Floor Statements

Mr. President, I seek recognition under the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. President, I come today to speak in general about the farm bill, which we are debating, more correctly called the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, and also to speak about some of the amendments proposed to it.

This is an essential piece of legislation. I am proud to have been part of both committees that have brought separate parts of this legislation forward and to have been able to work together in a bipartisan fashion to craft a bill in the Senate I believe very effectively addresses the food and fiber needs of our Nation as we move forward.

This legislation impacts the lives of families across this Nation and around the world through providing food security, enabling global competitiveness, and ensuring a better environment. I have been pleased to work with my colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, and others in Congress to craft a bill that builds upon previous farm bills for a stronger Federal farm policy.

The legislation includes essential provisions, such as the new specialty crops subtitle that strengthens the specialty crop block grant and other important programs. I thank Senator Stabenow, Senator Craig, and others for working with me on this effort. I also thank the committee for its commitment to helping us be sure that these new specialty crop provisions have been included in the legislation. There has been confusion because, although we have included specialty crops in the legislation this year, they have not been included as a commodity crop, in those crops that are covered by the commodity programs. Instead, they are included in ways that will help them to obtain better technical assistance and grant programs so they can facilitate and enhance their development, the growing of these crops, and the marketing of them; but they don't technically, under this bill or in any way, participate in the commodity programs.

I also thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley on the Finance Committee for helping to craft a tax title for the farm bill that, in addition to its many other strong provisions, includes improvements to the Endangered Species Act, through tax incentives for landowners, to help them with species recovery. This is a piece of legislation Senators Baucus and Grassley have agreed to cosponsor with me, as well as many other Senators, both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. It is one we have worked on for years to try to find a bipartisan path forward, where those who are concerned about the preservation and recovery of species, as well as those who are concerned about the impacts of our efforts on private property owners, can come together with a proposal that will help us to facilitate the recovery of endangered species.

One little-known fact is approximately 80 percent of the threatened or endangered species in the United States are located on private property. It is critical we bring forward the assistance of private property owners and incentivize their involvement in the recovery of these threatened and endangered species. That is what this legislation will do.

I wish to take some time to talk more about other important aspects of the farm bill and some changes being proposed. In order to do so, I wish to explain what many people don't understand when we talk about the farm bill. We discuss the farm bill as though it were a bill that focused on production agriculture, and certainly it does.

The commodity title I referenced and the conservation title I will reference in a minute both focus closely on production agriculture but not solely on it. What goes unnoticed in these debates is the farm bill is a very broad bill that deals with a multitude of critical issues in our Nation relating to the production of food and fiber. It has 11 titles--titles on commodities and conservation, as I have indicated; titles on trade, nutrition, rural development, credit, research, forestry, energy, livestock, and other miscellaneous provisions.

One other little known or little focused on fact relating to the farm bill is the commodity title, which we most often talk about, represents only 14 percent of the funding allocated in the bill. The conservation title, which is another one of those we talk about a lot, only represents about 9 percent of the funding in the bill. The nutrition portion of the farm bill includes almost two-thirds--in fact, a little over two-thirds of the funding in the bill, 67.2 percent, is allocated to the nutrition program. I will talk about those as well as I go forward.

My point is this is a very broad-based bill. It is one that impacts rural and urban areas. It deals with the importance of food and fiber in many different contexts, from feeding a nation and clothing a nation to engaging in international trade, to our security as a nation, and to many other aspects of our lives. As I said earlier, it literally impacts people not only throughout this country but throughout the world.

Let me move on and talk about a couple of those titles. The first one I will go to is the commodity program and the commodity title.

I am concerned with efforts that have been introduced in some amendments to the bill on the floor that would lower selected loan rates, including the rates for barley, wheat, oats, wool, and honey loan rates--reduce them back down to the 2002 farm bill levels and then divert the funding saved by that reduction into the nutrition title and other titles of the bill.

I certainly understand and don't question the importance of our nutrition programs and other programs being targeted for this diverted funding. But it is important to note that under this farm bill, nutrition funding already accounts for over two-thirds of the funding in the bill, with only 14 percent allocated to commodities.

Much work has been done in this bill to try to provide adequate support for farm families across our Nation, while carefully balancing the limited funding available to each title of the bill.

Additionally, adjustments or corrections have been made to loan rates to better ensure the loan rates don't distort planting decisions. That is very critical in our World Trade Organization negotiations. Under the 2007 farm bill, we have the rates established in a way that will assist us in our global trade negotiations. Specifically, the

adjustments in the Senate bill increase the loan rates for wheat, barley, oats, and minor oilseeds to 85 percent of the Olympic average for prices between 2002 and 2006. For those who don't pay attention to what all that means, the bottom line is it is important, as we move forward in the commodity program, that we not establish programs that distort planting decisions by farmers; otherwise, we will be accused of improper subsidy or improper trade-impacting decisions and policies that will be challenged in world trade negotiation arenas.

Loan rates for crops that compete for acres must be set at similar percentages of recent market prices or they can affect production decisions when prices are expected to be near or below loan levels.

Farmers and their lenders take price support from the loan program into consideration in making planting decisions. Current loan rates under the 2002 farm bill were heavily skewed in favor of and against different crops, ranging from 69 percent to 111 percent of the Olympic average during the years 2002 through 2006. It is these variations that create planting decision distortions we need to avoid.

Efforts to strike the changes we have made and divert the funding will prolong the existing disparity in the current farm bill, a policy which has been a factor of loss of wheat, barley, oats, and minor oilseeds to increased production in other commodities.

Our producers work to feed our country and people of nations across the world, while also dealing with high levels of regulation and taxation, labor shortages, droughts, and other natural disasters and ever-increasing input costs, substantial foreign market barriers, and other factors that put them at a disadvantage in a very competitive world market.

We have to ensure our farm families have the necessary support as they continue to work to remain successful, while factoring in and facing these increased challenges.

I ask other Senators in the Chamber to stand with me in supporting this careful balance we have reached in the bill and to vote against amendments or other efforts to eliminate the loan rate rebalancing and other commodity program support.

I also wish to talk about, in the commodity title, the importance of pulse crop support.

As amendments are being considered to strike portions of the farm bill, I wish to discuss the history and importance of support for pulse crops in this farm bill.

Pulse crops are cool season legumes that can withstand the cool temperatures of the northern tier of the United States. Pulse crops are such things as dry peas, lentils, small chickpeas, and large chickpeas. These cool season, nitrogen-fixing legumes are grown across the northern tier of the United States in rotation with wheat, barley, and other minor oilseeds.

In the late 1990s, when agriculture prices for commodities struggled, bankers steered growers away from raising pulse crops because they did not have the farm program safety net provided to other crops in their rotation.

In 1999, dry pea acres dropped by 55 percent. The pulse industry responded by requesting full program crop status for pulse crops as a way to keep the nitrogen-fixing legumes in the crop rotation with other program crops. Again, as we worked with issues in the previous farm bill, this was an area that needed adjustment and attention.

In 2002, I worked with the industry and other Members of Congress to include dry peas, lentils, and small chickpeas in the 2002 farm bill. Specifically, the industry was granted a marketing assistance loan program for dry peas, lentils, and small chickpeas.

Pulse crops are very good for the environment and for the overall soil health. The citizens of our country demand that our farm programs protect the long-term sustainability of our agricultural production. These legumes generate their own nitrogen and require no processed fertilizer to produce a crop.

Pulses fix nitrogen in the soil, which supplies a 40-pound-per-acre nitrogen credit to the following crop in the rotation, such as wheat, barley, and other minor oilseeds. Pulse crops and soybeans are the only farm program crops that do not require nitrogen fertilizer.

The carbon footprint of pulses and soybeans is lower than any other farm program crop because of their ability to generate their own nitrogen.

The farm bill provides us with the opportunity to encourage our Nation's farmers to protect the long-term sustainability of our soils. Including pulse crops in farm programs provides a safety net to other program crops and, therefore, encourages crop diversity and sustainability. Once again, it is an issue of favoring one crop over another with the unintended impact on the soils of our Nation.

Stripping pulse crops out of the farm programs, as some are proposing, would encourage farmers in the northern tier to shift production to those crops with a safety net in periods of low prices. This shift in production would upset the delicate environmental balance that pulse crops provide to overall soil health and sustainability and would result in acreage loss.

I encourage my fellow Senators to oppose amendments that would strip pulse crops and support for them from the farm bill.

Let me shift for a moment to the conservation title. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Rural Revitalization, Conservation, and Forestry, I wish to take a few minutes to evaluate and discuss the critical importance of the conservation title.

The programs authorized through the conservation title of the farm bill provide landowners with both financial and technical assistance necessary to bring real environmental results. In fact, I have said many times that of all the legislation we consider in these Chambers year in and year out, it is the farm bill that provides the most significant protection and support of our environment than any other legislation we consider. Conservation programs are the backbone of the Federal conservation and environmental policy.

The farm bill before us provides $4.4 billion in new conservation spending. The legislation builds on current successful conservation programs and needed enhancements to make them work better for our producers. It provides $1.28 billion in new spending for a program named the Conservation Stewardship Program. Funding is provided for continuation of the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Grasslands Reserve Program.

The Wetlands Reserve Program would be provided with funds to enroll 250,000 new acres per year through 2012, and the Grasslands Reserve Program would have sufficient resources to work in a similar fashion from 2008 through 2012.

As of fiscal year 2006, more than 9,000 wetland reserve sites have been enrolled and improved on more than 1 million acres of land in the United States. There are more than 900,000 acres enrolled in the Grasslands Reserve Program, providing habitat for more than 300 migratory birds species that rely on this prairie habitat.

The Conservation Reserve Program would be maintained at its 39.2 million acres. This program has reduced cropland soil loss by about 450 million tons. It has restored 2 million acres of wetlands, protected 170,000 miles of streams, and sequestered 48 million tons of carbon dioxide through 2006.

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program would be continued with $85 million per year through the year 2012.

The Farmland and Ranchlands Protection Program would also be authorized at $97 million per year. Easements on nearly 2,000 farms and ranches have been enabled through this program. It is estimated that almost 384,000 acres of prime, unique, and important farmland soil on the urban fringe have been or will be permanently protected from conversion to nonagricultural uses with these easements.

These are just some of the programs that are included in the conservation title of the farm bill. I understand and share the interest of many who want to increase funding for conservation programs, and as a strong supporter and proponent of these programs, I believe we will all benefit from these investments in conservation. However, I think we should be very careful where we look to obtain these funding increases. A strong farm bill is one that carefully balances each of the items, as I have indicated before.

I have indicated that the nutrition title represents almost or little more

than two-thirds of the funding in the bill. Nutrition in our schools remains an issue of critical importance for all Americans. As a father, I understand the positive effects that good nutrition has in helping a child develop and learn throughout the course of a schoolday.

In addition, I am troubled by the fact that the percentage of overweight young Americans has more than doubled in the past 30 years. I have been a strong proponent of programs that increase access to healthy foods for our children in schools. One example is the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The farm bill would expand this existing limited program to every State in the United States and the District of Columbia and would require that at least 100 of the chosen participating schools be located on Indian reservations.

I applaud the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee for working toward these commonsense solutions and programs to support positive steps in nutrition for our children and others across our Nation. But as I said earlier, I also must express my concerns with proposals that seek to regulate food and beverage choices in schools from the Federal level.

I am wary of Federal policies that interfere with the local autonomy of State and local schools in this matter. In addition, studies have shown that parents and educators need to work with our youth to educate them about the right choices they can make for dietary health. The best way to get a child to do something different is to tell them they cannot do it sometimes. Instead of dictating to our children, we have a responsibility to teach them about their choices and encourage them to make the right choices for themselves.

The rural development title also has much assistance for America. Throughout the farm bill debate, there has been much discussion regarding investing in rural communities across our Nation, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity today to highlight just a few of the ways in which this farm bill helps us to further invest in rural America.

One of the things we have noticed, as we have seen economic decline in rural America, is that we must build the infrastructure in our rural communities so they can have access to the increasing markets overseas and nationally. It has become apparent to me that the effect of our Federal environmental rules and regulations is also felt most heavily in small and rural communities. These communities do not have the economies of scale because of the small population for very expensive updating required for their water and wastewater systems that they must do in order to comply with Federal law. Something a large urban community could handle can literally bankrupt a smaller community seeking to comply with our clean water and safe drinking water standards. Because of that, I have fought for years to promote a program called Project Search which we established in the 2002 farm bill to provide small rural communities with financial assistance to help them comply with these regulations.

Through the changes made to Project Search's model, small, financially distressed communities in Idaho and across the Nation will now have increased and more streamlined access to Federal assistance in the early stages of water, wastewater, and waste disposal projects. This will help them keep their water clean and help them do so in a way that allows the community to avoid financial ruin.

This farm bill has also made critical reforms to the Rural Broadband Loan Program ensuring that broadband access is provided to those communities with the greatest need.

The Connect the Nation matching grant program will be added to benchmark current broadband access programs and build GIS service maps to promote greater accuracy and understanding of our Nation's broadband networks.

I am also pleased that this farm bill will reauthorize the National Rural Development Partnership.

There are many other important programs included within the rural development title that will have a major impact on our rural communities. Again, I thank my colleagues for working with us to make this part of the title effective.

There are only two more titles about which I want to talk. One is the energy title. The largest energy reserves in our Nation reside in the farmland and forests across this country. Let me say that again. The largest energy reserves in our Nation reside in our farmland and forests across this country.

In order to provide for national energy security, it has become clear that agriculture is a part of the solution. For far too long we have been dependent almost entirely on petroleum as our major source of energy in this Nation. We are far too dependent not only on petroleum but on foreign sources of petroleum. And as anyone working with a portfolio would say, we must diversify. That is why I have supported many of the provisions in this farm bill to move our Nation into more diverse forms of alternative and renewable fuels.

Let's take, for example, biomass. The stored energy in biomass worldwide amounts to approximately 50 billion tons of crude oil equivalent units every year, over five times our current energy needs.

Using 17 million tons of biomass a year for energy could produce up to 7,000 new primary jobs, displace 6.8 million tons of CO2 from natural gas-fired powerplants, and generate renewable carbon credits that might eventually be worth more than $200 million.

Through research, we can expand and harness a good part of that astronomical potential, and that is why we included biomass provisions in this bill, provisions such as the Crop Transition Program, that will stimulate production and ease transition toward perennial biomass crops. Mr. President, $172 million would be provided over 5 years for this program.

There would be competitive research grants of $75 million for biomass to bioenergy programs, focusing on increasing process efficiency and utilization of byproducts, and providing for a regional bioenergy program that is awarded competitively to land grant universities.

I also support a strong focus in this bill on biofuels. We have long recognized the value in providing homegrown fuel in the form of ethanol. It is cleaner, it is renewable, and it reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

As we move forward, it is also clear that as we approach the maximum production limits of our starch ethanol, we also need to move into cellulosic ethanol which must be a primary component of our Nation's ethanol portfolio. America's energy demand will increase 30 percent over the next 22 years, and biofuels are critical to that increase.

Finally, I wish to talk about the trade portion of our bill. As Congress moves forward in a farm bill debate, we often wonder what is the future of American agriculture. I wish to discuss one very important piece of it because it is very clear to all of us that a major part of our future in American agriculture lies beyond our borders. Agriculture production in the State of Idaho is a great example.

According to statistics from the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, if Idahoans had to consume all the farm products produced within the State, every day each resident would have to eat 52 potatoes, 240 slices of bread, 38 glasses of milk or 1.9 pounds of cheese, two quarter-pound hamburgers, two onions, and the list goes on and on. The point being, we depend on other markets for our successful agricultural programs, and trade support must be a critical part of our agricultural programs in this farm bill.

This farm bill contains a number of programs such as the Market Access Program, the Foreign Market Development Program, and the Technical Assistance Program for Specialty Crops, which I talked about earlier, to name a few.

One final point. Senator Baucus and I have offered an amendment with regard to trade with Cuba. The future success of our agricultural programs and the ability of this Nation to remain globally competitive depend on our ability to have access to markets beyond our borders. There is a huge debate in this country about whether we should continue to refuse or to limit our trade with Cuba or whether to open trade with Cuba, and I am one of those who believes we should open it.

I recognize we face in Cuba and in the Castro Government a brutal dictatorship, one in which human rights and

civil rights are not recognized or honored in any way realistically. But for us to refuse to trade with them, in my opinion, does nothing to solve that problem and does everything to reduce the opportunities of the United States to influence Cuba, both on economic levels, as well as political levels.

If we look at the economic impact on the United States, our refusal to sell our agricultural products to Cuba does not mean that Cubans cannot eat or they cannot gain these agricultural products. They simply buy them from somewhere else--Canada, Europe, or other places.

Yet if we were to open our trade with Cuba and allow more aggressive U.S. marketing of agricultural products there, a recent study by the trade commission says that exports of fresh fruits and vegetables would likely increase by $37 million to $68 million in exports; milk powder exports would more than double; processed food exports would see a $26 million increase; wheat exports would be doubled to $34 million; and exports of dry beans would increase by $9 million, up to $22 million, to give a few examples.

The point is, there are markets in Cuba for our goods which our producers need to be able to take advantage of, and we will do nothing but increase our ability to work with the people of Cuba to address the political issues they face by doing so.

If we want to have a positive impact on the people of Cuba and the pressures they face under the regime in which they live, then we should open trade, open travel, and open communication so we can take to them an opportunity to see the freedom we experience here and to experience the power of open and free markets.

That is why Senator Baucus and I have introduced this legislation, and I hope the Senators here will support this amendment to this critical bill to help the United States in this one area move forward.

When we have significant trade with a nation such as China across the Pacific Ocean, yet we will not open significant trade with a neighbor such as Cuba, 90 miles off our shore, we need to reevaluate the effectiveness of our foreign policy, not only in terms of its impact on U.S. producers but in terms of its impact on our ability to truly reach out and cause the kind of positive change in Cuba that will help them achieve the kind of political freedom and avoid the kinds of oppression and human rights pressures they now face.

I have talked about a number of the portions of the farm bill. There are other very critical portions as well. The bottom line is we have an opportunity in the Senate this month, if we will deal with the amendments that are pending, to move forward on a very critical piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that, as I indicated, deals with the food and fiber of our Nation and the ability of our people and of people globally to have a better diet, to have a better opportunity to participate in global markets, and a stronger and cleaner environment.

I hope that as we move through this process, we will not make changes to the bill that will make it worse, that instead we will simply adopt those improving proposals and then hopefully soon send on to the House this very significant and important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Before she leaves the floor, I commend my colleague Senator Lincoln. I agree with her strong defense and support of America's farmers, particularly our family farms and the need for a farm bill. She and I may come from different parties, but we have shown that you can work together. I consider her to be one of my very good friends and allies as we work toward good policy. I appreciate the opportunity to sit here and hear her remarks. It is great to see someone stand up and respond to the attacks we see coming against American agriculture. It seems every time we have a farm bill, the attacks begin again. Yet it is in America where the American consumers spend the lowest percentage of their disposable income on food and fiber because we have such strong farm policies.

I also agree with her comments about the need for us to remember we are in global markets. Those who produce food and fiber in other nations have tremendous subsidies from their governments where their governments enable them to compete unfairly against our producers. In fact, not only do their governments provide unfair, extensive subsidies to their producers, they also erect significant anticompetitive trade barriers, both tariff and nontariff trade barriers, so that the products they send to us are subsidized and the products we try to send to them are stopped at the border because of these barriers. It is because of these kinds of international market circumstances and the global competition we face these days that it is important for us to recognize the role of the farm bill in helping American producers level that playing field.

Again, I appreciate so much the opportunities I have had to work with Senator Lincoln on this and many other issues. We have worked together to strengthen and improve American policy.

I came to talk about the farm bill, and I will do that. But before doing so, I want to talk a little bit about the process, because I am very disturbed by the position the Senate is in right now. We could have been debating amendments to the farm bill for a week or two now. Instead we have been stalled by a procedure that has filled the amendment tree, for those who don't follow the rules of the Senate. The amendment tree has been filled up so no one can file amendments to the farm bill. Yet I understand there are over 260 amendments that have been prepared and which are out there waiting in the wings from different Members of the Senate. We are not going to see all 260 of those amendments debated and voted on. That never happens. But we should see a significant number of them debated and voted on.

Those of us who serve on the Agriculture Committee or the Finance Committee have seen both pieces of this farm bill be very vigorously debated at the committee level with all sorts of amendments and work developing the right kinds of process. Now it is time for that same process to occur here on the floor. Yet we have not seen one amendment allowed to be brought forward. The farm bill affects so many people's lives through providing food and fiber and security and enabling global competitiveness and ensuring a better environment. I could go on. But we must allow all Senators the opportunity to bring forth amendments they believe need to be debated before we have the final vote on the farm bill.

We have all heard by now the debate here in the Chamber and in other places about numbers, highlighting the multiple rollcall votes we have had on previous farm bill debates. Let me review a few of those. According to the information I have, during the 2002 farm bill debate, which is the most recent farm bill we have had, there were 49 amendment votes, including 25 rollcall votes. In 1996, on the farm bill preceding the current one, there were 26 amendment votes, including 11 rollcall votes. And during the farm bill debate previous to that in 1990, there were 113 votes, including 22 rollcalls. In 1985, there were 88 votes, 33 of which were rollcalls. Yet now during this debate or nondebate, we have had zero votes on any amendments because the amendment tree has been blocked.

I am discouraged by that because we could have made significant progress on this farm bill. Now what we see is a maneuver which is proposing that cloture be entered which would cut off debate on the farm bill and push it forward without giving us the opportunity for a full and robust debate on amendments.

I encourage our leadership on both sides to get past this impasse. I know there has been a lot of progress made in terms of an effort to limit the number of amendments and try to get a determination of how many amendments will be allocated to each side and allow us to move forward. But for whatever reason, we haven't been able to get that agreement resolved. The farm bill is too important for these kinds of partisan politics and maneuvers. I know there are concerns about certain amendments that may be brought. There are some on either side, depending on the amendment, who would prefer not to see the amendment brought because it could cause an embarrassing vote on behalf of some Members. I will face that same dynamic as amendments are brought forward. There will be amendments that will be difficult to face. But it is something we must do. It is the tradition of the Senate that we fully deliberate on matters such as this and that debate is not closed down.

I say again to our majority leader and our minority leader, we need to work together, avoid cloture votes, and avoid restrictions that prohibit Members from bringing their debate forward in this Chamber and allow us to have a full and robust debate so we can move the farm bill forward.

I remain committed to working together to move this farm bill forward in the Senate through a full, fair, and open process, and I hope we can get to one soon.

Now, let me turn to my comments on the farm bill itself. Many people say we should not call it the farm bill--in fact, I think it actually does have a different title now--because the farm bill is much more than just a bill that deals with commodities programs.

In fact, the farm bill, with the new addition of the Finance Committee title, will have 11 titles in it, only one of which is the commodities title. There are other titles dealing with rural development, with energy policy, and, as most people are not aware, with the food programs of our Nation.

In fact, if you look at the allocation of resources in the farm bill, only about 14 percent of the cost of the farm bill is truly allocated to the agricultural commodity programs. Over 60 percent--I think around 66 percent--of the cost of the bill goes to our Nation's food programs, such as our Food Stamp Program and the other programs that we have in international aid.

Then there are the programs dealing with conservation, which I am going to talk about in a minute, which is probably the most significant conservation effort in which this Congress gets engaged in any kind of an ongoing basis. Yet far too few Americans realize the commitment to the preservation and conservation and improvement of our environment that is contained in the farm bill.

There are more than 25,000 farms and ranches in Idaho producing more than 140 commodities statewide. Idaho leads or is ranked among the top States in the production of potatoes, peas, lentils, mint, sugar beets, onions, hops, dairy products, wheat, wool, cherries, and other commodities. Therefore, the farm bill is of vital importance to a more than $4 billion Idaho agricultural industry, which is an essential part of Idaho's economy.

In preparation for this farm bill authorization, like Chairman Harkin and

Ranking Member Chambliss, the House Agriculture Committee and former Agriculture Secretary Johanns, and others, I sought input from producers and those interested in the farm bill throughout the townhall meetings and hearings I had in Idaho, and I listened to many of my constituents voice their criticisms, bring forward their suggestions, and bring forward their praise of the last farm bill--the current farm bill under which we are operating.

What I heard loudly and clearly was that the basic structure of the 2002 farm bill is solid, and rather than starting from scratch, we should make changes to it and improvements to that basic structure as needed but not lose that structure that has been so helpful to our farmers and to our rural communities in particular throughout America. I have been pleased to work with my colleagues on the Senate Ag Committee and in the Congress in general to craft a bill that I believe sticks with that principle.

The bill before us today does not wipe away existing farm policy but builds on it for a stronger Federal farm policy. As Senator Lincoln indicated, it makes some very significant and needed reforms to move in the direction of addressing the concerns that many have raised about some inequities in the farm bill processes.

The legislation includes essential provisions, such as the new specialty crops subtitle that strengthens specialty crop block grants and other important programs. I have appreciated working with Senator Stabenow, Senator Craig, and others on this effort, and I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss and Senator Conrad and others who have worked with us in shaping Federal farm policy that bolsters U.S. agriculture through provisions such as these specialty crop programs.

Additionally, I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley on the Finance Committee for the time they spent in crafting a tax title for the farm bill that enables us to make some additions and tweaks that were needed. It has been an honor to be one of the Senators who serves on both the Finance and Agriculture Committees, the two committees with products that will be merged together on the floor of the Senate to make up this year's farm bill.

There are a number of highlights in the tax title of the farm bill I want to mention. In the tax title of the farm bill, I worked with several Senators to include improvements to the Endangered Species Act through incentives for landowners to assist with species recovery. For years we have struggled with the burden that the Endangered Species Act puts on private property owners. Notably, about 80 percent of the endangered or threatened species in America are found on private property. Yet we have put the burden of protecting and preserving and recovering those species unduly on our private property owners.

This bill I have introduced and worked on with many others in the Senate will provide participants with the option of a tax credit instead of the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Grasslands Reserve Program.

This farm bill also provides support for wheat, barley, sugar, wool, and pulse crop producers. Pulse crops would become eligible for Counter-Cyclical Program assistance.

The Noninsured Assistance Program would provide coverage for aquacultural producers who are impacted by drought.

There are significant investments in energy programs that would assist producers with efforts that support energy independence.

Changes to Project SEARCH would allow financially distressed rural communities in Idaho and nationwide to access increased Federal assistance for their water infrastructure needs.

The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program would be significantly expanded to enable all States to participate. Expanding this program nationwide will further the effort to provide healthy food choices for our children. This program is a win-win for children, students, and producers.

I have visited Idaho schools and have seen firsthand how the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program has been a big support to our students, and I look forward to seeing the additional benefits brought through this program by making it available to more students.

There are many other provisions of importance in this extensive legislation that I could bring up and review, but instead I want to just focus on one vital area of the bill--the conservation title-- before concluding my remarks.

I have appreciated having the opportunity to work with my colleagues on the conservation title, which provides landowners with both the financial and technical assistance necessary to achieve real environmental results.

As I said earlier, no Federal policy contributes more to the improvement and protection of our environment than the farm bill, through the incentive-driven conservation programs. The conservation title provides $4.4 billion in new spending for conservation programs. The title continues with the current combination of conservation programs with improvements to make them work.

For example, the Senate farm bill makes changes to the EQIP, or Environmental Quality Incentives Program, to ensure that private forest land owners receive the help they need to better manage their land.

Chairman Harkin made numerous changes to the Conservation Security Program, which has been renamed the Conservation Stewardship Program. The Senate farm bill provides $1.28 billion in new spending for that program.

There are also adjustments made to increase participation of specialty crop producers in the Conservation Stewardship Program, dedicated conservation program resources and higher technical assistance levels to increase participation of beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The title also provides added emphasis to encourage pollinator habitat improvements on agricultural and forest land.

Funding is provided for the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Grasslands Reserve Program, which did not have baseline funding starting in 2008. The Wetlands Reserve Program would be provided with funds to enroll 250,000 acres per year through 2012. The Grasslands Reserve Program would be provided with $240 million for fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

The Conservation Reserve Program would be maintained at 39.2 million acres. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program would be continued with $85 million per year for fiscal years 2008 through 2012. The Farmland Protection Program would be reauthorized at $97 million per year through the duration of the farm bill. The conservation title provides for the creation of a framework to facilitate the participation of farmers in greenhouse gas reduction and other environmental services markets.

Now, I understand the challenges faced in writing this farm bill and the significant investment that has been made in conservation programs, especially having to cover baseline shortfalls for the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Grasslands Reserve Program. However, a broader investment is needed in our conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Grasslands Reserve Program, so we can better capitalize on the conservation interest and needs across this Nation.

I will continue to work for investments in working lands conservation, such as the EQIP program and GRP, or Grasslands Reserve Program.

With any legislation that is as comprehensive as this, there are always provisions that each of us would like to see come out differently. However, on a whole, this bill before us builds upon past farm bills and sets U.S. agriculture on the right course. Throughout the crafting of this bill, it has been refreshing to see that more people are starting to understand each aspect of this important legislation. Truly, there are few pieces of legislation that have the ability to impact so many lives. This bill affects our Nation's food security, our global competitiveness, the condition of our air, water, and land, as well as many other aspects of our lives.

I look forward to getting past the impasse we face on the Senate floor and moving forward to a timely debate and the enactment of a farm bill that enables sound Federal farm policy.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, from humble beginnings as a seasonal fire fighter in Wyoming in the 1970s, Dick Smith built a fine career and developed an outstanding reputation as a Forest Service employee over his 35 years at the Agency. He retired from Federal service this fall, after achieving the position of Forest Supervisor for the Boise National Forest. Although we are thrilled that he is able to now enjoy retirement, his absence will indeed be felt, to the detriment of the Idaho foresting community. Before taking a position in the Clearwater National Forest, Dick worked seasonally in Alaska, Minnesota, and Wyoming. In the 1970s and 1980s, he developed a strong foundation in forest management, silviculture, fire and project planning and obtained a Master of Science in Forest Ecology. He worked for 15 years as a Forest Silviculturalist. From 1989 to 1999, Dick served as District Ranger in charge of overall management of the 460,000 acre Plains/ Thompson Falls District of the Lolo NF, in Plains, MT. During his tenure at this position, he earned a number of awards including the Forest Service Director's Excellence Award for ``Positive Action and Community Leadership'' for the District's mineral management program and the Forest Service Northern Regional Forester's Honor Award for ``Personal and Professional Excellence.'' His District received the 1995 National Salvage Award for effectively taking advantage of salvage opportunities in an environmentally sensitive manner following large bark beetle outbreaks and significant wildfire activity on the unit under his direction.

It is natural that such an individual would rise to the top in his agency, and Dick did exactly that. In 1999, the Forest Service brought him here to Washington to serve on the policy analysis staff, and it was at this time that I, too, was able to benefit from his hard work and expertise--directly. When I was first elected to the Senate, Dick came to work for me as a Brookings Institute Fellow for 6 months and I greatly benefited from his expertise and experience.

He returned to Idaho and was selected to serve as Supervisor of the 2.6 million acre Boise National Forest in 2003. This position entails coordinating forest management and supervisory activities with state agencies, other Federal agencies and the tribes. Then-Governor Dirk Kempthorne appointed him to serve on the board of the Idaho Rural Partnership and the Citizens Advisory Panel to the Policy Analysis Group for the University of Idaho.

While under Dick's leadership, the Boise National Forest was one of the first national forests to complete and implement a fuels management project under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Dick's diligence and commitment to intentional and effective forest management has placed the Boise National Forest at the forefront of implementing hazardous fuels treatment and initiatives that support aquatic restoration, noxious weed mitigation and recreation management. These endeavors are all the more challenging considering the growing wildland urban interface that characterizes the Boise National Forest.

While excelling at his job, Dick maintained his involvement in professional and community organizations. In addition to membership in the American Society of Foresters, Dick has been involved in Boy Scouts, Little League, Jaycees, Lions Club, and various leadership positions with the Rotary Club in the communities in which he has lived over the years.

Dick and his wife, Sandy, plan to stay in the Boise area for retirement, enjoying the outdoors hiking, camping, fishing, backpacking and skiing--fitting pursuits for a man who has worked so hard to preserve and manage Idaho's beautiful natural resources for future generations. I appreciate Dick's wisdom and insight over the years; I have depended on his analysis and advice on many forest management issues, and I wish him and Sandy well in the next chapter of their lives.

Mr. President, it is with mixed emotions that I bid farewell to a longtime member of my staff but, more importantly, a trusted friend of many years. Don Dixon has served as my State director of agriculture for the past 12 years. His service has been exemplary; nothing less can be imagined from Don--he is a man of the highest character, a man whose honesty, trustworthiness, kindness, intelligence, dependability and wisdom are firmly rooted in a foundation of humility. He came to me with a well-established reputation for fairness and extensive knowledge of Idaho agriculture. Throughout more than a decade of public service, I can honestly say that I have learned more from him than he from me. I have the highest regard for Don; he is irreplaceable. Fortunately, it is just Senate employment that he is leaving, and I get to enjoy his friendship and insight for years to come.

As a farmer with firsthand knowledge of the challenges faced by producers, Don has been reliable counsel to the agriculture community, the Idaho delegation and others as he has worked for sound agriculture policy. Don has been recognized for his dedication to agriculture through awards, such as the Governor's Excellence in Agriculture Award and induction in the Eastern Idaho Agricultural Hall of Fame. It is also nearly impossible to find an aspect of Idaho agriculture that Don has not been involved with through membership of organizations and councils, service on boards, and continuous outreach.

In addition to his experience, Don brings contagious enthusiasm and energy to everything he undertakes, and serves as not only a strong advocate for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but also provides exemplary counsel to fellow farmers and ranchers. Don's easy going personality is complemented by a sharp mind and quick

wit. Idaho agriculture has benefited in incalculable ways from his wisdom, wealth of hard-earned knowledge and his ability to see the bigger picture when it comes to dealing with issues important to Idaho's agriculture community such as water, land use, grazing and animal management, conservation, invasive species and community relations. His has been a voice of reason and calm in the sometimes thorny conflicts that occur between Federal, State and local agriculture regulations and issues. Don has been a tireless spokesman for Idaho's growers and ranchers, a community leader and a good friend to many. It has been an incredible honor and a pleasure to have him on my staff. Don has taught me many things, among them the wisdom of a gate wide enough to accommodate a tiller, and the vast array of Idaho scenery that can be even better appreciated when ``big'' lost in the Little Lost.

Don has been an essential part of my hometown office, in Idaho Falls; as a result, I share office space with Don when I am home. For most of us, the little things that make our offices ours say quite a bit about who we are. Don keeps a supply of Whoppers in his desk, finishes his coffee, cold, in the afternoons, tracks useful information--what Idahoans like to call ``scuttlebutt''--and keeps a dollar bill in his desk drawer. He has created many different storage options for himself in his office, has a reputation as a skilled charades player and color codes activities on his calendar. A little light-hearted personal work space analysis reveals that Don, a whopper of a fellow and true to his farming and ranching roots, is wisely frugal, keeps informed about his community, and is prepared for any emergency. He is creative, inventive and works hard to keep his friendships colorful, nurtured and long- lasting.

I want to thank Don for his many years of service, and thank his wife Georgia for her support as he has worked for me. The schedule isn't always the most family-friendly, and she, like Don, has braved it with a sense of humor and patience.

He has served Idahoans with excellence, and, as he takes the helm of the Idaho State Farm Services Agency, his knowledge, character and wisdom will continue to serve Idaho agriculture. I will miss him on my staff.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, in September, the Finance Committee held a hearing on the efficacy, over the past year, of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, or the Combat Meth Act, for short. The Combat Meth Act implemented restrictions on drugs that go into the production of methamphetamines. Methamphetamine abuse has devastated lives, families, and communities across our Nation and across the world. The testimony given at this hearing by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, and State agencies indicated that while the Combat Meth Act helped reduce the home production of methamphetamine across the U.S., it is now flowing at historic levels across our borders from countries where production controls are much less rigid.

A 2006 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration report found that my home State of Idaho had one of the highest rates of methamphetamine use in the preceding 12 months of those aged 12 and older. In rural Idaho, especially, the issue of methamphetamine abuse has almost become commonplace: I visit with local officials and community leaders to hear about problems affecting their community when I am home in Idaho. When I ask if it is still a problem, the response is almost always ``of course,'' as if the very question was a little naive. This troubles me greatly.

Thomas Siebel, chairman and founder of the highly successful Montana Meth Project, also testified at the September Finance Committee hearing on the Combat Meth Act. The Montana Meth Project was established in 2005 as a nonprofit organization created to reduce first-time methamphetamine use through public-service messaging, public policy and community outreach. In the 2 years since the project has been active in Montana, the State has gone from being fifth in the Nation for per capita meth use to 39th today--a staggering change. Adult meth use is down in Montana by as much as 70 percent. The Montana Meth Project is an example of a highly effective private sector education and prevention effort. This success is also good news for Arizona, Illinois and my State of Idaho, all three of which have started their own ``Meth Projects.'' While this is very encouraging, we have a long way to go.

Montana and Idaho are just two States that have been overwhelmingly affected by meth production, use and addiction. Rural communities nationwide have been hit particularly hard by the demand and presence of this lethal drug, creating major challenges for law enforcement, health and welfare and environmental protection agencies, not to mention our families and school systems.

I have been approached by police officers, community leaders, health advocates, school administrators, and criminal justice leaders about the severe toll that this drug takes on our citizens, particularly teens and young adults. They have witnessed destroyed relationships and families torn apart, all suffering from this drug that invades neighborhoods, friends, and families. According to Idaho's Department of Health and Welfare, the number of children in foster care increased by 40 percent between 2002 and 2006. Approximately 3,000 children enter foster care in Idaho every year; the majority of them are children of meth-addicted single mothers. Our children are the unwitting and helpless victims of this menacing drug epidemic.

There is some encouraging news but, as is the case with drug trafficking, it is tempered with alarming trends. In 1999, Idaho implemented an initiative to fight meth production, coordinating regional and State level law enforcement efforts. These efforts have proven highly successful. In 2000, 186 meth labs were seized. In 2004, the number had dropped to 38 thanks to this enhanced coordination strategy. According to Idaho law enforcement agencies, meth lab seizures are now at an all-time low, which has resulted in less danger to neighborhoods and communities, as well as to environmental protection workers who are responsible for doing clean up of these sites after they are seized.

At the Finance Committee hearing last month, Gary Kendall, director, State of Iowa Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy, testified that Iowa had also seen success with ``State and local prevention efforts'' and ``multijurisdictional task forces.''

At the national and international level, according to the State Department Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, since the passage last year of the Combat Meth Act, methamphetamine abuse has been trending slightly downward in the United States; unfortunately, worldwide consumption is growing. This is due in large part to the fact that, compared to organic illegal drugs such as

opiates and cocaine, methamphetamine is relatively easy to manufacture, can be produced just about anywhere and has a very substantial profit margin. It is the State Department's assessment that international mitigation and control of this disturbing worldwide trend can only be maintained by strong U.S. leadership. We have seen some success in recent months and years. During the first 6 months of this year, Operation Crystal Flow, a joint operation between the U.S. Government and governments in North and South America and West Asia, saw the halting, suspension or seizure of 53 tons of chemicals that go into meth production--so-called precursor drugs.

This operation was the joint effort of the International Narcotics Control Board through its Project Prism Task Force which includes the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and authorities in 126 other nations. This is just one of a number of international efforts in which the U.S. Government is participating.

With the crackdown here at home on methamphetamine production, the supply source has changed. Today, Mexico is the principal foreign supplier of methamphetamine to the United States. According to the State Department, 80 percent of drug addicts in Mexicali and Tijuana are using meth. Mexico itself has a very serious methamphetamine addiction problem among its population and, because of the success of the Combat Meth Act and activities undertaken by individual States, U.S. demand for the drug has gone south, so to speak. Meth from so- called ``superlabs'' in Mexico is reaching beyond the already- established demand of my State and surrounding western and southwestern States to other areas in the United States: we're seeing it in the Great Lakes, the Northeast, and Southeast.

Again, the lure of an enormous profit margin, coupled with the highly addictive nature of meth is a proven recipe for even greater disaster. The Mexican Government has been working over the past few years to exert more sweeping control of the movement of large amounts of methamphetamine precursor drugs. Our Government is working with the Mexican Government in ongoing border security and drug trafficking initiatives, but as supply lines are squelched in one area, they restart in other areas and other countries where controls and law enforcement are lacking. As I stated earlier, this is an international problem and efforts, led by the United States, must be global in scope.

According to the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, methamphetamine seizures have steadily increased. Although Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has increased its bilateral and multilateral drug interdiction efforts in recent years, and drug seizures are up, the supply is also increasing as it becomes the drug of choice for 15 to 16 million people worldwide.

Our work to combat meth is a multipronged process and, as I said earlier, rural areas and States have been hit particularly hard by this trend. Small towns in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and other States remain under siege by the meth epidemic. These are not communities with substantial numbers of law enforcement personnel and resources, massive revenue bases, or specialized departments and offices to fight back.

Recently, an Idahoan with over 20 years' experience working with drug-endangered children shared an idea with me on how to best fight the meth problem in rural communities. His recommendation was that the Federal Government should assist local communities in forming multi- organization, school, parent, and agency task forces to educate children and adults about the perils of meth addiction. He reminded me that these task forces exert community and peer pressure to report the presence of labs and those selling and using meth in the community. In Idaho, this approach has proven to be the most effective way to combat meth problems in our rural communities. Educating people before they try meth like the Montana Meth Project has done, enabling and energizing local collaborative task forces to spread the word that their communities say ``no'' to meth, and maintaining a zero tolerance policy that includes severe penalties for breaking the law, will help reduce demand and dry up supply.

Integral to fighting methamphetamine in our communities is educating our children. To that end in Idaho, I have partnered with the Idaho State Department of Education Safe and Drug Free Schools program and issued a call for high schools across my State to create public service announcements that seek to educate other students about the dangers of methamphetamine abuse, on the model of the highly successful Montana Meth Project. Getting our youth involved directly in this outreach and education effort will reduce the potential for methamphetamine use.

Considering the growing international methamphetamine epidemic, it is in our Nation's interest to remain very active in cooperative endeavors such as those in which the State Department, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security are currently involved. These successful programs deserve continued funding in order to stop the supply of meth coming into our neighborhoods.

It is time for our Nation to mobilize to fight this deadly drug. It is time to let foreign drug traffickers know that the United States is closed to meth business. We have witnessed enough children with ruined bodies, minds, and lives. We have seen enough adults abandon their parental and societal responsibilities for the lie that is a meth high. We have seen the tragedy of newborn babies taken away from mothers unable to care for them, and the infants themselves suffering the same terrible addiction.

Meth continues to ravage America's communities, large and small. This will require an increased effort from the Federal Government to bring an end to meth use and production in these places. It is especially important to focus Federal dollars where they are truly needed--in rural communities nationwide that don't have the manpower or other resources to fight this battle alone. I call on my colleagues to support critical effective efforts in their respective States to work toward meth-free communities, and to continue to support U.S. leadership and involvement in international drug trafficking interdiction and suppression efforts.

There are many things we can do from the Federal level to the State level to the local community and, frankly, the family and individual levels to fight meth in this country.

One of the most important findings is simply educating people about the risks involved in the use of methamphetamines. It is critical to our ability to reduce the demand and to be able to get a handle on fighting the supply.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, my distinguished friend and colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and I rise to engage our colleague from Iowa Chairman Harkin and our colleague from Pennsylvania in a colloquy.

I would like to share with my colleagues a pressing health concern facing the American public--COPD. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, is a growing public health threat in America. It is the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S. and is a major source of serious long-term disability. COPD kills more than 120,000 Americans each year--an average of one every 4 minutes.

Despite these alarming statistics, the United States does not have a coordinated approach to tracking COPD morbidity and mortality trends, identifying people at risk for COPD and ensuring they are evaluated by their physicians, and educating the public about the causes and symptoms of COPD.

Madam President, an Idahoan with the distinction, among other things, of being the oldest fire lookout in the Nation at age 89 retired from that important post and from the Federal Government in September. James A. ``Jim'' Sheridan concluded a long and dedicated career that began, at age 53, what could be called a second career in 1971, when he joined the Bureau of Land Management as a seasonal surveyor. In 1976, Jim became a fire prevention patrolman, and, at age 67, became the Mount Harrison seasonal lookout in the Sawtooth National Forest Minidoka Ranger District. Over the past 22 years, Jim has provided a fire prevention message to no fewer than 35,000 national forest visitors.

As a lifelong rancher and 36-year veteran of Government service in the second half of his life, Jim has captured the secret to staying young--that of knowing you are never too old to start something new. Jim's life is a wonderful example of the fact that success comes as the result of hard work. Idahoans who visited the Sawtooths were both safer and better educated about our rugged and beautiful natural resources as a result of Jim's dedication and efforts. I wish Jim and his family well on his retirement, and I thank him for his service to our Nation and to Idaho.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the valor, leadership, and service of MAJ Vaughn L. Ward, a third-generation Idahoan who grew up working on his family's farm in southern Idaho. On October 22, 2007, Major Ward received the Bronze Star Medal with Combat Distinguishing Device for heroic achievement in combat while serving as a Marine Rifle Company Commander in Fallujah, Iraq, from March to October of 2006.

During 7 months of combat operations, Major Ward distinguished himself as an exemplary leader of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 25th Marines, Regimental Combat Team 5. Charlie Company was centrally located in the center of Fallujah and colocated with the Iraqi Police Headquarters. Insurgent forces regularly attacked this strategic position. During the tour, insurgents launched over a dozen complex attacks against his position, utilizing more than 120 rounds of indirect fire, IDF, AK-47 and PKC fire, vehicle borne improvised explosive devices, VBIEDs, improvised explosive devices, IEDs, and sniper fire. Major Ward commanded his marines through these attacks and usually led the counterattack against enemy forces. From March through October, Charlie Company engaged the enemy over 130 times, conducted nearly a thousand foot and vehicle patrols, and carried out over 100 raids against insurgent locations.

Major Ward's military honors are only the latest in a career marked by excellence, leadership, and achievement. After graduating from Boise State University, he worked on Capitol Hill as a legislative aide for former Senator Dirk Kempthorne in 1993. He joined the Marine Corps in 1995 and served until 2000, whereupon he entered the University of Maryland and obtained his masters in business administration, MBA, in 2002. He continued his public service by joining the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, where he trained as an operations officer and served in the Middle East and Africa. In January 2006, Vaughn went on military furlough from the CIA in order to reactivate with the Marines and serve in Iraq. He left active duty in January 2007 and resigned from the CIA in May 2007. Vaughn, his wife Kirsten, and their daughter Ave will return home to Idaho in November.

Vaughn's penchant for leadership and hard work has its roots on a small family farm in Shoshone. As young as 8 years old, Vaughn was working at his family's farm, which included a dairy with 70 cows, and a few thousand acres of grain and hay, and hundreds of free-range cattle. By age 11, Vaughn was operating a tractor, plowing the fields in the spring and fall and swathing the summer hay crops. He helped to run the family farm throughout most of his teenage years and feels very fortunate to have had this childhood experience. His grandfather homesteaded the farm, and it was there that Vaughn internalized a true appreciation for the importance of hard work.

He was cognizant at an early age of the family's financial challenges. At 14, the age when many teenagers were spending their money on things like music, clothes, and a new electronic invention-- computer games--Vaughn bought his family a Christmas tree. They would not have had one, otherwise.

Vaughn credits his mom, Maria Tranmer, with his success and his character development. His mother recounts the circumstances of his birth: Due to complications, they did not expect Vaughn to survive. When the doctor came to his mother's room, he said, ``Little girl, I don't know what this boy is going to do in life, but it's going to be something special.'' Maria took these words to heart and, according to Vaughn, ``she never pushed me to be something I'm not, but she pushed me to realize my potential. She always supports me and, from the time I was young, told me to do what I am capable of doing, and be the best at it. Her and my family's belief in me is what pushes me to do what I do, and accomplish what I have.'' Maria is a remarkable woman herself, raising Vaughn and his sister, Shellie, through many years of hardship alone, yet, in Vaughn's words, ``never leaving us wanting for anything.''

Vaughn also points to mentors that have been there for him along the way and helped him during his formative years--from a first-grade teacher who took the time to care to coaches in high school who acted as role models. At age 7, his stepfather, Andrew Ward, a former Marine Corps officer, introduced Vaughn to hunting and hiking in the Idaho mountains and taught him how to ride a motorcycle. He also calls his grandfather, William Tews, the primary male influence in his life. ``My grandfather taught me how to shoot a rifle, drive a tractor and what it means to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.'' Vaughn continued stating that ``my grandpa, father, and coaches shaped the life of a young man and those experiences gave me courage and confidence and opened up unique opportunities for me.''

Vaughn's time in Iraq cemented and honed his leadership skills. Vaughn observes that if the talk of leadership doesn't translate into the action of leadership, particularly in combat, your credibility dissolves. In war, he says, fear is a cancer, and leaders have to be willing to do themselves what they order others to do. He lived this in Iraq, personally leading foot patrols from the front against the advice of fellow officers. He felt that it was wrong to order his subordinates to do something that he was unwilling to do himself. This bravery and commitment to walk and stand with his men meant something to them. His award submission in part reads: ``Major Ward's strong leadership style and his willingness to always lead literally from the front inspired his Marines to continue to engage the enemy.''

For Vaughn, excellent leadership also means not being fully committed to one's own ideas in the formulation stage of the decisionmaking process. An effective leader knows how and when to listen to the counsel of others, evaluate all available information, and have the confidence to make a decision and execute that decision. Good leaders are accountable for their actions, good and bad, and a good leader shares accolades with those who are part of the effort--a leader, by definition, has to have able and committed followers. One of the lessons he learned in Iraq was the result of the patrols that he led regularly. He tells of patrolling in unfamiliar territory and encountering times when the way ahead was unclear. ``All you could do was start walking,

and that was how you found your way.''

Vaughn is a committed family man and has the priceless gift of a supportive and loving wife. ``My wife was my strength during the hard times when I suffered casualties and lost Marines. She was the only one I could talk to, and I can't believe how difficult it must have been to hear me broken up over the death of my Marines, and be powerless to do anything but listen and offer words of comfort, thousands of miles away. She got me through my deployment.'' Vaughn also has the support and love of two sisters, Shellie Amundson and Logan Tranmer, both who live in Idaho.

Finally, Vaughn makes a point of sharing the good things that our military is doing in Iraq. He notes that Al Anbar Province has been transformed over the past year. The marines of Charlie Company engaged the enemy, purposefully, and fought al-Qaida on terms determined by the U.S. military, not the insurgents. As a direct result of the actions of Vaughn's company, the insurgents, at one point, issued a public message that if the Marines of Company C would stay ``inside the wire,'' they would cease attacks on coalition forces. Vaughn says, ``We did not let them dictate how we did our job, and we were successful. There are good stories out there--stories that need and must be told.''

I have only highlighted a few of Vaughn's many accomplishments, both on the battlefield and off. He is more than deserving of these accolades, although he is quick to point out that his company deserves the responsibility for his Bronze Star. We can only hope that men of Vaughn's caliber will continue their public service to our great Nation as his generation begins to take the reigns. I am honored to be able to tell of this remarkable Idahoan, his family, and the men of Charlie Company here in the Senate and privileged to publicly offer my humble thanks and that of my family, State, and country for Major Vaughn Ward's extraordinary and valorous service to the United States of America, and I am proud to call him an Idaho son.

Mr. President, I am privileged today to honor an Idaho couple, Rick and Tina Betzer, who have been blessed with a heart and gift to minister to children. Rick and Tina are being honored today as Angels in Adoption by the Congressional Adoption Coalition. God grants each of us gifts; some of us use them, others don't, and the world is worse off for that neglect. Today I will share a different story--it is about two people who have chosen to use their gift to make an extraordinary difference in the lives of others. Rick and Tina tell their story better than anyone. With the permission of the Chair, I will include their personal family statement as part of the Record. This is text from Rick and Tina Betzer's personal testimony:

We met in Jr. High and have been best friends since. We

just celebrated our 30th wedding anniversary. We are

privileged to be called mom and dad by 16 wonderful children.

Our oldest 5 are biological and the youngest 11 have been

adopted over the last 10 years. Our first born is Eric. He is

now 31 years old married and has 2 step sons and 2 beautiful

little girls. He owns his own tree-trimming business, and

they raise quarter horses on their small farm in Chester

Idaho. Next is our daughter Gina, who is now 30 years old.

She is married to Zac Clawson and they have 3 sons. Zac works

for the Federal Government in Washington D.C. They live in

Dumfries Virginia. Next is our daughter Amber. She is 28

years old. At this time she is living with us in Shelley and

she works for Eastern Idaho Special services and is a

transportation specialist for the homeless shelter in Idaho

Falls. Our daughter Jessica is 22 years old and is married to

Jacob Hackman. They live in Boise and are expecting their

first child in June. Our daughter Brittney is 20 years old,

graduated High School with honors, and is attending BYU

Hawaii. We moved to Shelley in August 2004, from Ashton where

we had been living for the past 15 years. While in Ashton,

both Rick and I worked for the State of Idaho Department of

Juvenile Corrections as a Nurse and as a Therapy Technician.

It was at the Juvenile correction center that we became aware

of the need for committed foster parents. In the fall of

1990, we became licensed foster parents. Over the next 10

years, we fostered 38 children. On December 12, 1993, a case

worker knocked on our door with a beautiful 2 year old boy in

his arms. At first sight, we knew this little guy belonged to

us. This was the first day of the rest of our lives. We

adopted Shallon 3 years later. We thought we were a complete

family, then, several years later, we were prompted to call

LDS services to apply to adopt a special needs baby. A few

months later we did not have a baby, but 3 active little

kids. Breann, Daniel, and Courtney joined our family at the

ages of 5, 6, and 7. At that point we were sure our family

was complete. Again, several years went by and we could not

get the thought out of our minds that someone was missing

from our family. I talked Rick into another home study, and

1\1/2\ months later we were headed to Florida to pick up our

9-week-old daughter, Zoe. At this point, we started to joke

that we would stop at 12 kids, not ever intending to go that

far, then someone introduced us to the Internet. Thousands of

foster children in the United States that are awaiting

adoption are listed there. Three little children pulled me in

and I contacted their case workers. One was in Texas, one was

in Ohio and one in Missouri. We were hoping to be able to

adopt one of the three. During this time, Tazier came home

for good--he had been our foster son 4 years earlier. A month

after his arrival, we brought D'Asia home from Ohio then, 3

months after that, we brought Isabelle home from Missouri,

but no word from Texas. Again, we thought we are done. Then,

a year later, a phone call from Georgia: Were we interested

in one more child? We hesitated and the case worker read us

his profile off the Internet. Half way through we stopped her

and said ``that's Dakota; he lives in Texas.'' She almost

dropped the phone, and asked how we knew that--there were

thousands of kids on the Net. We explained that his picture

had been on our

refrigerator for 2 years! It took almost 3 years from the

time we saw him and a case worker in Georgia that didn't know

either us or this little guy, but in September of 2002,

Dakota came home. While in Texas picking Dakota up from his

foster home, Rick heard a noise from a back bedroom of the

home and went to investigate, he came back into the room with

our next son in his arms, Delarion. He came home in September

2003.

Our children have changed our lives in many ways. Our world

consists of therapists, special education and doctors. Our

van could find its own way to Salt Lake and Primary

Children's Hospital. We are on a first-name basis with

doctors and nurses there and in Idaho Falls at Eastern Idaho

Regional Medical Center. From February to November of last

year, our children had 9 surgeries and countless procedures

that enable them to function as best they can. We had 3

surgeries scheduled in September. Our days are filled with

medications, tube feedings, diapers, bottles, wheel chairs,

leg braces, glasses, hearing aids and, above all, miracles.

It is so humbling to watch these children overcome the

obstacles in their lives. Nothing seems to stop them; they

have more determination than all of us put together. We

remember a Monday night a few years back when, as Tina sat in

a chair in our living room holding our 5 year old daughter

Zoe, Zoe reached over to the end table and picked up her

bottle put the nipple in her mouth and took a drink. We

cried. This was a little girl who doctors told us to walk

away from, a little girl born with only half a brain, that

specialists said would only eat and sleep the rest of her

life. At the age of 3, she started playing songs on the

piano, by ear because she is blind, with her left hand

because her right one doesn't work; a little girl who can

scoot on her behind across the floor with amazing speed; a

little girl who sings country music, says her ABC's, and

counts to 22. These are the miracles in our lives--a little

boy born weighing just one pound whose mother was found lying

unconscious on the ground in a hospital parking lot, a little

boy so tiny that he was thought to be a girl for the first

month of his life, a little boy who at the age of 4 would

never walk or talk, who now, at the age of eight, runs up to

us, puts his little face to ours and says, I want to take a

bath. These are some of the reasons why we do what we do . .

.

Rick and Tina are more than deserving of the distinguished honor of 2007 Angels in Adoption. Their daily challenges are much more than most of us could imagine, let alone choose to experience at any time in our lives: they have chosen to become parents to children with disabilities including quadriplegic spastic cerebral palsy, blindness, vision impairedness, hearing loss, auditory neuropathy, traumatic brain injury, fetal alcohol syndrome, reactive attachment disorder, attention deficit disorder and genetic optic nerve atrophy. They are selfless examples of a loving commitment of time, energy and resources. Perhaps most difficult, but most rewarding as well, they have committed their hearts and emotions to children in need. The Betzers humble us with their actions they are the angels in their children's lives and examples to us all.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, an important bill that will allow Americans to save more for the long term and will better prepare them for a secure retirement. The Generating Retirement Ownership Through Long-Term Holding, GROWTH Act, had substantial bipartisan support in the House last Congress, and has been introduced in a bipartisan manner again in the House this Congress. Mr. Johnson and I are proud to introduce in the Senate this bipartisan legislation that provides Americans a better tool to grow their long-term retirement savings.

The GROWTH Act would allow investors in mutual funds to keep more retirement savings invested longer and growing longer by deferring taxation of automatically reinvested capital gains until fund shares are sold, rather than allowing those long-term gains, which generate no current income or cash in hand, to be taxed every year.

To understand how beneficial this bill would be, it is important to understand the role of mutual funds in long-term retirement savings. Among households owning mutual funds, 92 percent are investing for retirement, with more than 70 percent saying their primary purpose in investing in funds is to prepare for retirement. Many of today's workers do not yet have in place the retirement savings supplement to Social Security that will prepare them for the future. In fact, almost half of American workers, nearly 75 million of 155 million workers--are not offered any form of pension or retirement savings plan at work.

Meanwhile, the number of years spent in retirement is growing and the

costs individuals can expect to bear in retirement are growing, too. The Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates that an individual retiring at age 65 in 2016 will need more than $300,000 just to cover health coverage premiums and expenses. Individual savings efforts also face significant obstacles. Those not covered by an employer's retirement plan, for example, can set aside a deductible IRA contribution of only $4,000 this year, $5,000 if they are age 50 or older.

Mutual funds are a hugely important part of American workers' preparation for retirement, both through their employers' retirement plans and on their own. Mutual funds now make up about half of the $4.1 trillion held by American workers through 401(k) plans and other similar job-based savings programs. About 38 million American investors hold mutual funds through their defined contribution plans. More than 31 million American investors are saving through taxable mutual fund accounts, either as supplements to their employers' plans or because they do not have such plans.

The GROWTH Act is also a good idea because it remedies an unfairness in the tax code that can make saving difficult for many Americans. Mutual fund investors who are struggling to save for retirement should not have to pay taxes on ``profits'' they have not realized. If they don't have money in hand, it makes no sense for them to have to pay taxes. The GROWTH Act would defer taxes until the mutual fund shares are sold and the investor has actual funds to pay the taxes.

The GROWTH Act would be a valuable contributor to retirement savings efforts. Mutual fund savers who automatically reinvest are doing what policymakers want to see. They are holding for the long term, contributing to national savings, and building up their own retirement nest egg. These Americans should be encouraged to save, not discouraged through a tax on automatic reinvestments. The GROWTH Act is a step that will show immediate results, a step that will help tens of millions of American savers and ``should-be savers'' over the course of their working lives, and a step that with time can make a real difference in the retirement readiness of American families.

I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Johnson and me in supporting the GROWTH Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, an important bill that will allow Americans to save more for the long term and will better prepare them for a secure retirement. The Generating Retirement Ownership Through Long-Term Holding, GROWTH Act, had substantial bipartisan support in the House last Congress, and has been introduced in a bipartisan manner again in the House this Congress. Mr. Johnson and I are proud to introduce in the Senate this bipartisan legislation that provides Americans a better tool to grow their long-term retirement savings.

The GROWTH Act would allow investors in mutual funds to keep more retirement savings invested longer and growing longer by deferring taxation of automatically reinvested capital gains until fund shares are sold, rather than allowing those long-term gains, which generate no current income or cash in hand, to be taxed every year.

To understand how beneficial this bill would be, it is important to understand the role of mutual funds in long-term retirement savings. Among households owning mutual funds, 92 percent are investing for retirement, with more than 70 percent saying their primary purpose in investing in funds is to prepare for retirement. Many of today's workers do not yet have in place the retirement savings supplement to Social Security that will prepare them for the future. In fact, almost half of American workers, nearly 75 million of 155 million workers--are not offered any form of pension or retirement savings plan at work.

Meanwhile, the number of years spent in retirement is growing and the

costs individuals can expect to bear in retirement are growing, too. The Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates that an individual retiring at age 65 in 2016 will need more than $300,000 just to cover health coverage premiums and expenses. Individual savings efforts also face significant obstacles. Those not covered by an employer's retirement plan, for example, can set aside a deductible IRA contribution of only $4,000 this year, $5,000 if they are age 50 or older.

Mutual funds are a hugely important part of American workers' preparation for retirement, both through their employers' retirement plans and on their own. Mutual funds now make up about half of the $4.1 trillion held by American workers through 401(k) plans and other similar job-based savings programs. About 38 million American investors hold mutual funds through their defined contribution plans. More than 31 million American investors are saving through taxable mutual fund accounts, either as supplements to their employers' plans or because they do not have such plans.

The GROWTH Act is also a good idea because it remedies an unfairness in the tax code that can make saving difficult for many Americans. Mutual fund investors who are struggling to save for retirement should not have to pay taxes on ``profits'' they have not realized. If they don't have money in hand, it makes no sense for them to have to pay taxes. The GROWTH Act would defer taxes until the mutual fund shares are sold and the investor has actual funds to pay the taxes.

The GROWTH Act would be a valuable contributor to retirement savings efforts. Mutual fund savers who automatically reinvest are doing what policymakers want to see. They are holding for the long term, contributing to national savings, and building up their own retirement nest egg. These Americans should be encouraged to save, not discouraged through a tax on automatic reinvestments. The GROWTH Act is a step that will show immediate results, a step that will help tens of millions of American savers and ``should-be savers'' over the course of their working lives, and a step that with time can make a real difference in the retirement readiness of American families.

I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Johnson and me in supporting the GROWTH Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in 1916, history records a number of momentous events, events that changed the course of our world. President Woodrow Wilson was elected to a second term. World War I was ramping up: Germany and Austria declared war on Portugal in March; Romania declared war on Austria in August; Italy declared war on Germany that same month; and Germany, Turkey, and Bulgaria declared war on Romania. Pancho Villa invaded New Mexico, and the United States responded by sending troops under General John J. Pershing into Mexico. It is said that total miles of U.S. railroad trackage reached its historic peak.

That same year, something equally revolutionary occurred that contributed to a significant change in the way farming was done in Idaho. In the fall of 1916, inventor, philosopher and engineer Charles F. Kettering from Centerville, OH, designed a self-starter for the Massey-Harris tractor. He did this for Thomas Lyon Hamer, a fellow Ohioan, so that Hamer's nephew, Thomas Ray Hamer, could operate the tractor and farm his land in St. Anthony, Idaho, without the well-known danger posed by the hand-crank.

Thomas Ray Hamer, a Representative in Idaho's state legislature in 1896, was an attorney and a farmer. He also served in the military, in the First Regiment, Idaho Volunteer Infantry and as a captain and lieutenant colonel in the Philippines. He also served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. During World War I, he served as a judge advocate general. He spent his later years practicing law in St. Anthony and Boise, ID, and Portland, OR.

It gives me great pleasure to recognize Charles F. Kettering's significant contribution to Idaho history and Idaho agriculture. Were it not for Kettering's willingness to help a friend and his creative ingenuity, a great Idahoan may not have gone on to a second successful military career and secured his place in Idaho history. Charles Kettering--at his death, coholder of more than 140 patents and possessing honorary doctorates from nearly 30 universities lived by his own words: ``With willing hands and open minds, the future will be greater than the most fantastic story you can write.'' Kettering's ``willing hands'' left their unmistakable handprint on the fields of my State of Idaho.

Mr. President, GEN H.H. ``Hap'' Arnold, USAF, once said, ``A modern, autonomous, and thoroughly trained Air Force in being at all times will not alone be sufficient, but without it there can be no national security.'' It is in the name of our national security that today I recognize the U.S. Air Force's 60th anniversary.

One hundred years ago, Henry H. ``Hap'' Arnold graduated from the U.S. Military Academy. That same year, in August 1907, the U.S. Army Signal Corps established an aeronautical division to oversee ``military ballooning, air machines and all kindred subjects.'' Arnold went on to become the Chief of the Army Air Corps, and, upon the creation of the U.S. Air Force as a separate branch of the military in 1947, a year after General Arnold's retirement, Congress appointed him to the rank of five star general--the first and only in the history of the Air Force.

The U.S. Air Force was created by Congress to ``be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations.'' ``[It] shall be responsible for the preparation of the air forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned and, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of the peacetime components of the Air Force to meet the needs of war.'' Today, on the anniversary of the National Security Act of 1947, we celebrate 60 years of an independent Air Force. This independence was necessary and critical and remains so in order that, in the recent words of MG Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., the United States has ``one service that focuses on maximizing options for decision-makers by optimizing airpower.''

The U.S. Air Force, comprised of close to 700,000 Active Duty, civilian, Air National Guard, and Air Force reservists, plays a vital and instrumental role in the ongoing fight against terrorism and other emerging threats on

multiple fronts, from flying combat missions and conducting manned and unmanned surveillance to logistical ground support. Thirty-five thousand Air Force personnel are currently deployed to 120 duty stations worldwide, keeping freedom alive and the forces of tyranny at bay. Whether it is monitoring satellites in orbit or the space shuttle, delivering precision-guided munitions to air and ground targets or patrolling the far reaches of cyberspace, the USAF maintains strategic and operational dominance in theater and around the globe. Fighters, bombers, missiles, and unmanned aircraft are the unparalleled tools of today's airmen, tools they use with unmatched skill and lethal precision in defense of our freedom and liberties.

On a daily basis for over 4 years now, dozens of close air support missions--troop support, infrastructure protection, reconstruction activities and operations to deter and disrupt terrorist activities-- are conducted by coalition forces in Iraq. The U.S. Air Force is responsible for the majority of these.

Sixty years of Air Force excellence and superiority has been possible only because of those who have voluntarily dedicated their lives to the success of U.S. air power. With the esteemed heritage of ``Hap'' Arnold and other distinguished and outstanding leaders in their hearts, the men and women of the USAF and their families serve our Nation with distinction, integrity, and patriotism. They approach their mission in the same spirit with which they swore their oath of allegiance: with a grave sense of duty, honor and bravery.

Idaho has been home to Mountain Home Air Force Base for over 60 years now. Over the past half century, Mountain Home AFB has hosted many diverse missions of the Air Force including special and covert operations, combat and reconnaissance operations, ballistic missile defense, electronic combat, and fighter operations. It is one of the largest employers in the State of Idaho.

The Gunfighters, as Mountain Home AFB personnel are known, deploy to fight terror in an integrated fashion, from the maintenance and piloting of F-15 Eagles, F-15E Strike Eagles, and F-16 Fighting Falcons to complementary support missions such as intelligence and communications. In the air campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Gunfighters flew almost 1,000 individual sorties.

In addition to executing its military mission, the Air Force recognizes its environmental responsibility to the communities in which it operates and has worked diligently over the years to be a good steward of Federal land in southern Idaho. I have worked with leadership at the base on many land management issues during my service in Congress. Further, the Air Force continues to respect Native- American cultural sensitivities and practices and works hard to do its part in maintaining a respectful relationship for the betterment of Shoshone-Paiute tribal interests as well as maintaining state of the art training for our airmen.

As a Nation, we are blessed to have such an outstanding, committed, and respectable military. The Air Force works intricately and effectively with the other military branches to skillfully execute the war on terror, specifically, but not limited to, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Always innovative, the Air Force continues to look ahead, establishing itself as the dominant space defense force empowered and capable of facing new strategic global realities in an ever-changing global threat environment, ensuring its ability to respond to threats immediately and wherever they arise. Americans can be incredibly proud of and thankful for the sacrifice of their Air Force women and men worldwide. In the words of another famous former Chief of the Air Force, GEN Curtis LeMay, ``If we maintain our faith in God, love of freedom, and superior global air power, the future looks good.''

Mr. President, next week, Idahoans of Hispanic and Latino heritage will be joining others in the United States and Mexico to celebrate the beginning of the decade-long battle to liberate Mexico from Spain almost 200 years ago. They gather to celebrate ``El Grito de Dolores,'' or ``The Cry from Dolores,'' issued by Father Miguel Gregorio Antonio Ignacio Hidalgo y Costilla Gallaga Mondarte Villasenor, better known as Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, Mexican priest and revolutionary leader. Cura Hidalgo, although ethnically a criollo, or Mexican of Spanish or European descent, became sympathetic at a young age to the terrible plight of the Indians and mestizos--those of mixed ancestry--who had been subjugated by the Spanish for 300 years in Mexico. Hidalgo was an intellectual, well-versed in a number of languages and well-read. Some historians tell that his classmates called him ``el zorro,'' or ``the Fox.'' He was

also known to be an entrepreneur and humanitarian. With the intention to better the plight of the indigenous people of his community, he taught them carpentry, harness-making, wool-weaving and blacksmithing and encouraged local artisans. He also cultivated vineyards and olive groves. In the early 1800s, he became involved in a movement to overthrow the Spanish-led Government of Mexico, then called ``New Spain.'' Although led by a group of criollo intellectuals, the movement aimed to unify and energize the indigenous people and mestizos against their Spanish overlords. Due to a breach of intelligence, the conspirators were discovered, and Hidalgo gambled--and won.

Hidalgo's call to independence was obviously not recorded, and historical accounts cannot agree on the words of his exact speech, but it is understood that early on the morning of September 16, 1810, Cura Hidalgo, instead of delivering mass, rang the church bell and delivered a call to arms that has come to be known as ``El Grito de Dolores,'' or, simply, ``El Grito.'' The armed Indians and mestizos, under the command of Hidalgo, fellow revolutionary Ignacio Allende and others, marched to the provincial capitol, Guanajunto, and, just 2 weeks after ``El Grito,'' won a stunning battle with their now 20,000-strong army. Although Hidalgo was captured 9 months later and executed on July 30, 1811, the storm that had been unleashed could not be stopped. Mexico successfully fought and won its independence from Spain in 1821.

Idahoans and other Americans of Mexican descent have a proud heritage in this early freedom fighter. Much like the tradition of our American Founding Fathers, the seeds of revolution sprouted in the fertile soil of intellectual debate and a recognition of the inherent equality of all human beings regardless of race, gender or ethnicity. As people in Idaho and across the United States celebrate Mexico's independence and those young freedom fighters 200 years ago, parallels are strong with Mexican Americans today who are fighting to keep the United States free from terror here at home. How fitting, then, for the week of September 11 that we also remember Hidalgo's ``El Grito!''

Mr. President, I would like to recognize an Idahoan who since 1995 has served four Idaho Governors as director of the Idaho Department of Labor and twice served as interim executive director of the Idaho Commission on the Arts. He also served as an Idaho assistant attorney general and as an Idaho State senator for 4 years. After 12 years, Roger Madsen is among the longest-serving State employment agency directors in the Nation, and he is my friend.

Roger has been a tireless volunteer for the betterment of his community and State. The list of his activities and leadership is long and prestigious. Roger has served as: delegate to the White House Conference on Families;

chair of the Governor's task force on unemployment insurance; vice chair of the Multiple Sclerosis Society; chair of the mayor's citizen's advisory panel on public housing; chair of the Governor's advisory council on worker's compensation; member of the job training and workforce development councils; member of the TechHelp science advisory board and the Governor's rural economic development committee; chair of the Idaho State Employee's United Way Campaign; cochair of Idaho Rural Partnership; and, cochair of the ``Katrina Evacuee Resettlement'' effort in Idaho.

Without hesitation and despite his weighty workload, Roger twice agreed to guide the Idaho Commission on the Arts through difficult periods and did so in an inimitable manner, with much gratitude on behalf of the staff and arts community. Additionally, he served as the interim director of the Idaho Disability Determination Services.

In 2005, the Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor received the William J. Harris Equal Opportunity Award for its ``commitment to intensifying assistance to minorities and ensuring those new to the State receive the same quality service as longtime Idaho residents.'' The annual award honors a work force agency administrator and the agency's equal opportunity officer for outstanding accomplishments. Under Madsen's leadership, the department increased its bilingual staff, doubled the number of female managers in local offices, increased the number of employees with disabilities and launched new programs such as special job search workshops in Spanish.

In June 2007, the International Association of Workforce Professionals named Director Roger Madsen as its Administrator of the Year for his leadership in economic and work force development in 2006, when average wages rose 5.6 percent and Idaho's growth in real gross state product led the Nation.

I recognize and commend Roger for his continued efforts and accomplishments on behalf of all of the citizens of Idaho. He is a great advocate for Idaho and I look forward to continuing to work with him on issues important to Idahoans.