faucets, toilets, shower heads, even irrigation services.

The predictions are that soon entire homes would become WaterSense certified.

Not only is it a bonus for the environment when we conserve water, but it is helpful to our wallets. The cheapest gallon of water, frankly, like the cheapest barrel of oil, is the one we don't use.

It is estimated by the EPA that with some simple adjustments in the way we use water, the average household can save close to $200 a year on their water and sewer bills.

There is an interesting nexus as well between energy and water use. If we conserve energy water, we use less energy. Less water means less energy to heat the water in our showers, our sinks, our dishwashers, and the energy that is used to supply and treat public water. EPA estimates if 1 percent of American households used WaterSense-certified toilets, each year we could save enough electricity to power 43,000 homes for a month, lower water bills, and reduce demands on the environment. That is something we ought to be striving to accomplish.

Numerous groups already support this legislation as it is written. I focus in particular on my home State of Colorado where industry groups, water authorities, and local leaders in Colorado have signed on to this concept.

I wanted to also say that moving forward on this legislation gained added importance for me last month when I attended a briefing that the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research held. This particular briefing was focused on the ways we will have to adapt our management of water resources in response to the effects of climate change. I know the Presiding Officer and I share a real concern about climate change.

I used to think any discussion of adapting to climate change was misguided because we were giving in to the problem. We were saying we are going to let climate change occur. I have come to believe adapting to climate change is a recognition of reality. It is having impacts all across our country. If we do not act now, we will not be meeting our responsibilities to not only our constituents today but our children and their children in the future.

In my State, all you have to do is look, for example, at the Colorado River. Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada, and the country of Mexico have an agreement that was reached about 80 years ago on how to divide up the Colorado River. When that agreement was reached, I believe, in 1922, we thought there were 16.5 million acre feet of water we could divide among all those States and communities. We now believe that time period, when we took those numbers interest account, was a particularly wet period in the history of the Colorado River Basin. Our best guess now is there is only about 14.5 million acre feet available, and 16.5 million versus 14.5 million--there is a 2-million-acre-foot deficit there, and it is causing increasing concern.

So these water shortages that are possible because of climate change, combined with drought cycles that are normal, have the potential to cause great political tension and controversy. The river levels in the Colorado basin most likely are going to get lower, and that means serious impacts for businesses, homes, and farmers in seven States and two counties. The longer we wait to take practical steps to adjust the steps of climate change, the harder it will become to deal with them.

The good news is we have options that will do more than help address global climate change. These are policies we ought to be adopting anyway. They simply have added significance now, and they make perfect common sense.

To return to the Water Act, which I came to the Senate floor to discuss, this is a prime example of how we can adapt and take some steps today that benefit all of us. If consumers in the Colorado River Basin install WaterSense products, they will decrease the demand on the overallocated Colorado River Basin, reduce their water and energy bills, and help head off an impending problem as a result of climate change. This is a win-win-win across the board.

Again, I come to the Senate floor to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting what is a commonsense, bipartisan, bicameral effort to save taxpayers money and take a big practical step toward greater water conservation.

As I close, I also add once again that we would be leading the world as it develops and the demand for water around the world increases. These products would be available in the marketplaces in China, India, Brazil, and the developing world, which would help our economy and help create jobs as well, which we are focused on singularly as Senators. I know that is important in the Presiding Officer's home State as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, every year thousands of people travel to Colorado to enjoy some of the most exciting recreation opportunities in the world. Although my home State is known for its skiing, we are a summertime destination with 4 national parks, 5 national monuments, and 41 State parks for travelers to enjoy. Visitors can go white-water rafting down the Colorado River or hike and climb in the magnificent Rockies. We have Wild West ghost towns, historic railroads, and American Indian cultural sites to visit.

Obviously, travel and tourism is an incredibly important sector of Colorado's economy. For every $1 million spent in Colorado by domestic and international travelers, 11 jobs are created. Travel and tourism generated $13.7 billion in revenue in 2007 in Colorado alone, and almost 150,000 Coloradans owe their jobs to that industry.

That is why today I rise to express my support for the Travel Promotion Act of 2009. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill, which has strong support from Members across the aisle, and I look forward to voting for its passage later this week.

While I have listed just the beginning of the numerous reasons to visit Colorado, the truth is that our tourism and travel industry has suffered in recent years. Many people do not realize it, but across our great country our tourism industry never fully recovered after September 11, particularly when it comes to travel from outside our country into the United States. That compares with this fact: Travel around the world has dramatically increased in the past decade while travel to the United States has dropped. In 2008, we welcomed fewer visitors to our country than we did in the year 2000. Why? Part of the problem is that visitors from overseas have been confused by the new procedures for entering our country. Foreign visitors also say they don't think we are making much of an effort to attract international travelers. That is costing communities across our country billions of dollars in lost revenue. In fact, one study suggested over $182 billion has been lost since September 11, 2001.

In my State of Colorado, the travel and tourism industry is a strong economic engine. It is one we have to keep strong and in which we have to invest. Part of that is in changing the perception that the United States is not interested in hosting foreign tourists. That is the point of this legislation. The legislation before us would help revive international travel to the United States so we can get that economic engine revved up to its full capacity.

The purpose of the bill is to sell travel to the United States to overseas tourists, including areas that are not well-known destinations. Of course, the Presiding Officer's State is also a place where we want to attract people to its wonderful beaches and wonderful historical sites in the great State of Delaware.

Let me tell you quickly some of the details in this legislation. It would establish a Corporation for Travel Promotion which would be an independent,

nonprofit corporation governed by an 11-member board that the Secretary of Commerce would appoint. It would create an Office of Travel Promotion in the Department of Commerce to develop the programs to increase the number of international visitors to the United States. And it would set up a travel promotion fund which would be financed by private-public matching dollars. Much of the cost would be borne by international travelers who would pay a $10 fee collected through the electronic system for travel authorization.

Other countries are spending billions of dollars on travel promotions. Those of us who sponsored this legislation and hopefully will vote for it overwhelmingly at the end of this week think we should stay competitive with other countries. The Travel Promotion Act would directly contribute to the economic recovery of our travel and tourism industry. It would spur job growth, and it would contribute to the tax base of local, regional, and State governments, many of which are forced to make, as we know all too well, drastic cuts in this tough economic time.

As well, before I close, I wish to mention that there are nonfinancial benefits to international travel as well. I wish to quote that great American Mark Twain. He said:

Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-

mindedness.

America's image in the world, as we know, has suffered greatly over the past several years, but travel to our country, to America, is one of our most effective tools of public diplomacy. Studies have shown over and over that when people come to our country, they return home with a very positive view of not just our country as it is described in the books but the landscapes and the people and the way we live our lives. In addition to helping strengthen our economy, this bill would strengthen our place in the world.

I end by thanking and acknowledging the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Rockefeller, the ranking member, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Dorgan for quickly bringing this legislation to the floor. I look forward to the passage of the Travel Promotion Act so we can continue to get travel and tourism and, of course, our economy back on track.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss a bill that I introduced, which seeks to rehabilitate an important irrigation and flood control system that is vital to serving the agricultural and flood protection needs in Southwestern Colorado.

More than 100 years ago, both Indian and non-Indian communities utilized the water from the Los Pinos or Pine River to irrigate areas of Southwest Colorado. As the population and local agriculture grew, so did the need for more advanced infrastructure. In 1936, the Pine River Indian Irrigation Project was authorized by Congress in the Department of Interior Appropriation Act, and in 1937 the project grew the system's capacity to provide water for over 63,000 acres of land. The development of this project provided much needed protection for crops and communities from spring floods and summer drought.

Today, similar forces of population growth and a steady demand for irrigated water are exacerbated by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, creating a need for a stronger system. The Government Accountability Office has found the deterioration of key project facilities to be severe. As deferred maintenance and upkeep mount, there is a growing threat to water conservation efforts, a reliable water supply, growth in agricultural production, economic sustainability, a safe community, and, equally important, the preservation of culture and livelihood of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. Though the Southern Ute Tribe and others who live along the Pine River understand the hazards presented by aging infrastructure, more needs to be done to comprehend the full extent of these hazards.

Tribal members, who would like to bring idle lands back into agricultural production and continue as good stewards of the land, cannot be sure if much-needed water will get to their lands as a result of failed structures, overdue maintenance, and inadequate funding. Now, the estimated costs to rehabilitate the system far exceed the ability of water users to pay for improvements while managing profitable operations.

The Pine River Indian Irrigation Project Act of 2009 would fix decades of neglect and inadequate funding for the Pine River Indian Irrigation Project. This legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to fully assess the needs of the Pine River Indian Irrigation Project. It would also grant the authority to the Secretary of the Interior to provide grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements with the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of Colorado to assess and repair infrastructure so that it more suitably meets user needs. The funding that would be provided in this bill is an essential step toward assuring that both Indians and non-Indians have access to the water they need, when they need it. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move this bill toward passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am here to add my voice to the strong bipartisan support for the bill before us today. I also thank Senator Ted Kennedy for his tireless effort to shepherd its success. While this legislation is long overdue, I think it is especially timely and appropriate that we have the opportunity to see it signed into law in the midst of a historic health reform debate.

We have known for some time that one of the biggest obstacles we face in reforming our broken health care system is the nearly exponential rise in health care costs. An enormous contributor to these costs is the price tag for treating chronic disease and preventable illness, particularly the pulmonary disorders and throat and lung cancer that come with smoking.

What better way to help lower health care costs and promote wellness and prevention than by going after the No. 1 cause of preventable death and disease in this country? Coloradans currently pay taxes to cover over $1 billion per year in smoking and tobacco-driven costs. That is nearly $600 per Colorado household.

As we are struggling to find ways to pay for a revamped health care system that provides quality care to everyone who needs it, let's have part of that pay-for be this bill by preventing millions of American children and teens from becoming addicted to a product that is really a one-way ticket to disease, cancer, and many times death.

While I have been disturbed by so many of the sobering facts, figures, and statistics we have heard throughout this debate, there is one in particular that I think really drives home the underlying issue here: 90 percent of current adult smokers were addicted by the age of 18.

That means that, in order to maintain its bottom line, big tobacco isn't finding new customers in our age range. The only way for them to continue making big profits is to target what they have, in the past, deemed ``their base'': our children. As a father, it terrifies me to know that tobacco companies view our children as ``replacement smokers.''

As tobacco companies continue to find more creative ways to get kids to join their customer base through deceptive marketing and other tactics, parents must continue to educate their children about the dangers of smoking. But we can give them a helping hand by ensuring that youth magazines aren't full of colorful ads tailored specifically to make them the new generation of smokers--tailored to encourage addiction. We can help them by ensuring that the convenience store across the street from their kids' high school doesn't have an advertised ``back-to-school'' special on newly introduced fruit- flavored tobacco products, displayed prominently next to their shelves of gum and candy products. As we have heard from my colleagues who have spoken before me, practices like these have been documented, and they are horribly unacceptable.

In addition to many important tools this legislation would give to the FDA to protect children and consumers, this bill will allow the agency to restrict tobacco advertising, especially to children; prevent sales to youth; improve and strengthen warning labels on products; prevent misleading marketing and misrepresentation; regulate and remove many of the hazardous chemicals and ingredients used to make tobacco products more addictive--and many times more deadly.

Because this bill is, at its root, about people, I would like to share the story of a Coloradan who knew firsthand the effects of cigarette smoke and spent many years fighting to keep kids safe.

First diagnosed with throat cancer in 2002, David Hughes was a musician, Colorado outdoorsman and cave explorer, father, and husband. Having begun his smoking habit as a teenager, he quit cigarettes upon diagnosis and bravely endured 70 radiation treatments, chemotherapy, and successful surgery. Feeling as if he had a new lease on life, David went back to school and started a woodworking business, spent even more time with his wife Kathy and son Nathan, and volunteered with the Loveland Alliance on Smoking and Health to fight for smoke-free air for his family and community. He worked especially hard to keep cigarettes out of the hands of children, knowing firsthand the lifelong addiction that can come from being exposed to tobacco early on.

Unfortunately, 4 years later, the cancer returned--this time to his lungs--eventually taking his life on June 4, 2008, but not without a spirited fight fueled by an infectiously positive attitude and love for his family and friends.

David's wife Kathy has called 2009 her and Nathan's year of ``adventurous recovery.'' I hope getting this bill signed into law will help, if even in just a small way, give them the energy to continue their adventure and give them the peace of mind of knowing that their father and husband's powerful advocacy on behalf of this cause will help prevent other families from experiencing similar heartache and loss.

David's story underscores the importance of this legislation to real people and the affect it can have on real lives.

The time to act on this bill is now. The idea for the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act has been around for over a decade, and the provisions contained in this version have been debated and polished by countless capable policymakers. The FDA is the only agency that combines the scientific know-how and regulatory authority to get the job done. This bill is fiscally responsible and fully paid for through user fees to tobacco companies.

Given the current rate of tobacco use, it is estimated that 92,000 Colorado kids alive in my home State today could ultimately die of smoking. While the long-term goal is to shrink this figure to zero, let's pass this legislation this week and put a significant dent in such an overwhelming and unacceptable number.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 137 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 139 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 157.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 166, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.