Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to fully authorize the necessary funds needed to complete the construction of a new VA medical facility near Denver, CO. I am joined by my colleague Senator Salazar on this important legislation. Thankfully, Congress authorized approximately 16 percent of the needed funds for this project last year in order to finalize planning and site acquisition. That is a promising start that enables the project planners to begin the serious business of building this hospital. Although this was a tremendous step forward, there is still a great deal more that needs to be accomplished in order for this hospital to become a reality.

The current Denver VA hospital was built ``more than 50 years ago and as we are all well aware, medical technology has far surpassed what the builders of the Denver VA originally envisioned. This facility, which hosted the first liver transplant in 1963, has provided tremendous care over the years, but simply does not have the infrastructure to continue to provide our veterans the care they need in the 21st century. While I cannot say enough about the care and service our veterans receive at the current facility, many changes and improvements can and should be made, and a new facility is the only way to accomplish these goals.

This new VA hospital to be located at Fitzsimons campus and the former home of the Fitzsimons Army Medical Center will carry on a strong tradition of providing exceptional medical care for our Nation's best and bravest citizens. The current Fitzsimons campus first began treating wounded veterans in 1918, specializing in assisting those who had been victims of chemical weapons in world War I. The facility continued to grow through the 20th century and became one of the premiere Veterans hospitals through World War II. Fitzsimons was even unofficially deemed the ``White House of the West'' when President Eisenhower spent 7 weeks in the facility while recovering from a heart condition in 1955. Fitzsimons Hospital was even the birthplace of my colleague, Senator Kerry.

The new facility will provide an example of successful collaboration between numerous parties and will be the culmination of years of hard work. The Denver VA, the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and the University of Colorado Hospital already have a complex and rewarding partnership in meeting veterans' healthcare needs in the region, and all are partnered together on this unique project. The University of Colorado, who currently owns the land for the new hospital, strongly supports the move of the existing Denver VA medical facility to the Fitzsimons Campus in Aurora, CO, and looks forward to strengthening their partnership with the Veterans Administration, allowing each entity to focus on its strengths.

Of course, the biggest endorsement of this new facility comes ultimately from the end-users: our veterans. The United Veterans Committee of Colorado, a coalition of 45 federally chartered veterans' service organizations, strongly supports the relocation of the Denver VA medical center to the Fitzsimons campus and has worked closely with my office and the Colorado congressional delegation over the years to ensure its success.

Of course, not too long ago it looked like this project was in peril. Thankfully, in 2005 Secretary Nicholson brought a much-needed, fresh perspective to this project. He made it a priority and made it clear to the entire Colorado delegation that he would pursue every opportunity to make the project a reality. I commend his efforts and thank him for his support. It is also important to mention the hard work and diligence of those in Colorado who have also worked to ensure the success of this new hospital. Without the extraordinary efforts put forth by the Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority and its chairman, city of Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer, an agreement would not have been reached on the ultimate location of the Hospital.

I strongly support authorization of this hospital and look forward to seeing the completion of the new VA medical facility which undoubtedly will serve as a regional beacon for modern veteran medical care science not only for veterans in Colorado but throughout the entire Rocky Mountain region as well.

If the Senator from Wyoming will yield, I need more than a few minutes. I need probably about 7 minutes. Maybe if I can get 7 minutes after the vote, that would be all right.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have an amendment I have been waiting for some time to try and bring up. I have a commitment from 6 o'clock to about 6:45.

My inquiry is, do the managers of this amendment plan on being around here later this evening so I can have an opportunity to offer that amendment or can I have an opportunity Friday when we come in to bring up my amendment?

It is at the desk. I am willing to do it tomorrow morning if I could just get some time set aside.

As long as I have an opportunity to bring up my amendment, I would like that opportunity at some point.

With the hope that we could at least get it in the queue?

That would be fine.

Mr. President, I have introduced a couple of amendments. The reason I have done so is because I think we need to take this opportunity to address more than just minimum wage.

My good friend from Massachusetts talked a lot about the working men and women of this country, but minimum wage does not address all the working men and women in this country. We need to broaden this legislation so we talk about those who are in business for themselves, the small businesspeople. Many times the working men and women of this country, when they start their business, which I have had a wonderful opportunity to do, have to save their money because they have to count on not making much money their first 2 or 3 years, if they make any at all. Then, after 3 years, maybe, if you do a good job and hit the market right, your business will survive. However, a lot of small businesspeople fail. So we need to understand, when we talk about the working American men and women of this country, we need to make sure we have legislation that is all inclusive. We need to keep all of them in mind when we work on this particular legislation. That is why so many of us believe this legislation needs to deal with more than just minimum wage. It needs to deal with some regulatory and tax relief for small businesspeople because they are working men and women in this country, also.

I also rise today to ask the Members of the Senate to support my amendment, No. 169 to the pending minimum wage bill. It cuts at the heart of a rampant problem in this country; that is, identity theft. A resolution of this problem has the potential to help small business. On Monday, a bipartisan group of Senators and I met with Secretary Chertoff on this issue. Secretary Chertoff explained that, under current law, Government agencies are prevented from sharing information with one another that, if shared, could expose cases of identity theft.

My amendment tears down the wall that prevents the sharing of existing information among Government agencies. It permits the Commissioner of Social Security to share information with the Secretary of Homeland Security, where such information is likely to assist in discovering identity theft, Social Security number misuse or violations of immigration law. This is going to help small businesses such as construction businesses, farmers, ranchers, drywall businesses, horticulture and landscape companies and many more.

Specifically, this amendment requires the Commissioner to inform the Secretary of Homeland Security, upon discovery of a Social Security account number being used with multiple names, or where an individual has more than one person reporting earnings for him or her during a single tax year. It seems logical that we would already be doing this, but we are not.

In the meantime, identity theft is plaguing innocent victims all across the country. We were reminded of the pervasiveness of this problem by the recent raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement of six Swift and Company meat-packing plants across the country on December 12, 2006. In total, agents apprehended 1,282 illegal alien workers on administrative immigration violations. Of these, 65 have also been charged with criminal violations related to identity theft or other violations.

Unfortunately, for the victims--that is the victims of identity theft--by the time the identity theft is discovered, the damage has already been done. Colorado is ranked fifth in the Nation for identity theft, and the citizens of my State of Colorado are no stranger to identity theft.

For instance, an 84-year-old Grand Junction woman was deemed ineligible for Federal housing assistance because her Social Security number was being used at a variety of jobs in Denver, making her income too high to qualify because all these individuals had been using her I.D. number and it was coming in to Social Security, and when they checked on her income, it was recorded much higher than what she was receiving. If this had been discovered earlier, before she had applied for her housing grants, there would have been fewer victims.

Another example is a 10-year-old child in Douglas County who had his identity stolen. His Social Security number was being used at 17 different jobs. Now, if this had been discovered earlier, again, we would have had fewer victims.

Others get stuck with big tax bills for wages they never earned. Clearly, theft is an issue that affects people of all ages and walks of life, particularly those working for minimum wage who may struggle to pay the cost of getting their identity back after it has been stolen. Again, if these cases could have been discovered earlier, then there would have been fewer victims.

Yet when the Social Security Administration has reason to believe that a Social Security number is being used fraudulently, they are prevented from sharing it with the Department of Homeland Security. Withholding this information effectively enables thieves to continue to perpetrate the crime of identity theft against innocent victims.

Pilot programs such as what was being used at Swift and Company are managed through the Department of Homeland Security. What they say to

the employer is: We will help you verify that the employee's social security number is legitimate and it matches the name provided. However, Secretary Chertoff explained the limitations of the program. He said, if two people are using the same Social Security number at the same time, he can't get the information to recognize it. So when a number comes in to his agency when he is working with these pilot programs, all he can assure is that the name goes with the Social Security number. But he can't get the information out of the Social Security Administration as to whether two people are using the same number.

In some cases, as in the child I mentioned, the same social security number is being used in as many as 17 different jobs at once. We have had thousands of cases in Colorado where this has happened, where the victim didn't realize that somebody else was using their Social Security number until they were contacted by the Internal Revenue Service and told that they weren't reporting all their income, and they discovered that somebody else was using it at their place of employment.

So by simply sharing this information, cases of identity theft could be discovered much sooner. Victims of identity theft deserve to have this information acted on, and my amendment enables this.

We have a choice. We can side with the victims or side with the thieves. I urge my colleagues to take the side of the victims and enact this commonsense reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert for the Record an article in the Rocky Mountain News entitled ``Owens Wants Action on ID Theft.''

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment numbered 116 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 116, which I will discuss.

This amendment allows States the rights and flexibility to determine a minimum wage that works for them. Every State has its own microeconomy, and the voters and legislatures in those areas have decided what works best.

This is reflected in a map I have for demonstration purposes, reflecting the number of States in green that have higher wage rates than the minimum Federal rate. It reflects in blue the States with wage rates the same as the Federal rate. We have American Samoa, which has a special minimum wage rate, and States with no minimum wage rate, which are very few, by the way. They rely on the Federal, in that case, where they do not have one. And States with a minimum wage rate lower than the Federal, again, the State is preempted.

I rise to point out that the merits of increasing the Federal minimum wage, for better or for worse, for days on end--there is no debate on the cost of living, and wages greatly differ from State to state.

In its current form, the bill attempts to blindly blanket the Nation with a new Federal minimum wage without

regard to unique economic conditions of each individual State. Effective on January 1 of this year, my own home State of Colorado increased its wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.85 an hour. But they went further than that. This new wage will adjust annually with inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index in my own State--in this case, the State of Colorado.

During the course of the 109th Congress, the Senate considered a range of different minimum wage proposes. I evaluated each on a case- by-case basis. As a former small business owner, I recognize the financial challenges many families face, both those who are employed by the small business, as well as those struggling to keep their small business working. I also recognize the importance of small business to our Nation's economy and the chilling effect that increasing operating costs can have on the growth and ability to create jobs.

In my small business, for example, I hired a large percentage of employees whose first job was working for me. I was able to incorporate them into my business because, in some cases, because of their lack of job experience, I was willing to bring them in at a relatively low wage, give them an opportunity to improve themselves, which usually didn't take long--a month, 2 or maybe 3 months--and then begin to increase their wages as they increased their performance. This helped for morale in the business, and they felt like they were treated fairly. And it worked out very well.

We ran into problems when I was forced to raise the minimum wage, and I had to look at those employees in my small business who were full- time employees and expand the responsibilities of what my expectations were during their time of employment, at the expense of part-timers, and I laid off a few part-timers in the process, until I was able to grow the business a little more and I was able to begin to bring on some of the part-time employees again.

That is my personal experience and that reflects my view on increasing the minimum wage and why I think it has an adverse effect, particularly on those trying to move into the workforce. I have long been a supporter of legislation to help small businesses, and I do not wish to overburden our small businesses. Last year, I supported Senator Enzi's small business health plan legislation to give small business and their employees relief from health care costs. I supported this bill as a way to help small business and will continue to support such good ideas in the future.

In my view, in order to stimulate economic growth and create better paying jobs, Congress should implement programs aimed at reducing taxes and Government regulations on small business. Less Government intervention, at all levels, enables the private sector to attract, recruit, and retain the best possible employees and reward increased productivity and responsibility with higher compensation.

Although I believe the market is capable of setting wages, States are better equipped than the Federal Government to determine what is a fair and equitable standard wage for their workforce because of their own economy within that State.

As my chart shows, letting States take the lead on this issue is working. According to the Department of Labor, as of January 1, 2007, the majority of States have opted to increase the minimum wage over the federally mandated $5.15 an hour.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, 28 States plus the District of Columbia have minimum wages above the Federal level in 2007. Washington State has the highest minimum wage at $7.93 an hour. Several States, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Oregon, have raised their minimum wage beyond $7.50 an hour.

If we are going to do this and do this right, we should be cautious in Federally mandating a one-size-fits-all minimum wage. We should allow States to take into consideration the needs of their economy. We should give States the rights and flexibility to set their own minimum wage. Costs of living and wages vary dramatically State to State. What is right for Wyoming is not necessarily what is right for Massachusetts. Imposing dramatic increases to the minimum wage on States poses a threat to local economies. States are better positioned than the Federal Government to set a wage that works best for their workforce. Whether the need is above or below the proposed $2.10 increase, State officials should have the right to decide. Local legislators are in touch with the business community and I think better represent the needs of the local labor markets. Allowing the minimum wage to be set by State legislatures is a better alternative to a Federal mandate. My amendment simply affirms the traditional definition of States rights and allows respective State legislatures the flexibility to determine employee pay benefits.

Let's allow the States to have a say and decide what is right for them. They are the closest to the people. Let's give States the right and flexibility to regulate minimum wage. A one-size-fits-all unfunded Federal mandate is not the answer to protecting America's economic security. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment which gives States the flexibility to determine what is best for their citizens.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I want to take a moment to explain my amendment No. 116. This amendment gives the States the rights and the flexibility to determine a minimum wage that works best for them. My provision does not allow States to go any lower than the minimum wage they currently operate within their State.

This is an important amendment for small business, an important amendment as far as the States are concerned because cost of living and wages vary dramatically from State to State. A one-size-fits-all federally imposed minimum wage does not take into account the economic realities that exist in each State.

The States are already fulfilling their responsibilities of regulating wages. Currently, 28 States and DC have minimum wage rates above the Federal level. Because the minimum wage varies by State, this legislation threatens to impose a 41-percent increase on some States and a 0-percent increase on others.

Let's give the States the right and flexibility to regulate minimum wage. State legislatures are closer to the people and are better situated than the Federal Government to set a minimum wage. A one-size- fits-all solution under Federal mandate is not the answer to protecting America's economic security.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment that gives the States the flexibility to determine what is best for its own citizens.

When it is appropriate, Madam President, I will call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I reiterate, my amendment gives flexibility to States to set their own minimum wage. What is an appropriate minimum wage level for one State does not apply for another, and has different potential effects on the ability for economic growth in that State. When you vote for my amendment, you are voting for State flexibility. The States are already fulfilling their responsibilities of regulating wages. My amendment does not allow the States to set a minimum wage lower than their current operating minimum wage as of January 1, 2007.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for the Allard amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The Senator from South Carolina seeks time? I yield time to the Senator.

If the Senator from South Carolina will yield, Senator Enzi would also like to speak briefly on this amendment, if you will allow him at least a minute.

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

Mr. President, I understand we are having a discussion on the floor about the amendment being proposed by Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, known as the second look at wasteful spending amendment, to the pending legislation, which is called the Legislative Transparency Act of 2007. I spoke on this particular amendment offered by Senator Gregg last week, and I came to the Chamber and expressed my strong support for what Senator Gregg is trying to do. For the life of me, I don't understand why we would want to put an issue such as this off, because it adds transparency to the process. That is the name of the bill we have before us: the Legislative Transparency Act of 2007.

What the Gregg amendment would do is to allow the President to identify certain items in bills that are earmarks or may be classified as pork barrel spending. Then once those provisions have been identified, they would get singled out, and then, the President can bring those forward and allow the House and the Senate to vote on those separately.

What happens so many times in legislation that comes before the Congress is a process which is called logrolling. It is an old term; it has been around for a long time. You just keep adding issues in there and adding issues in there and make a piece of legislation bigger, and you pick up votes, and the bill gets so big and cumbersome that it is difficult to find people who are going to vote against it because there are so many issues in there they support. So what Senator Gregg does to bring transparency to this process is to take out those single issues, give the President an opportunity to pull those out and send them back to both the House and the Senate, and we vote on them as a separate issue. That creates a clear position on that particular issue from the House and the Senate. I daresay if we do that, we will cut back on a lot of spending, for those of us who are concerned about the mounting deficits in our Federal budget, who are concerned about accountability, and who are concerned about the process around here, both in setting up a budget and then the appropriations bills that come forward.

I think it is an accountability issue, and I hope we can bring this up and have a vote, in my view, the sooner the better because right now we are involved in an appropriations process that got bogged down from the last session because of earmarks and those

kinds of spending provisions, and we are getting ready to go into a budget process and then right back into appropriations. So the sooner we can deal with this type of legislation, the better.

I am hoping the leadership here in the Senate would consider and eventually allow us to bring this up, and as I say, the sooner the better because it brings accountability to the budget process. That is something we have all been talking about, those of us who are serious about getting the deficit under control, those of us who are serious about some accountability in the budgeting process. If I secure funding for a project in an appropriations bill, I don't have any problem letting people know about it because what I do is I go through the process of getting it authorized; that is, the authorizing committee has looked at it and they have verified that whatever it is that is in the amendment is legitimate, they have reached a consensus on what needs to be done to bring accountability to that particular project or program. Then you take it to the Appropriations Committee, and they allocate the money and they keep allocating the money, and by holding on to the purse strings, they continue to make that an accountable process. If we have any shortfall in what is going on, it is a lack of accountability in the budgeting process and in the appropriations process. I don't believe this makes it any more complicated. I myself think it is pretty straightforward, and I think it is constitutional.

Now, we had sort of a line-item rescission process this Congress passed a number of years back with a large reform. The courts looked at it and decided it was unconstitutional. But in this legislation the final decision is made by the Congress. We leave control of the purse strings here in the Congress. The President just delineates a few of these programs or projects and then brings them back to the Senate, and we vote on them separately.

So I just felt compelled to come to the floor and reemphasize how very important I believe it is that we step forward and we begin to act on these kinds of commonsense solutions Senator Gregg has offered. He was chairman of the Budget Committee. He has worked hard on this issue. I supported his Stop Overspending Act of 2006 when he introduced it in the last Congress. It had a similar provision in there. This is important. I hope we can get an opportunity to act on this particular provision before we move off of this piece of legislation. I ask my colleagues here in the Senate to join us in trying to bring excessive spending under control.

I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, can we work out maybe an agreement for 10 minutes for Senator Cornyn, the Senator from Maryland uses her 10, and then I would like to have 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. President, I rise today to call to the attention of the Members of the Senate an evolving disaster that is occurring in parts of eastern Colorado as well as parts of Nebraska, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Kansas and to concur with statements made earlier this week by my colleague, Senator Roberts from Kansas. On Monday, my friend from Kansas stated that he rose to call attention to what can only be described as a major disaster. I agree with Senator Roberts, there can be no doubt that we are dealing with a disaster in the West.

Over the last few weeks Colorado and its neighbors have experienced record-setting blizzards. In some parts of Colorado the storms dropped almost 5 feet of snow which has drifted in some cases to a size of 15 feet. I stand about 6 feet 1 inch, so to get some perspective, 5 feet of snow would leave my neck and shoulders just out above the snow. It is tough to get around in and a nightmare if you have to tend to livestock, but that is what folks in Colorado, and in the neighboring States have done. In fact, so much snow has fallen in Baca County down in southeastern Colorado that weather stations that transmit data including snowfall were unable to send information because they were buried under a number of feet of snow.

Let me reiterate that there was so much snow in Baca County that they were unable to measure it. This has created a horrendous situation for many in the West. Thousands of cattle and other livestock are currently stranded without food or water. Many have died due to the freezing temperatures. I have here a photo of an animal that is caked with several inches of snow. There are ice sickles falling down off of the nose of the animal and off of the underbelly of the animal. This is a hearty animal. Most animals that have suffered this kind of condition would not survive. The reason I point this out to the Members of the Senate is it just shows how ferocious this particular storm was and how serious of an impact it has had on the animals. This doesn't occur unless you have very severe blizzard conditions with lots of snow accompanying it.

The aftermath of these devastating blizzards continues to paralyze many counties in Colorado and the West. Dozens of communities have experienced severe economic damage and loss as a result of these blizzards. These storms have created a dire situation. Thousands of local men and women have banded together and are working to provide relief to their neighbors and to the tens of thousands of livestock facing starvation. In the tradition of the West, local individuals have pulled together and spent much of their holiday season trying to dig each other out and reach stranded livestock.

These storms struck during a time of year when ranchers in Colorado are preparing for the National Western Stock Show, one of the largest stock shows in the world. The stock show is an important opportunity for ranchers to show stock and to make contacts. Now in its 101st year, this year's stock show has seen a marked drop in attendance due to these storms.

A story in the Rocky Mountain News was ``No-Show Stock Show.'' I have received reports that livestock pens are sitting empty at the stock show and that the number of exhibitors is down. This is because the animals that would fill the pens are fighting for their very survival and the ranchers who would typically exhibit simply can't make it because they are trying to save their stock. Folks aren't at the stock show because they are back home trying to help one another deal with the aftermath of these major storms. Locals are trying to do all they can.

I am grateful for the assistance that the National Guard and FEMA have provided. Unfortunately, more help is needed. The vicious combination of blizzards was especially hard on eastern Colorado and the farmers and ranchers who call this part of Colorado home.

The part of Colorado hardest hit by these blizzards is also one of the most important agricultural regions in our Nation and is an epicenter for cattle production. Ranchers in this part of the State are currently racing against time in an attempt to locate cattle that have been stranded without feed or water. Unfortunately, as each day

goes by, the death toll increases. I have confirmed reports that the livestock loss has already reached into the thousands, and the tally is steadily growing.

I have a photo that reflects how devastatingly some of the herds have been impacted. We have live cattle back here, and down here dead cattle. This photo reflects how all the cattle bunched together for warmth during the storm, and as a result, we have dead animals clustered together down here in this lower part of the photo that I bring to the Senate. It is a gruesome scene. This loss will have a very severe economic impact on this particular farmer and rancher. Unfortunately farmers and ranchers all over the State of Colorado and our neighbors to the east are facing similar situations.

I grew up on a ranch, and I know all too well when your livestock is threatened, then so is your livelihood. Indications are that a tragic scene is developing in Colorado as cattle succumb to the elements due to a lack of food or a lack of water or from extreme exposure.

Colorado's Governor has declared a state of emergency and has requested help from the Federal Government. I support this request and have transmitted my support for Federal aid to the White House. On Sunday, President Bush made an official emergency declaration for parts of Colorado. I am thankful for the President's attention to this crisis and the time he and his staff put in on this situation, working through the weekend to help Colorado producers. By signing this declaration on Sunday night, the President showed that he is a man familiar with ranching and understands how devastating this situation is for rural Colorado.

The efforts of the President freed up valued aid from FEMA for snow removal for which I am grateful. As you can see from this particular picture, we have a roof that collapsed from the weight of the snow. It is just part of the picture, but I think it again reflects how the utilities and the infrastructure in areas of Colorado have been impacted. These impacts include the closure major highways and one of the country's busiest airports. I am grateful for the aid from FEMA. Local officials have been offering aid from the start and others from their office have swarmed to Colorado to offer assistance. They have a temporary headquarters set up in a Holiday Inn off the highway. Even in these less-than-ideal conditions, they are committed to helping folks in Colorado. This photo depicts the need, it shows a roof that collapsed from the weight of the snow.

Last night I was informed by FEMA officials that upon receipt of appropriate paperwork from Colorado, up to six additional counties could be eligible for assistance. Those counties that could be added to the President's original emergency declaration are Baca, Bent, Crowley, El Paso, Prowers, and Pueblo Counties. In the coming days and weeks, I will continue to work the FEMA officials to see if other Colorado counties will be eligible. We appreciate the assistance FEMA has provided and their continued efforts.

One of the most pressing matters that needs to be addressed is livestock aid. We desperately need aid for livestock rescue and recovery. The need for livestock aid becomes more pressing with each passing minute. I am hopeful that short-term relief will be forthcoming very soon.

To address this need in the long term I have introduced a bill with colleagues from other affected States. The Livestock Assistance Act of 2007 will provide aid to farmers and ranchers for livestock recovery and assistance to help cover the costs of the livestock losses created by these storms. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate can appreciate the vital nature of this bill and act quickly on it. As I stand here today, another storm is on its way to Colorado, bringing Arctic cold and a prediction of up to another foot of snow. We are in a tough spot out West, and I ask that all necessary Federal resources be made available to Colorado and other Western States suffering the devastation brought on by these historic storms.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Second Look at Wasteful Spending amendment offered by Senator Gregg to the pending Legislative Transparency Act of 2007.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment, as I was to be a cosponsor of the Stop-Over-Spending Act of 2006, which contained a similar provision.

Spending is out of control and it is time that Congress put its money where its mouth is when it comes to reigning in spending. In addition to being a good first step, this amendment is symbolic because it is the first opportunity of this new Congress to do so.

I hope the new majority party will use this opportunity to live up to its promise of fiscal responsibility and support this amendment.

The amendment is simple. In a nutshell, it allows the President to identify individual items of wasteful spending that, for one reason or another, slipped through Congress and send them back for closer scrutiny.

Once under the microscope for Congress and all of America to see, both houses of Congress will have the opportunity to give the individual proposal an up-or-down vote.

If both Houses deem the spending appropriate, the President must release the funds. On the other hand, if it does

not survive the scrutiny of both Houses, the spending is rescinded.

Importantly, any savings resulting from rescinded items of spending goes to reduce the Federal deficit. With record revenues streaming into the Treasury as a result of the Republican pro-growth tax cuts, we have made significant strides toward cutting the deficit. This amendment provides an opportunity to chip away at the deficit from the spending side of the equation.

Some of you may recall the Line Item Veto Authority that a Republican Congress gave to President Clinton in 1996 and wonder how this differs. This legislation, although similar in purpose, is not nearly as far- reaching as the authority given to President Clinton.

Under that authority, presidential cancellations went into effect automatically, without Congressional action. Unlike that law, the Second Look at Wasteful Spending legislation requires that Congress take affirmative steps to affirm or deny any rescission package proposed by the President. In other words, Congress has the final say on the President's rescission request.

Today's legislation contains several other important limitations on the President's authority. First, the President is limited to the submission of four rescission packages per year. Second, the President's rescission requests are limited to discretionary or mandatory spending or tax bills introduced on or after the legislation's enactment. Third, the authority sunsets in 4 years to allow Congress to reevaluate it after two Presidents have each used it for 2 years.

I am pleased that Senator Gregg chose to address this issue during the pending lobbying reform legislation. Both pieces legislation share the goal of bringing greater transparency to the Federal spending process.

While I do not pretend that it will solve all of the long-term fiscal problems--such as long-term entitlement spending--I do believe that it is an important and symbolic first step.

Even if the authority is never used by the President, its mere existence will have a chilling effect on wasteful discretionary spending. Individual Members of Congress will give second thought to promoting wasteful items spending that they know will receive a second look.

Similarly, it will provide an additional check on new items of mandatory spending, each of which has the potential to exacerbate the crisis that is the unsustainable growth in long-term entitlement spending. I say crisis because we received testimony in the Budget Committee that, if left unchecked, in under 30 years spending on just three entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security-- will exceed, as a share of GDP, the amount of spending that the entire U.S. Government consumes today.

In other words, those three programs are unsustainable. To further put the issue in perspective, outstanding 75-year Government promises, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, exceed the total amount of taxes collected in U.S. history by $26 trillion.

Again, this amendment is only the first step in reducing spending-- something that the American taxpayers demand and deserve.

I am hopeful that the new majority party will take the opportunity to support its promises of fiscal responsibility and join me in supporting this amendment.

It will bring more accountability and transparency to the legislative process so that Americans will know what is happening and can hold Members of Congress more accountable.

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

I thank the Senator from Colorado. I appreciate all her fine work on that committee, and I really appreciate it for all the people of Colorado.

Mr. President, as my good friend and colleague from Colorado just mentioned, we are introducing S. 194 naming the post office in Vail, CO, after former President Gerald R. Ford. As this vote just showed, we are all aware that when Gerald Ford passed away last month, our country lost a great man. Much has been said recently about President Ford: How he selflessly came to the aid of this country in one of its most trying times, how he governed through his beliefs about what was the best decision for the Nation regardless of the personal consequences, and his lifelong pursuit of bipartisanship and debate.

The defining characteristic of President Ford was his ability to remain humble and a man of the people. As testimonies poured in across the Nation, we were reminded about how he played selflessly as center at the University of Michigan, worked as a busboy while attending law school, and often hosted barbecues for his neighbors at his home in Alexandria, VA, while serving as House minority leader.

President Ford's charm and likability were shown all over the country, but away from his home State and the microscope of Washington, DC, Gerald Ford and his family also touched Colorado. As a Congressman from Michigan, the Ford family visited Colorado to ski in 1968 and since then have remained a constant presence in that community. He skied there, he built a house in nearby Beaver Creek, and he hosted a golf tournament for 20 years.

Following President Ford's passing, more than 2,500 people gathered at the base of Vail Mountain to witness a touching tribute to the President that included 500 ski instructors and a torchlight parade on Vail's Golden Peak. In Vail, like many other communities, President Ford was regarded as a tremendous asset and a man who treated everyone as an equal. Several residents remarked that one would never know he was a former President.

As a lasting tribute to this tremendous man, I cannot think of a more appropriate honor than to have Vail's post office bear the name of Gerald R. Ford, Jr. A post office is the point in every community that brings all people together, and there is no better way to symbolize the virtues President Ford demonstrated through his public and private life. I encourage the Senate to pass legislation entitled ``Senate Bill 194'' in recognition of President Ford and his contributions to Vail,

Mr. President, as my good friend and colleague from Colorado just mentioned, we are introducing S. 194 naming the post office in Vail, CO, after former President Gerald R. Ford. As this vote just showed, we are all aware that when Gerald Ford passed away last month, our country lost a great man. Much has been said recently about President Ford: How he selflessly came to the aid of this country in one of its most trying times, how he governed through his beliefs about what was the best decision for the Nation regardless of the personal consequences, and his lifelong pursuit of bipartisanship and debate.

The defining characteristic of President Ford was his ability to remain humble and a man of the people. As testimonies poured in across the Nation, we were reminded about how he played selflessly as center at the University of Michigan, worked as a busboy while attending law school, and often hosted barbecues for his neighbors at his home in Alexandria, VA, while serving as House minority leader.

President Ford's charm and likability were shown all over the country, but away from his home State and the microscope of Washington, DC, Gerald Ford and his family also touched Colorado. As a Congressman from Michigan, the Ford family visited Colorado to ski in 1968 and since then have remained a constant presence in that community. He skied there, he built a house in nearby Beaver Creek, and he hosted a golf tournament for 20 years.

Following President Ford's passing, more than 2,500 people gathered at the base of Vail Mountain to witness a touching tribute to the President that included 500 ski instructors and a torchlight parade on Vail's Golden Peak. In Vail, like many other communities, President Ford was regarded as a tremendous asset and a man who treated everyone as an equal. Several residents remarked that one would never know he was a former President.

As a lasting tribute to this tremendous man, I cannot think of a more appropriate honor than to have Vail's post office bear the name of Gerald R. Ford, Jr. A post office is the point in every community that brings all people together, and there is no better way to symbolize the virtues President Ford demonstrated through his public and private life. I encourage the Senate to pass legislation entitled ``Senate Bill 194'' in recognition of President Ford and his contributions to Vail,

Mr. President, another piece of legislation that I am introducing today addresses an issue important to citizens of southern Colorado.

The problem is this: cable and satellite subscribers in two southern Colorado counties are forced by current law to receive New Mexico television stations. Lately, I hear almost every day from my constituents that they would prefer to receive Colorado television over New Mexico television.

The problem stems from the fact that these two Colorado counties are located in the Albuquerque designated market area, as determined by Nielsen Media Research. As a matter of fairness, citizens of Colorado should be eligible to receive Colorado TV. Consumers should choose which television stations they receive, especially since they are the ones paying for it.

The bill I am introducing does just that. It makes a commonsense change to the law that allows citizens of La Plata and Montezuma Counties to receive television stations from Denver, not Albuquerque.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill that is nearly identical to laws enacted in previous Congresses that addressed similar problems in other States.

Mr. President, I am introducing a bill dealing with the Granada Relocation Camp, also known as Camp Amache. It played an important, but sad, part in United States history. Camp Amache, one of 10 internment camps in the Nation, was established in August 1942 by the U.S. Government during World War II as a place to house the Japanese from the west coast and was closed on August 15, 1945. This is a significant part of American history and it should be preserved. My bill today will designate the Granada Relocation Camp as a national historic site in Colorado.

Mr. President, another piece of legislation I am introducing today will authorize the expansion of the boundary of Mesa Verde National Park. The boundary adjustment will allow for the incorporation of 324 acres of land owned by the Henneman family, which is being purchased by the Conservation Fund for conveyance to the park, as well as a 38-acre parcel that will be donated to the park by the Mesa Verde Foundation.

Mesa Verde National Park protects some of the best preserved and most notable archeological sites in the world. There are over 4,000 known archeological sites in the park, including 600 cliff dwellings. These sites were constructed by ancestral Puebloans, who occupied this area for over 700 years, from 600 A.D. to 1300 A.D.

Mr. President, the Baca National Wildlife Refuge Purpose bill will give the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service management tools that will allow the agency to run the Baca National Wildlife Refuge in a way that achieves the most beneficial use of this wonderful natural resource. The Baca National Wildlife Refuge consists of 92,500 acres of wetlands, sage brush, and riparian lands adjacent to the Great Sand Dunes National Park in southern Colorado. I, along with my former colleague from Colorado's 3rd Congressional District, U.S. Representative Scott McInnis, sponsored the legislation that converted the Sand Dunes from a monument to a park. This legislation also authorized the Federal acquisition of the Baca Ranch lands and I remain actively interested in the area's management.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation which will extend congressional authorization for the Cache la Poudre Heritage Area in northern Colorado and will give local citizens greater management authority over the area. Under the original legislation, authored by former Colorado. Senator Hank Brown, the Secretary of Interior was to appoint a commission to work with the National Park Service and manage the area, but because of a technicality, the Secretary was unable to appoint the commission. In response, local citizens stepped up and formed the Poudre Heritage Alliance to support the Heritage Area until an official commission could be named. This legislation would rectify this, and empower local residents to continue the work they have been doing on behalf of the heritage area.