Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I introduced legislation to designate the U.S. Postal Service facility located at 10799 West Alameda Avenue in Lakewood, CO, as the ``Felix Sparks Post Office Building.'' This facility will bear the name of a great American, Brigadier General Felix Sparks. Sadly, Brigadier General Sparks passed away in September of last year, but this honor will serve as a lasting tribute to his life and service to his country, State, and community.

Brigadier General Felix Sparks led an exemplary life. His long and distinguished military and civilian career took him from the European theater of World War II to the chambers of the Colorado Supreme Court. General Sparks' enduring leadership, honesty and integrity serve as an inspiration to us all. I am honored to take this time to speak about General Sparks and to introduce this necessary piece of legislation.

Growing up in Arizona, the son of a rail worker, BG Sparks joined the U.S. Army during the Great Depression. After serving in Northern Africa, he went on to lead the Colorado-based 157th regiment in Italy, liberating the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau. During his military service, BG Sparks was awarded two Purple Hearts, two Silver Stars, the Legion of Merit, the Combat Infantry Badge, a Commendation Medal, eight battle stars on his European/African Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, and the Croix de Guerre with the Silver Gilt Star.

Although Brigadier General Sparks' passion was practicing law, it paled in comparison when he was called to serve. As a liberator, decorated military officer, District Attorney for Delta, Colorado Supreme Court Justice, Commanding General of the Colorado Army National Guard, State Water Board member and University of Colorado graduate, BG Sparks' sense of duty prevailed.

As a lasting tribute to this incredible man, I cannot think of a more appropriate honor than to have this Lakewood Post Office bear the name of Felix Sparks. A post office is the point in every community that brings all people together, and there is no better way to symbolize the virtues BG Sparks demonstrated through his public and private life. I encourage the Senate to pass this legislation in recognition of BG Felix Sparks.

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

Mr. President, today I introduced legislation to designate the U.S. Postal Service facility located at 10799 West Alameda Avenue in Lakewood, CO, as the ``Felix Sparks Post Office Building.'' This facility will bear the name of a great American, Brigadier General Felix Sparks. Sadly, Brigadier General Sparks passed away in September of last year, but this honor will serve as a lasting tribute to his life and service to his country, State, and community.

Brigadier General Felix Sparks led an exemplary life. His long and distinguished military and civilian career took him from the European theater of World War II to the chambers of the Colorado Supreme Court. General Sparks' enduring leadership, honesty and integrity serve as an inspiration to us all. I am honored to take this time to speak about General Sparks and to introduce this necessary piece of legislation.

Growing up in Arizona, the son of a rail worker, BG Sparks joined the U.S. Army during the Great Depression. After serving in Northern Africa, he went on to lead the Colorado-based 157th regiment in Italy, liberating the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau. During his military service, BG Sparks was awarded two Purple Hearts, two Silver Stars, the Legion of Merit, the Combat Infantry Badge, a Commendation Medal, eight battle stars on his European/African Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, and the Croix de Guerre with the Silver Gilt Star.

Although Brigadier General Sparks' passion was practicing law, it paled in comparison when he was called to serve. As a liberator, decorated military officer, District Attorney for Delta, Colorado Supreme Court Justice, Commanding General of the Colorado Army National Guard, State Water Board member and University of Colorado graduate, BG Sparks' sense of duty prevailed.

As a lasting tribute to this incredible man, I cannot think of a more appropriate honor than to have this Lakewood Post Office bear the name of Felix Sparks. A post office is the point in every community that brings all people together, and there is no better way to symbolize the virtues BG Sparks demonstrated through his public and private life. I encourage the Senate to pass this legislation in recognition of BG Felix Sparks.

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

Mr. President, I was scheduled to speak at 6:30. We had a vote at 6:30. It is my understanding that I now have the floor to speak on the bill on which we just voted.

I rise to discuss the war in Iraq and specifically the legislation at hand which directs the President to transition the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq.

The Senate has voted on this same issue on four separate occasions in this session alone. Not one of those times did the measure receive even one-third of the Senate's support. Nonetheless, here we are again debating the policies of the war.

Let me be clear. There is certainly nothing wrong with openly debating those policies. It is our responsibility as Members of this body to discuss thoroughly what is arguably the most important and defining issue of our day. In fact, I find it highly curious there was an attempt to castigate those who voted for this debate and who wanted the full 30 hours to talk about this vital issue. Some in this body seem to have perhaps been a little too clever and tried to summon as much outrage against debating this matter as they were prepared to use in support of debate.

I do question exactly what those in support of this bill hoped to realistically accomplish with this debate and this legislation before us given the gains that have been made through the surge strategy. Last May when the surge was being implemented, only 29 Senators voted for similar legislation. Undoubtedly, much has changed for the better since that point. Violence in Iraq is down 60 percent since the start of the surge and 80 percent in and around Iraq. There has been a 30-percent increase since June in insurgent weapon caches discovered. Economic improvements continue. Oil production is constantly increasing, up 50 percent from this time last year. And oil revenues are nearly double what they were last year. In Baghdad alone, 21 new health clinics opened this year, 1,885 new schools have been built, and another 1,604 have been refurbished throughout Iraq.

Because of reconstruction and rebuilding, electricity demand is up 25 percent. A year ago, it would have been laughable to suggest that Anbar Province be transferred to Iraqi control. But that will happen in May. When this occurs, Anbar will be 10 out of 18 provinces under full Iraqi control.

The city of Ramadi in Anbar was once one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq. It is now one of its safest following the surge. The number of U.S. combat battalions operating in Ramadi has decreased from five to two in less than a year.

An Army combat brigade that has been stationed in Ramadi for over a year is scheduled to leave the area in March and is not scheduled to be replaced. The United States is on pace to transfer control of all Iraqi provinces by the end of the year.

The surge strategy is brilliant in its simplicity: Exert our military forces to quell insurgent violence in order to create an environment suitable for fostering and sustaining a legitimate government capable of governing its citizens. Real political progress will only be reached when Iraqis feel secure, and the results of the surge are proving this to be exactly the case.

Thus far the surge is producing its intended results by eliminating terrorists, interrupting communications between insurgents in many areas in Iraq, and ensuring safety for the people which, in turn, allows far broader, far greater cooperation and association with the United States.

Only with these security improvements do Iraqis have a reasonable chance of finding a political solution. This strategy is convincing many Iraqis to abandon terrorist methods and turn against groups such as al-Qaida.

Our efforts are reuniting torn communities and enabling political process. Obviously, this Nation would have been better served had the surge strategy been implemented earlier. But the ability to criticize strategy is not the same as the ability to strategize.

So I applaud those who did finally implement the surge strategy and congratulate them on their vision. As we know, Iraq must stand up before we can stand down. Again, David Petraeus has stated there cannot be solely a military solution to violence without political action. And he is absolutely correct in his assertion.

In recent weeks, Iraqis have made tremendous political strides under what are still difficult and onerous conditions and as a result increased security in their nation. February 13 saw the Council of Representatives pass three key pieces of legislation: amnesty for Sunni security detainees, a provincial powers law, and a budget.

Debaathification reform was enacted last month as well.

Let's talk about those political accomplishments. The general amnesty law passed by the Shiite-majority Parliament sets the guidelines in providing amnesty for thousands of detainees held in Iraq detention facilities. This helps to remove one of the greatest stumbling blocks to reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites.

The Iraqi Parliament has also passed the provincial powers law which outlines the balance of authorities between the central and local governments while also specifying that provincial elections be held on October 1 of this year. The Iraqi Parliament approved a $48 billion budget, representing a step toward Iraq using its own resources to provide for security and infrastructure reconstruction. This Sunni-Shia compromise budget allows the Kurds a larger share of the budget, which is 17 percent. Iraqi oil revenues have soared with the rise of global prices, and Iraqi production has increased due to gains in security. The money is now going to the provinces on a regular basis where it will fund urgently needed reconstruction and humanitarian relief. The Iraqi Government is now providing the kind of services that give the Iraqi people a stake in their own success.

Finally, the President's council approved the law of accountability and justice on February 3, 2008. This law could allow thousands of former Ba'ath party officials to return to Government jobs and receive pensions, helping the reconciliation process and stimulating the economy. In addition, even more groundbreaking legislation is slated for consideration in the very near future. These initiatives include a hydrocarbons law to determine the level of control allocated to the central Government as well as an election law that is being drafted currently by the Prime Minister's office. While the job is far

from over and much work is still required, these recent accomplishments on the political and economic fronts continue to gather momentum and show important signs of progress and create reasons for optimism. There is much criticism of flaws in the Iraqi Government's processes and outcomes, but any Member of this body who considers throwing stones in that direction should first glance at any newspaper, news show, citizen rally, or public opinion poll, and reflect on who among us is producing perfect and flawless legislation.

Even the media, which has often been one-sided on the war, has for several months now been forced to report that the surge and coalition efforts have been succeeding. Let's look at some of the headlines:

The Washington Post, February 23, 2007, ``Sadr Extends Truce in Iraq''; the Los Angeles Times, February 22, 2008, ``U.S. Micro-Loan Effort Yields Big Results in Iraqi Province''; the Colorado Springs Gazette, February 18, 2008, ``Baghdad Neighborhood is a Model of Progress''; Reuters, February 16 of this year, ``Attacks in Baghdad Fall 80 Percent''; Reuters, a February 13 article, ``Iraq Lawmakers Pass Key Budget and Amnesty Laws''; Reuters on January 17 of 2008, ``Iraqi Forces Could Control All Provinces This Year''; even the New York Times, February 14, 2008, ``Making (Some) Progress in Iraq''; the Washington Post on February 10, 2008, ``Diary of an Insurgent in Retreat: Al-Qaeda in Iraq Figure Lists Woes''; the AP, February 2, 2008, ``Lynch: US Surge Tipped Scales in Iraq''; an AP article on January 21, 2008, ``U.N. Envoy Applauds Cut in Iraqi Violence''; the Winston-Salem Journal, February 12, 2008, ``Iraq is Much Changed Since Surge Started One Year Ago''; Tacoma News Tribune, February 14, 2008, ``Iraq Reaches Benchmark for Healing.''

Coalition success is being seen all over Iraq. It is being reported. The only people who seem to refuse to see it or admit we are winning in Iraq are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who continue time and again to bring this issue to the floor claiming that the surge has not worked and urging immediate troop withdrawal. Certain Members of Congress continue to deny that any progress has been made. Earlier this month the Speaker of the House described the surge as a failure. Opponents long criticized the administration for not sending more troops to Iraq. But when this strategy was installed, it was also attacked as opponents declared that this effort was essentially too little, too late. When the surge began to show great military success, it faded from the floor of this body.

That is why we welcome the chance to spend 30 hours on this topic. It is a shame that now, when both military and political success is being realized, we are only debating whether to retreat. If that is the ground the majority wishes to stand on, so be it.

For a moment let's consider the severity of the issue at hand. We are debating whether to deploy our forces which would essentially concede the country to whatever group eventually gains control that would likely plunge the country into further unrest and chaos. It seems we are acting under the assumption that if we get all of our forces out, we can slam the door behind us and all will be fine. This policy fails to lend any consideration to what would certainly be dire consequences that would ensue as a result of our Nation abandoning Iraq at this critical juncture. To do this would simply be irresponsible and shortsighted. Iraq is the pivotal front in our global war on terror. To intentionally abandon our progress and lose the battle would surely cause irrevocable harm to our efforts to secure our Nation. Osama bin Laden had referred to Iraq as the central front in the war against America and the West. Al-Qaida in Iraq shares this view of the situation. Leaving prematurely would only strengthen al-Qaida and enable terrorists to set up training camps in Iraq and plot further attacks on the United States.

The National Intelligence Council stated:

If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge

that al Qaeda in Iraq would attempt to use parts of the

country--particularly al-Anbar province--to plan increased

attacks in and outside Iraq.

By passing this legislation, we would be running away from a war from the floor of the Senate. When has it ever been sound policy for legislators to micromanage a war from Washington? I don't ever recall in our history this tactic being successful in achieving our strategic goals. In fact, let me remind our colleagues, we have seen terrible results from political motives being placed above military necessity. Installing an artificial deadline is not what we need. It is not what is good for the Nation. It is not good for the future of Iraq and the long-term stability of that region. We have heard from our military intelligence professionals who have warned about the possible consequences of hasty withdrawal and the potentially catastrophic results that may ensue. We should also listen to our folks on the ground. I have heard time and time again from our service men and women from all branches of the military who have returned from Iraq that progress is being made, and they are proud of the contributions they are making to this Nation and to the long-term stability of Iraq and the Middle East.

In my lifetime I have witnessed few events that compare to the joy and jubilation that accompany the homecoming of a military unit. When I have seen a brigade return home to Fort Carson or a wing to Peterson Air Force base, there are no words to describe the sheer emotion of seeing families returned to loved ones and friends. However, redeploying our forces at this point is not the proper course of action and not in the best interests of our Nation. Our military does not exist just to come marching home, and our military understands this. They exist to fight our enemies and secure our vital national interests. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was in our national interest. Stability in the Middle East is in our national interest. Securing Iraq from terrorist control is in our national interest. Pandering speeches about bringing the troops home that strive for mere political points and fail to acknowledge strategic realities are not in our national interest.

We still have a job that needs to be completed. We still have work to do. When the time is right, we will redeploy responsibly. The Iraqi Government is making progress. We are beginning to be able to stand down to a greater extent than we have in the past. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will return to Washington and report on the progress in Iraq in April. We owe to it our men and women in harm's way to listen to the experts and make our decisions off of their findings.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to make note of the recent passing of Jack B. Weil of Denver, CO. I knew Jack personally. That puts me in the company of thousands. The passing of Jack B. Weil is not only a loss for his family, but it is a loss for the city of Denver and the State of Colorado, so I wanted to share a bit about Jack.

Jack was born on Nov 13, 1928, at Denver's Mercy Hospital. He graduated from Tulane University in 1952 and entered the U.S. Army as a second lieutenant, thus beginning a life of service to causes greater than himself.

In 1954, Jack joined the firm founded by his father, Rockmount Ranch Wear Manufacturing Company, where he worked until illness forced him to retire last year. While at Rockmount, Jack used his artistic flair to create many signature designs which have become icons of western shirt design. In fact his ``Sawtooth'' pocket and ``diamond'' snap design is the longest running shirt design in America, and it sits in a collection at the Smithsonian. Rockmount shirts have been worn by working cowboys, rodeo cowboys and the likes of Ronald Reagan, Elvis, Eric Clapton, Robert Redford, and more.

Jack was active in his community throughout his life. He supported higher education for all and served as the longtime chairman of the Foundation for the Community College of Denver. He supported the cause of historic preservation, even buying one of Denver's historic homes and fighting to preserve the historic character of the Humboldt Island neighborhood. He opened that same home for fundraisers for a wide spectrum of causes, including charitable and political ones. An accomplished artist, his abstract paintings provided pleasure to many people and were displayed in local galleries.

On the political front, Jack was proof that one could have strong convictions yet treat those with divergent views with respect and dignity. He never hesitated to state his views and he actively supported them by his involvement and leadership with various political organizations. When discussions would get too heated, Jack was quick with a wry comment or offcolor joke to break the tension and remind everyone of their commonalities, not their differences.

To the very end, Jack served others. He spent the past 2-plus years as the cochair of the USS Mesa Verde commissioning team. In that role, Jack supported the crew of this brand new Navy ship with both his time and his money. Despite his flagging health, he even attended the commissioning ceremony in Florida this past December to demonstrate his support of our brave sailors.

But you can not capture the essence of Jack B. Weil in his accomplishments. No, the true essence of Jack is captured in the lives he touched. You see, Jack Weil loved people. Be it buying someone who was having a bad day an ice cream cone or inviting people he had just met over to his house, Jack demonstrated a heart for people that we all would do well to follow. He made friends wherever he went and always offered words of encouragement to those who needed them. This is best demonstrated by the volume of e-mails, phone calls, and letters that his family has received from all over the world offering their condolences and stories of how Jack touched them.

Though Jack moved in circles with the rich and powerful, he was completely unaffected by it. His son tells a story of Jack mentioning one day how he had sold some shirts to ``some British musician . . . David something . . . Bowie,'' which his son thought was another one of Jack's jokes until he received a call from David Bowie's assistant the next day to order more shirts. Or the time Jack shared some laughs at a club with Robin Williams while having no idea who he was. That was how Jack was. It didn't matter if you were famous or powerful or a cleaning lady or a bartender, to Jack you were just his friend.

There is a line from a poem that all cadets at West Point learn that I think says it best: And when our course on earth is run, may it be said, ``Well Done, be thou at peace.'' Well Done, Jack.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, this year marks the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Air Force Space Command. In 1982, the U.S. Air Force created the U.S. Air Force Space Command to defend North America through its space and intercontinental ballistic operations. Since its creation, Air Force Space Command has become a leader in defense capabilities. They provide a significant portion of U.S. Strategic Command's warfighting capabilities, including missile warning, strategic deterrence, and space-based surveillance capabilities. They now monitor space radars providing vital information on the location of satellites and space debris for the Nation and the world.

Today, nearly 25 years after the establishment of U.S. Air Force Space Command, space plays an even more important role in national security. The current war on terror requires extensive use of space- based communications, GPS and meteorological data to effectively prosecute military operations. The United States relies on space for warfighting capabilities, missile defense, and strategic deterrence. Air Force Space Command has been a leader in this area and remains a critical component of national security.

I would also like to recognize the men and women of Air Force Space Command. Their hard work and dedication provide vital support to our military and the security of this Nation. They have been instrumental in disaster relief and homeland defense. I thank them for their service to the Nation.

Mr. President, I am proud ask that the Senate unanimously pass this resolution today recognizing the contributions and achievements of Air Force Space Command over the past 25 years.

Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the retirement of my friend and colleague, Senator Trent Lott. Trent has visited Colorado. However, he complained he was kept busy and couldn't appreciate Colorado's vistas. Now he will have time to appreciate the great State of Colorado, and I invite him to revisit us because he will have time.

Trent was majority leader when I came to the Senate in 1997. A large percentage of the views I have of how this body should work and how we can best come together, despite differences of opinions and goals, was formed watching Trent Lott shepherd through legislation organizing 100 competing agendas into a manageable schedule. I have always felt we were sent here by the people of our States to solve problems and achieve results. I know ideas can and do vary as to what solutions are or even what the problems are. That makes the end goal of finding solutions most of us can agree to that much harder and the skills required to do so much more rare. The Senate has been lucky to have Trent in our midst as we worked through the pressing issues of these times.

It should be noted Trent has done his work here, all the while remaining a genuinely decent man and a true gentleman. He is, everyone agrees, a fundamentally nice person who enjoys the human contact and personal relationships that come with his position. He enjoys working on behalf of the people of Mississippi. He has represented their interests well, and they have made it clear they approve of his service.

Trent attended Pascagoula Junior High, which is now called Trent Lott Middle School. He is truly an example for future Americans to emulate. I join my colleagues in thanking Trent and his wife Tricia for their service and thank God for providing him to public service in the Senate, where I personally know of his service.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes under the Republican time. I am going to share my concerns about a provision included in the Interior division of the Omnibus appropriations bill. This provision was added on the House Floor and was unfortunately retained by the conference committee. The language of this provision will prohibit BLM from preparing or publishing final regulations for oil shale commercial leasing on public lands. This provision is opposed by the Department of the Interior. I have a letter stating their concerns from Secretary Dirk Kempthorne which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.

In 2005, I worked closely with my colleagues in the House and in the Senate on provisions which were included in section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These will help lead to commercialization after the research and demonstration projects currently underway have proven themselves. As those of us who have to run a business know, it is a bad practice to pour millions of dollars into research and development projects with no hint of assurance that these projects will lead to commercialization. Understanding the regulatory framework within which development must take place is important to companies making investment decisions. I believe, as I did in 2005, that it is critical to give companies investing tens of millions of dollars into these research projects a proverbial ``light at the end of the tunnel.''

The timeline included in this section of the Energy Policy Act for setting up a regulatory framework for oil shale development required the Department of the Interior to develop a programmatic environmental impact statement for oil shale by February of 2007 and to finalize oil shale regulations by August of 2007. Although these dates have slipped, many who are concerned with decreasing our country's dependence on foreign sources of oil remain interested in seeing this process move forward. A regulatory framework is needed in order to clarify the range of development options.

During the last several years, a handful of companies have worked to develop technologies that will allow for economically and environmentally feasible development of this resource. While it may take many years of research to establish whether commercial leasing is viable, it is essential in guiding the scope of study and further analysis, including additional site-specific environmental impact statements that are likely to be needed prior to any commercial-scale development.

Some have complained that it is too soon to begin drafting commercialization regulations or that the pace at which the development is moving is too quick. I am not advocating that we move forward inappropriately or in a way that is not sustainable.

It should be noted that section 369 of the Energy Policy Act also requires the Department of Interior to host a commercial lease sale in February of 2008, but all who are involved in this process are aware that it is premature to take that step too soon. I have been supportive of moving back the date of the first commercial lease sale. However, this fact does not mean that we should not bring the rest of the process to a grinding halt.

We are in the midst of a deliberate and thoughtful process for approaching the research and eventual commercial development of oil shale. The potential of this abundant domestic resource is too important to take lightly.

It is estimated that there are potentially over 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil available from shale. Let me repeat that. There is a potential of over 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil available from oil shale, at a time when this country is struggling to produce enough oil for this country's consumption. This could be the single largest contributor to weaning us off of imports from other countries, many of which are in political turmoil. Moreover, bringing online another large domestic supply of energy can lower prices for consumers, bring in royalties to States and the Federal Government, and enhance the stability of oil prices in the marketplace.

With a cautious but deliberate approach that involves consultation with State and local governments, we have the best opportunity of determining if producing oil from shale is possible. We must give this process an opportunity to work before we cut it off at the knees. The language included in this bill does just that. It is not sound policy for our country. From a process standpoint, we should not be undoing carefully crafted policy choices that were negotiated for months by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction and passed by the Congress on a massive appropriations bill that is being pushed through this Chamber at the eleventh hour.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I withdraw my request to yield the floor.

Yes.

Mr. President, this is a new process. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his question. This process is becoming economically feasible and certainly protects the environment. I know the Senator has been working hard on this particular issue on the committees on which he is a leader, and I appreciate his recognizing the importance of us being less dependent on foreign oil and the importance of this huge reserve that exists in several States throughout the West. This is new technology. It is very promising. It is exciting. The byproduct from this particular process I have been told--and I have seen samples of it--is high-grade jet fuel that needs further refining because of the high sulfur nitrogen content. But it is a remarkable product, and it is done in an environmentally friendly way.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments on this very important issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for yielding me the time. I will make my comments very briefly.

First of all, I rise in support of this FHA reform package. I do not think this is the time for us to take choices away from homeowners and consumers. This helps provide additional choices for homeowners with some safeguards.

The FHA reverse mortgage program contains some important safeguards for borrowers such as mandatory counseling and limits on fees that can be charged. For those very rare instances in which reverse mortgages were used as part of a predatory or fraudulent scheme, I support vigorous enforcement against the perpetrators. The problem is with the perpetrators, not with the reverse mortgage program.

The bill also provides some provisions restricting seller-financed home equity plans. There are some provisions which I think are good. There are provisions for the energy efficiency mortgages. I am cochair on the Renewable Energy and Efficiency Caucus, and I want to seek every opportunity we can to have structures that promote energy efficiency. I think that is a good part of the bill. I thank Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby, as well as Senator Martinez and Senator Schumer, for their work on this bill. I am pleased this reform package also includes title I manufactured housing, which is something I have worked on with Senator Bayh.

So there are some important reforms to be offered on this bill, and I think they are offering opportunities for affordable home ownership. So I am rising in support of this particular piece of legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his leadership on this particular issue. I am involved because farmers and ranchers all over the country are being impacted by their land values since the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo.

As was stated by the Farm Bureau, farmers and ranchers have been particularly vulnerable to States or local municipalities taking their land for private economic uses, open space or other purposes.

Farmlands in several States have already been taken for open space purposes. The Farm Bureau goes on to say the amendment would strongly discourage the exercise of eminent domain for open space purposes.

I have a strong record of supporting limitations on eminent domain. I have to rise on behalf of my farmers and ranchers in Colorado in support of Senator Craig's amendment. This amendment would protect farmland and ranchland throughout this great Nation from land condemnation for use as open space.

I wish to be clear at the outset that this amendment would not affect uses of eminent domain that have been found to be justified. There are a few legitimate uses for eminent domain powers. Necessary use of eminent domain for items such as utility corridors or military and national security needs would not be affected.

America's farmers and ranchers are some of the best land managers around. Not only do they manage their land in a manner making it the most productive in the world but also in a way that makes it some of the most scenic land in our country and certainly a valuable way of keeping open space because of the nature of their operations.

The vistas of rural America possess some of the most remarkable scenery in the world. However, while their beauty is remarkable, their true value lies in the foods and fibers they produce.

An unsettling trend is now unfolding in small towns and rural communities from coast to coast. The use of eminent domain to condemn working agricultural lands or lands that will be transferred from one private property owner to another. This is an expansive use of eminent domain.

This condemnation results not only in weakening our national security by threatening our food supply but harms the economies of rural America and steals--yes, steals--private land from rightful owners.

Senator Craig's amendment, which I support, along with Senator Brownback, would discourage this disturbing occurrence. It prohibits access to Federal financial assistance for a period of 5 years to any State or unit of local government choosing to exercise the use of eminent domain to take working agricultural ground for the purpose of open space.

This reasonable and measured approach would help protect America's agricultural land by making governments weigh the need of taking land against their desire for Federal funds.

Senators should remember the right to own property was one of the key principles on which this Nation was founded. I daresay that if the Founding Fathers were here today, they would support passage of Senator Craig's amendment.

As Thomas Jefferson noted in 1775 in the Declaration on Taking Up Arms:

The political institutions of America, its various soils

and climates, opened a certain resource to the unfortunate

and to the enterprising of every country and insured them the

acquisition and free possession of property.

Let me say this again: ``The free possession of property'' is the principle the Craig amendment supports. I have a long legislative record of supporting the rights of the private property owner. The State of Colorado also has a long record of opposition to the taking of private property. As a Senator, I believe it is important to ensure that private property owners are able to retain possession of their land. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Working with willing sellers is the right way. Condemning working agricultural land for open space is the wrong way. I urge my colleagues to listen to their conscience and support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a legend in the Colorado State University and Fort Collins, CO, community: Coach Sonny Lubick. For 15 seasons, he led the CSU Rams to a record of 108- 74, six conference titles, and nine bowl games.

Originally from Butte, MT, Coach Lubick graduated from the University of Montana-Western in 1960 and began his coaching career 10 years later at Montana State University. After eight seasons as an assistant coach, he was promoted to head coach. His hard work and early success served as the foundation for what would become a remarkable coaching career.

After serving as an assistant coach for various other programs, Coach Lubick accepted the head coaching position at Colorado State University prior to the 1993 season. He began by implementing an aggressive effort to recruit players and expand the program beyond anything previously achieved. With new recruits and under new leadership, the CSU Rams reached new heights during Coach Lubick's second year with CSU. During that remarkable season, the Rams finished with a 10-2 record, clinching the university's first ever WAC Championship and a trip to the Holiday Bowl. The 1994 season was the beginning of a new era in Colorado State football, earning Sonny Lubick National Coach of the Year honors from Sports Illustrated magazine. Lubick also joined an elite list of coaches in 2005, as active Division IA coaches with 100 or more career wins with their current institution. This group includes only nine members.

The success Coach Lubick's program achieved led to the construction of the McGraw Athletic Center in 1999, and recently the university has announced its intention to build indoor practice facilities and an academic and training center, both of which are attributed to Sonny Lubick's leadership and efforts. Coach Lubick's personal philosophy of responsibility, character, respect, and perspective has been the driving force behind the success of both the football team and the surrounding community.

Sonny Lubick's family-oriented approach to coaching and life has earned a multitude of accolades. In 2003 he was recognized as ``Father of the Year'' by the American Diabetes Association--Colorado Chapter. That same year he was also named one of the four national finalists for the Eddie Robinson Coach of Distinction Award for his community service. Coach Lubick regularly gives his time to St. Jude's Children's Hospital and several other local charities. In 2005 the Fort Collins Board of Realtors named Coach Lubick ``Citizen of the Year,'' and most recently the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce awarded him the Collins Award, given to local figures that exemplify leadership and service to the community.

Coach Sonny Lubick's charisma and good nature have made him an icon among students, fans, friends, and Coloradans. This popularity was cemented when a large donation was made to renovate CSU's stadium under the condition that the field would be named for Coach Lubick. Today, the Colorado State Rams meet their opponents in Hughes Stadium, rushing out on to Sonny Lubick Field.

As an alumnus of Colorado State University, I want to thank Coach Lubick for his dedicated service and leadership to the football team, the university, and the community.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg from New Hampshire for his amendment. This is a commonsense amendment, and I think it is entirely appropriate to have it on the agriculture bill because it is one that will make a difference in rural America.

I support the amendment which is called the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care amendment, that contains measures for targeted liability reform directed at curtailing the number of frivolous lawsuits that are filed every year against obstetricians and gynecologists, especially those in rural areas, such as many parts of my State of Colorado.

This amendment would help those who are in the business of protecting our mothers and children. The OB/GYN community has seen more litigation in the past few years than any other health care profession. The Medical Liability Monitor estimates that medical malpractice rates for OB/GYNs have increased as much as 500 percent between 1999 and 2004 for certain areas of the country. In 2004 alone, there was an increase of about 130 percent in areas that did not have liability protection.

Every year, fewer and fewer OB/GYNs are entering the health care industry, and every year more and more of them leave their practices behind and leave their patients without access to health care or diminished access.

What does it say that OB/GYNs are afraid to practice their professions, as my constituents have expressed to me? We need to cut down on the frivolous lawsuits against OB/GYNs so they can get back to taking care of mothers and sisters and daughters and wives in rural areas.

The Gregg amendment would provide for unlimited economic damages and provide a stacked cap model that would keep noneconomic damages at or below $750,000. The $750,000 cap stacked model would provide that there would be up to $250,000 from a decision rendered against a health care provider, $250,000 from a decision rendered against a single health care institution, and $250,000 from a decision rendered against more than one health care institution for each or $500,000 for all.

Those of you who come out of more urban areas may say that does not seem like much. But if you are a practicing physician in a rural area or a hospital in a rural area, $500,000 is a lot of money. If you have a large metropolitan hospital, it is chump change, but in rural America, it does make a difference.

It also provides punitive damages to be the greater of twice the economic damages awarded, or $250,000.

This amendment also guarantees that lawsuits are filed no later than 3 years after the injury and extends the statute of limitations for minors injured before age 6.

This language also intends to maximize patient recovery of payment by focusing on attorney payment regulations. It also establishes standards for expert witness rules, promotes fairness in the recovery of health benefits, and it attempts to prevent double recovery.

This language also raises the burden of proof for the award of punitive damages and protects providers from being a party in liability suits for FDA-approved products.

Last, it keeps a focus on the patient by attempting to curtail frivolous lawsuits.

In my State of Colorado, tort reform laws were enacted beginning in 1986. At that time, I happened to have been in the State legislature and carried much of the legislation that brought about a tort reform agenda for the State of Colorado.

Colorado created caps for noneconomic damages. They are considered to be among the most reasonable in the country. Frankly, many OB/GYNs see the tort reform laws in Colorado as beneficial to their practice and cite this as a reason to move their practice to Colorado.

However, although they find practicing in Colorado to be preferable,

problems for OB/GYNs still exist in our rural areas. That is why I am here to support the Gregg amendment, even though in Colorado we have done a lot to try to reduce the burden of frivolous lawsuits it has little impact because practitioners in the rural areas have to go into our neighboring States and practice in those neighboring States. As a result, they get impacted when they go over to those States, even though we have a favorable environment in the State of Colorado.

It is not always easy to get across a mountain in a snowstorm, such as we had in the last few weeks, so you go to patients in Utah, for example, or maybe New Mexico, if you are on some of the border communities.

Many physicians who serve in most rural areas of Colorado live in towns bordering other States. Because of the reduction in the OB/GYN workforce, it is now necessary for them to travel to patients to ensure mothers in rural areas receive treatment. It often involves crossing State lines so they may serve patients in rural areas of Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. They are all neighbors of the State of Colorado. In many cases, the laws in these States do not protect the physician to the extent those in Colorado do and at the very least increase costs for physicians.

Rural patients in this country need access to care and treatment, plain and simple. If we continue to let trial lawyers create an environment where physicians cannot afford malpractice insurance, we run the risk of leaving our rural mothers without access to the doctors they need. So even though we have favorable tort reform provisions in Colorado which help reduce frivolous lawsuits, our neighbors do not, and it is having an impact especially in the rural communities of Colorado that border our neighboring States. The fact is, it makes it more difficult to attract doctors who want to practice obstetrics in those small communities.

In Texas, a good example where the legislation most recently went into effect, amazing things have happened since September of 2003. They have added nearly 4,000 doctors, insurance premiums have declined, and the number of lawsuits filed against doctors has been cut in half. I absolutely believe a focus needs to be made on liability lawsuits, especially in the area of OB/GYN practice. And we saw similar results when the legislature of the State of Colorado passed legislation reducing the liability burden that is brought by frivolous lawsuits. So I have seen it happen in my own State as well as the State of Texas.

I will continue to do my best to ensure that women and their children, especially those in rural areas, have access to quality health care and that frivolous lawsuits do not continue to line the pockets of the plaintiff's bar. For these reasons, I lend my support to Senator Gregg as we move forward on the passage of his amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express, on behalf of myself and my wife Joan, our devastation and heartfelt sadness for both the families and communities that are suffering as a result of the senseless shootings yesterday in Colorado.

Every shooting, and every loss of an innocent life, is a terrible blow. But, shootings at schools or churches hit an especially weak spot in our public armor. They hurt our Nation in a deeper and more profound way and we mourn for the families and communities of those who have been affected by the tragedies this weekend.

The first attack on Sunday occurred at 12:30 a.m. and left two victims dead and two other wounded at the Youth with a Mission center in metro Denver. The second, 12 hours later in Colorado Springs, left two dead and three others wounded.

The two killed at the Youth with a Mission center were a young woman from Minnesota and a young man from Alaska. They were at the center to learn how to better spread the message of their faith. The two wounded at the center are in the hospital, one in critical condition and one in fair condition. The two victims who lost their lives at the New Life Church were teenage sisters, shot in the parking lot as they left a worship service. Three others, including the father of the two teenage victims, were also wounded at the church and are recovering from injuries.

There were 7,000 people at the New Life Church yesterday when the shooting took place. A volunteer security guard stopped this murderer just inside the building, saving an unknown--but certainly large number of those from being attacked as well. The name and background of the security guard who stopped the gunman are still being withheld, but she bravely acted on her instincts and training. With quick and decisive action, she returned fire with the gunman, fatally wounding him. This real-life hero has been widely credited today for saving hundreds of lives inside the church. I join with the people of Colorado in praising her actions.

Mr. President, I hope we can find the time to consider the church members lost in Colorado yesterday, the heartache of those left behind, and the valiant action of those who stopped the tragedy from spreading and helped those in need.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support and will vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

On November 18, 2003, the administration formally notified Congress of its intent to initiate negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement, FTA, with Peru. The United States and Peru announced a bilateral deal on an FTA on December 7, 2005, after resolving certain agriculture and intellectual property rights issues, as was signed April 12, 2006. The Peruvian Congress approved FTA legislation on June 28, 2006 by a vote of 79-14. Legislation to implement the Peru FTA was submitted by President Bush on September 27, 2007 and this legislation was approved by the Senate Finance Committee by voice vote on October 4. On October 31, the House Ways and Means Committee approved implementing legislation (H.R. 3688) by a vote of 39-0. The full House voted to approve the Peru FTA by a vote of 285-132 on November 9, 2007.

U.S. trade with Peru has doubled over the past 3 years, reaching $8.8 billion in 2006. More than 5,000 U.S. companies export their products to Peru, and over 80 percent of these are small and medium-sized companies that stand to benefit significantly from U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, PTPA. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, after full implementation of the agreement, U.S. agricultural exports to Peru will increase by more than $700 million per year.

According to the Department of Commerce-International Trade Administration, when the agreement enters into force, U.S. farmers and ranchers will also become much more competitive by benefiting from immediate duty-free treatment of 90 percent of current U.S. agricultural exports. Key U.S. agriculture exports such as cotton, wheat soybeans, high-quality beef, apples, pears, peaches, cherries, and almonds will be duty free upon entry into force of the Agreement. Peru will phase out all other agricultural tariffs within 17 years.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, exports of farm products boost Colorado's farm prices and income. Such exports support about 10,100 Colorado jobs, both on and off the farm in food processing, storage, and transportation. Agricultural exports amounted to $852 million and made an important contribution to Colorado's farm cash receipts in 2006 that totaled nearly $5.6 billion. The State of Colorado depends on world markets and exported shipments of merchandise to 197 foreign destinations in 2006 totaling $8.0 billion. This is an increase of 44 percent over the 2002 level of $5.5 billion.

The USDA further states that as a leading source of farm cash receipts at nearly $3.3 billion, Colorado's ranchers and beef industry benefit from exports in a number of ways. For instance, Peru will immediately eliminate the 25 percent duties on the beef products of most importance to the U.S. beef industry--Prime and choice cuts. Peru will provide immediate duty-free access for U.S. exports of standard quality beef through the establishment of an 800 ton tariff-rate quota.

The dairy industry in Colorado is the second largest source of state farm cash receipts. Our dairy producers will benefit immensely from the PTPA. Peru will immediately eliminate its system of variable levies facing U.S. exporters. Also, Peru will immediately eliminate tariffs on whey. And, all Peruvian duties on dairy products will be eliminated within 17 years, with duties on some dairy products eliminated earlier.

The corn producers are Colorado's fourth largest source of farm cash receipts. Colorado corn producers will benefit under the PTPA by eliminating its system of variable levies facing U.S. exporters. Under the current system, tariffs can be as high as the WTO ceiling of 68 percent on some corn products. Moreover, all currently applied duties on crude corn oil will be phased out over 5 years; and on white corn and other corn products within 10 years.

The pork producers are Colorado's seventh largest source of farm cash receipts. Peru will phase out all duties, which are currently as high as 25 percent, on fresh, chilled, and frozen pork within 5 years.

There are other markets that Colorado will benefit from as this agreement becomes a reality. The elimination of Peruvian tariffs on products such as computer and electronic products, machine manufacturers and chemical manufacturers will provide a competitive boost to Colorado companies.

This historic agreement will provide a level playing field for American workers and farmers, ensuring that the United States gets the full benefit of trade with this dynamic market. In the early 1990s, the United States unilaterally opened its market to Peru, and nearly everything imported from Peru enters the U.S. market duty free. However, when Americans sell their goods to Peru, they face average tariffs of 11 percent for manufactured goods and 16 percent for agricultural goods. PTPA is meant to correct this unfair trade imbalance by eliminating nearly all tariffs on U.S. exports to Peru within a few years. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates this agreement will add $1.1 billion to U.S. exports and $2.1 billion to U.S. GDP. U.S. farmers and ranchers must continue to find a way to stay competitive in today's world market.

I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting passage of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act.

Mr. President, I would like to address extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program or TRIA. I am strongly reminded of the words of the great economist Milton Friedman: ``Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.''

I remember quite clearly when the insurance industry requested a temporary Federal backstop after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I cannot stress the word temporary strongly enough in this context. Industry witnesses testified before the Banking Committee that they only needed a temporary program in order to give the private markets time to adjust. I was also promised in private meetings that the program would only be temporary. Insurance industry representatives told me repeatedly that they would not come back to seek an extension of the program.

I was quite clear in expressing my disappointment with them when shortly after implementation of the program they began advocating for an extension. I very reluctantly supported the last extension because I believed it made progress in forcing the private sector to step up to the plate. I am here today, though, to say enough. I intend to hold the insurance industry accountable for their pledge of a temporary program by opposing the TRIA reauthorization bill.

I regret that those who utilize insurance are caught in the middle. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be another way to spur insurance industry action to address this problem. Unless they are forced to come up with solutions, they will simply continue to rely on the Federal Government.

It is a shame that some consider it ``the best we can do'' to avoid massively expanding a ``temporary'' government program. I believe we can do better; we can hold people to their word and say enough is enough.