United States Secretary of the Interior
The United States Secretary of the Interior is the head of the United States Department of the Interior. The Department of the Interior in the United States is responsible for the management and conservation of most federal land and natural resources; the Secretary serves on and appoints the private citizens on the National Park Foundation board. The Secretary is a member of the President's Cabinet; the U. S. Department of the Interior should not be confused with the Ministries of the Interior as used in many other countries. Ministries of the Interior in these other countries correspond to the Department of Homeland Security in the U. S. Cabinet and secondarily to the Department of Justice; because the policies and activities of the Department of the Interior and many of its agencies have a substantial impact in the Western United States, the Secretary of the Interior has come from a western state. The current Interior Secretary is David Bernhardt, who held the office in an acting capacity until April 2019.
He succeeded Ryan Zinke who resigned on January 2, 2019. The line of succession for the Secretary of Interior is as follows: Deputy Secretary of the Interior Solicitor of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Policy and Budget Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Assistant Secretary for Fish and Parks Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Director, Security and Law Enforcement, Bureau of Reclamation Central Region Director, US Geological Survey Intermountain Regional Director, National Park Service Region 6 Director, US Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado State Director, Bureau of Land Management Regional Solicitor, Rocky Mountain Region As of April 2019, eight former Secretaries of the Interior are alive, the oldest being Manuel Lujan Jr.. The most recent to die was Cecil D. Andrus, on August 23, 2017; the most serving Secretary to die was William P. Clark Jr. on August 10, 2013. Official website List of Secretaries of the Interior The Department of Everything Else: Highlights of Interior History
Oslo I Accord
The Oslo I Accord or Oslo I called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or short Declaration of Principles, was an attempt in 1993 to set up a framework that would lead to the resolution of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It was the first face-to-face agreement between the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Negotiations concerning the agreement, an outgrowth of the Madrid Conference of 1991, were conducted secretly in Oslo, hosted by the Fafo institute, completed on 20 August 1993. C. on 13 September 1993, in the presence of PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and U. S. President Bill Clinton; the documents themselves were signed by Mahmoud Abbas for the PLO, foreign Minister Shimon Peres for Israel, U. S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher for the United States and foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev for Russia; the Accord provided for the creation of a Palestinian interim self-government, the Palestinian National Authority.
The Palestinian Authority would have responsibility for the administration of the territory under its control. The Accords called for the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, it was anticipated that this arrangement would last for a five-year interim period during which a permanent agreement would be negotiated. Remaining issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements and borders would be part of the "permanent status negotiations" during this period. In August 1993, the delegations had reached an agreement, signed in secrecy by Peres while visiting Oslo. In the Letters of Mutual Recognition, the PLO acknowledged the State of Israel and pledged to reject violence, Israel recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and as partner in negotiations. Yasser Arafat was allowed to return to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In 1995, the Oslo I Accord was followed by Oslo II. Neither promised Palestinian statehood.
In essence, the accords called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government within those areas through the creation of a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority. Palestinian rule was to last for a five-year interim period during which "permanent status negotiations" would commence in order to reach a final agreement; the negotiations would cover major issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security and borders were to be decided at these permanent status negotiations. Israel was to grant interim self-government to the Palestinians in phases. Along with the principles, the two groups signed Letters of Mutual Recognition—the Israeli government recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, while the PLO recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist and renounced terrorism as well as other violence, its desire for the destruction of the Israeli state.
The aim of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations was to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, an elected Council, for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, an integral part of the whole peace process. In order that the Palestinians govern themselves according to democratic principles and general political elections would be held for the Council. Jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council would cover the West Bank and Gaza Strip, except for issues that would be finalized in the permanent status negotiations; the two sides viewed the West Gaza as a single territorial unit. The permanent status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians would start "not than the beginning of the third year of the interim period"; that withdrawal began with the signing of the Gaza–Jericho Agreement on 4 May 1994, thus the interim period would end on 4 May 1999.
The five-year transitional period would commence with Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. There would be a transfer of authority from the Israel Defense Forces to the authorized Palestinians, concerning education and culture, social welfare, direct taxation, tourism; the Council would establish a strong police force, while Israel would continue to carry the responsibility for defending against external threats. An Israeli–Palestinian Economic Cooperation Committee would be established in order to develop and implement in a cooperative manner the programs identified in the protocols; the Declaration of Principles would enter into force one month after its signing. All protocols annexed to the Declaration of Principles and the Agreed Minutes pertaining to it were to be regarded as a part of it; the Oslo I Accord contains 17 articles. The Oslo I Accord contains four annexes: This annex covered election agreements, a system of elections and regulations regarding election campaigns, including agreed arrangements for the organizing of mass media, the possibility of licensing a TV station.
An agreement on the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. This agreement will include comprehensive arrangements to apply in the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal. Internal security and public order by the Palestinian police force consisting of police officers recruited locally and from abroad (holding Jordanian passports and Palestin
Israel–Jordan peace treaty
The Israel–Jordan peace treaty or in full "Treaty of Peace Between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan", sometimes referred to as Wadi Araba Treaty, was signed in 1994. The signing ceremony took place at the southern border crossing of Arabah on 26 October 1994. Jordan was the second Arab country, after Egypt; the treaty settled relations between the two countries, adjusted land and water disputes, provided for broad cooperation in tourism and trade. It included a pledge that neither Jordan nor Israel would allow its territory to become a staging ground for military strikes by a third country. In 1987 Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Shimon Peres and King Hussein tried secretly to arrange a peace agreement in which Israel would concede the West Bank to Jordan; the two signed an agreement defining a framework for a Middle Eastern peace conference. The proposal was not consummated due to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's objection; the following year Jordan abandoned its claim to the West Bank in favor of a peaceful resolution between Israel and the PLO.
Discussions began in 1994. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres informed King Hussein that after the Oslo Accords with the PLO, Jordan might be "left out of the big game". Hussein consulted with Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Mubarak encouraged him. U. S. President Bill Clinton pressured Hussein to start peace negotiations and to sign a peace treaty with Israel and promised him that Jordan's debts would be forgiven; the efforts succeeded and Jordan signed a nonbelligerency agreement with Israel. Rabin and Clinton signed the Washington Declaration in Washington, DC, on 25 July 1994; the Declaration says that Israel and Jordan ended the official state of enmity and would start negotiations in order to achieve an "end to bloodshed and sorrow" and a just and lasting peace. On 26 October 1994, Jordan and Israel signed the peace treaty in a ceremony held in the Arava valley of Israel, north of Eilat and near the Jordanian border. Prime Minister Rabin and Prime Minister Abdelsalam al-Majali signed the treaty and the President of Israel Ezer Weizman shook hands with King Hussein.
Clinton observed. Thousands of colorful balloons released into the sky ended the event. Egypt welcomed the agreement; the Lebanese militia group Hezbollah resisted the treaty and 20 minutes prior to the ceremony launched mortar and rocket attacks against northern Galilee towns. Israeli residents, who were forced to evacuate the towns for the safety of shelters, took with them transistor radios and mobile TVs in order not to miss the historical moment of signing a second peace treaty with an Arab state; the Peace treaty consists of a preamble, 30 articles, 5 annexes, agreed minutes. It settles issues about territory, water, co-operation on a range of subjects. Annex I concerns borders and sovereignty. Section Annex I establishes an "administrative boundary" between Jordan and the West Bank, occupied by Israel in 1967, without prejudice to the status of that territory. Israel recognises Jordan's sovereignty over the Zofar/Al-Ghamr area. Annex II concerns related matters. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Treaty and Israel agreed to establish a "Joint Water Committee".
Annex III concerns crime and drugs. Annex IV concerns environment. Annex V concerns Border Crossings and visas. Article 6 stipulates that ″Each Party has the right to refuse entry to a person, in accordance with its regulations″; the Agreed Minutes of the treaty give some details about the implementation of the peace treaty. Borders: The international boundary between Israel and Jordan follows the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers, the Dead Sea, the Emek Ha'Arava/Wadi Araba, the Gulf of Aqaba; the section of the line that separated Jordan from the West Bank was stipulated as "without prejudice to the status of territory." Diplomatic relations and co-operation: The Parties agreed to establish full diplomatic and consular relations and to exchange resident embassies, grant tourists visas, open air travel and seaports, establish a free trade zone and an industrial park in the Arava. The agreement prohibits hostile propaganda. Security and defense: Each country promised respect for the sovereignty and territory of each side, to not enter the other's territory without permission, to cooperate against terrorism.
This included thwarting border attacks, preventing any hostile attack against the other and not cooperating with any terrorist organization against the other. Jerusalem: Article 9 links the Peace Treaty to the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. Israel recognized the special role of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem and committed itself to give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines in negotiations on the permanent status. Water: Israel agreed to give Jordan 50,000,000 cubic metres of water each year and for Jordan to own 75% of the water from the Yarmouk River. Both countries could develop other water resources and reservoirs and agreed to help each other survive droughts. Israel agreed to help Jordan use desalination technology in order to find additional water. Palestinian refugees: Israel and Jordan agreed to cooperate to help the refugees, including a four-way committee to try to work towards
1996 cruise missile strikes on Iraq
The 1996 cruise missile strikes on Iraq, codenamed Operation Desert Strike, were joint United States Navy-Air Force strikes conducted on 3 September against air defense targets in southern Iraq, in response to an Iraqi offensive in the Kurdish Civil War. On 31 August 1996, the Iraqi military launched its biggest offensive since 1991 against the city of Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan to defuse the Kurdish Civil War between the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and Kurdistan Democratic Party; this attack stoked American fears that the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein intended to launch a genocidal campaign against the Kurds similar to the campaigns of 1988 and 1991. It placed Saddam in clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 forbidding repression of Iraq's ethnic minorities; the strikes were planned to be by aircraft launched from the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, including aircraft from Fighter Squadron 11 and Fighter Squadron 31, both operating F-14D Tomcats. However the strike was instead launched by U.
S. Navy surface warships and U. S. Air Force bombers. On 3 September 1996, a joint operation by the U. S. Navy's Carl Vinson Carrier Battle Group and U. S. Air Force, a combined strike team consisting of the guided-missile cruiser USS Shiloh, the guided-missile destroyer USS Laboon, B-52 Stratofortress bombers escorted by F-14D Tomcat fighters from Carl Vinson, with the nuclear-powered guided-missile cruiser USS California serving as Air Warfare Commander, launched 27 cruise missiles against Iraqi air defense targets in southern Iraq. A second wave of 17 missiles was launched that day from the destroyers USS Russell, USS Hewitt, USS Laboon, the nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Jefferson City; the missiles hit targets in and around Kut, Iskandariyah and Tallil. The attacks were aimed at retaliation for the targeting of USAF fighters in the Northern and Southern no-fly zones, were targeted at surface-to-air missile sites and command and communication locations, with the intention of degrading the Iraqi air defense infrastructure.
These strikes, along with follow-on deployments of troops and the addition of a second aircraft carrier to the region, achieved their desired results. It is debatable whether the attacks did or did not have a substantial effect on Iraq's northern campaign. Once they installed the Kurdistan Democratic Party in control of Irbil, Iraqi troops withdrew from the Kurdish region back to their initial positions; the KDP drove the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan from its other strongholds, with additional Iraqi help, captured Sulaymaniyah. The PUK and its leader, Jalal Talabani, retreated to the Iranian border, American forces evacuated 700 Iraqi National Congress personnel and 6,000 pro-Western Kurds out of northern Iraq. In response to Iraq's moves, the United States and United Kingdom expanded Operation Southern Watch and the southern Iraqi no-fly zones from the 32nd parallel to the 33rd parallel, bringing it to the edges of Baghdad itself. 1993 cruise missile strikes on Iraq Bombing of Iraq Operation Desert Strike at globalsecurity.org
In the law regulating historic districts in the United States, a contributing property or contributing resource is any building, object, or structure which adds to the historical integrity or architectural qualities that make the historic district, listed locally or federally, significant. Government agencies, at the state and local level in the United States, have differing definitions of what constitutes a contributing property but there are common characteristics. Local laws regulate the changes that can be made to contributing structures within designated historic districts; the first local ordinances dealing with the alteration of buildings within historic districts was in Charleston, South Carolina in 1931. Properties within a historic district fall into one of two types of property: contributing and non-contributing. A contributing property, such as a 19th-century mansion, helps make a historic district historic, while a non-contributing property, such as a modern medical clinic, does not.
The contributing properties are key to a historic district's historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological qualities. A property can change from contributing to non-contributing and vice versa if significant alterations take place. According to the National Park Service, the first instance of law dealing with contributing properties in local historic districts occurred in 1931 when the city of Charleston, South Carolina, enacted an ordinance that designated the "Old and Historic District." The ordinance declared that buildings in the district could not have changes made to their architectural features visible from the street. By the mid-1930s, other U. S. cities followed Charleston's lead. An amendment to the Louisiana Constitution led to the 1937 creation of the Vieux Carre Commission, charged with protecting and preserving the French Quarter in the city of New Orleans; the city passed a local ordinance that set standards regulating changes within the quarter. Other sources, such as the Columbia Law Review in 1963, indicate differing dates for the preservation ordinances in both Charleston and New Orleans.
The Columbia Law Review gave dates of 1925 for 1924 for Charleston. The same publication claimed that these two cities were the only cities with historic district zoning until Alexandria, Virginia adopted an ordinance in 1946; the National Park Service appears to refute this. In 1939, the city of San Antonio, enacted an ordinance that protected the area of La Villita, the city's original Mexican village marketplace. In 1941 the authority of local design controls on buildings within historic districts was being challenged in court. In City of New Orleans vs Pergament Louisiana state appellate courts ruled that the design and demolition controls were valid within defined historic districts. Beginning in the mid-1950s, controls that once applied to only historic districts were extended to individual landmark structures; the United States Congress adopted legislation that declared the Georgetown neighborhood in Washington, D. C. protected in 1950. By 1965, 51 American communities had adopted preservation ordinances.
By 1998, more than 2,300 U. S. towns and villages had enacted historic preservation ordinances. Contributing properties are defined through historic district or historic preservation zoning laws at the local level. Zoning ordinances pertaining to historic districts are designed to maintain a district's historic character by controlling demolition and alteration to existing properties. In historic preservation law, a contributing property is any building, object or site within the boundaries of the district that contributes to its historic associations, historic architectural qualities or archaeological qualities of a historic district, it can be any property, structure or object that adds to the historic integrity or architectural qualities that make the historic district, either local or federal, significant. Definitions vary. Another key aspect of a contributing property is historic integrity. Significant alterations to a property can sever its physical connections with the past, lowering its historic integrity.
Contributing properties are integral parts of the historic context and character of a historic district. A property listed as a contributing member of a historic district meets National Register criteria and qualifies for all benefits afforded a property or site listed individually on the National Register. A building within a historic district that contributes to the historic character of the district. See Building property type of NRHP listing. An object within a historic district that contributes to the historic character of the district. See Object property type of NRHP listing. A structure within a historic district that contributes to the historic character of the district. See Structure property type of NRHP listing. A site within a historic district that contributes to the historic character of the district. See Site property type of NRHP listing; the line between contributing and non-contributing can be fuzzy. In particular, American historic districts nominated to the National Register of Historic Places before 1980 have few records of the non-contributing structures.
State Historic Preservation Offices conduct surveys to determine the historical character of structures in historic districts. Districts nominated to the National Register of Historic Places after 1980 list those structures considered non-contributing; as a general rule, a contributing property helps make a historic district historic. A 19th-century Queen Anne mansion, such as the David Syme House, is a contributing property, while a modern gas station or medical clinic within th
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places is the United States federal government's official list of districts, buildings and objects deemed worthy of preservation for their historical significance. A property listed in the National Register, or located within a National Register Historic District, may qualify for tax incentives derived from the total value of expenses incurred preserving the property; the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966 established the National Register and the process for adding properties to it. Of the more than one million properties on the National Register, 80,000 are listed individually; the remainder are contributing resources within historic districts. For most of its history the National Register has been administered by the National Park Service, an agency within the United States Department of the Interior, its goals are to help property owners and interest groups, such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, coordinate and protect historic sites in the United States.
While National Register listings are symbolic, their recognition of significance provides some financial incentive to owners of listed properties. Protection of the property is not guaranteed. During the nomination process, the property is evaluated in terms of the four criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; the application of those criteria has been the subject of criticism by academics of history and preservation, as well as the public and politicians. Historic sites outside the country proper, but associated with the United States are listed. Properties can be nominated in a variety of forms, including individual properties, historic districts, multiple property submissions; the Register categorizes general listings into one of five types of properties: district, structure, building, or object. National Register Historic Districts are defined geographical areas consisting of contributing and non-contributing properties; some properties are added automatically to the National Register when they become administered by the National Park Service.
These include National Historic Landmarks, National Historic Sites, National Historical Parks, National Military Parks, National Memorials, some National Monuments. On October 15, 1966, the Historic Preservation Act created the National Register of Historic Places and the corresponding State Historic Preservation Offices; the National Register consisted of the National Historic Landmarks designated before the Register's creation, as well as any other historic sites in the National Park system. Approval of the act, amended in 1980 and 1992, represented the first time the United States had a broad-based historic preservation policy; the 1966 act required those agencies to work in conjunction with the SHPO and an independent federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to confront adverse effects of federal activities on historic preservation. To administer the newly created National Register of Historic Places, the National Park Service of the U. S. Department of the Interior, with director George B.
Hartzog Jr. established an administrative division named the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation. Hartzog charged OAHP with creating the National Register program mandated by the 1966 law. Ernest Connally was the Office's first director. Within OAHP new divisions were created to deal with the National Register; the division administered several existing programs, including the Historic Sites Survey and the Historic American Buildings Survey, as well as the new National Register and Historic Preservation Fund. The first official Keeper of the Register was an architectural historian. During the Register's earliest years in the late 1960s and early 1970s, organization was lax and SHPOs were small and underfunded. However, funds were still being supplied for the Historic Preservation Fund to provide matching grants-in-aid to listed property owners, first for house museums and institutional buildings, but for commercial structures as well. A few years in 1979, the NPS history programs affiliated with both the U.
S. National Parks system and the National Register were categorized formally into two "Assistant Directorates." Established were the Assistant Directorate for Archeology and Historic Preservation and the Assistant Directorate for Park Historic Preservation. From 1978 until 1981, the main agency for the National Register was the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service of the United States Department of the Interior. In February 1983, the two assistant directorates were merged to promote efficiency and recognize the interdependency of their programs. Jerry L. Rogers was selected to direct this newly merged associate directorate, he was described as a skilled administrator, sensitive to the need for the NPS to work with SHPOs, local governments. Although not described in detail in the 1966 act, SHPOs became integral to the process of listing properties on the National Register; the 1980 amendments of the 1966 law further defined the responsibilities of SHPOs concerning the National Register.
Several 1992 amendments of the NHPA added a category to the National Register, known as Traditional Cultural Properties: those properties associated with Native American or Hawaiian groups
Kenneth Lee Salazar is an American politician who served as the 50th United States Secretary of the Interior in the administration of President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, he was a United States Senator from Colorado from 2005 to 2009, he and Mel Martinez were the first Hispanic U. S. Senators since 1977. Prior to his election to the U. S. Senate, he served as Attorney General of Colorado from 1999 to 2005. On December 17, 2008, President-elect Obama announced he would nominate Salazar as U. S. Secretary of the Interior; the environmentalist movement's reaction to this nomination was mixed. Salazar supported the nomination of Gale Norton to Secretary of the Interior, President George W. Bush's first appointee who preceded Salazar as Colorado Attorney General. On January 20, 2009, Salazar was confirmed by unanimous consent in the Senate. On January 16, 2013, it was reported that Salazar planned to resign his post as Secretary of the Interior in March 2013, but his resignation was delayed pending Senate confirmation of his successor, Sally Jewell.
On June 10, 2013 he became a partner in the major international law firm of WilmerHale, was tasked with opening a Denver office for the firm. On August 16, 2016, Salazar was appointed to head presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's transition team. Ken Salazar was born in Alamosa, the son of Emma Montoya and Enrique Salazar, his elder brother is former Congressman John Salazar. He grew up near Manassa, in the community of Los Rincones in the San Luis Valley area of south-central Colorado. Salazar attended St. Francis Seminary and Centauri High School in La Jara, graduating in 1973, he attended Colorado College, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science in 1977, received his Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School in 1981. Salazar was awarded honorary degrees from Colorado College and the University of Denver. After graduating, Salazar started private law practice. Although Salazar's Hispanic ancestry is of the Hispanos from what is today the Southwestern United States, with his family there dating back to the 16th century from when that region was part of New Spain, he has identified as Mexican American saying: "I've been taunted, called names—from dirty Mexican to lots of other names—as I was growing up, now as a United States senator."Salazar and his wife, have two daughters and two granddaughters.
In 1986, Salazar became chief legal counsel to Governor Roy Romer. In this position, he authored the Great Outdoors Colorado Amendment, which created a massive land conservation program of which he became chairman. Salazar created the Youth in Natural Resources program, giving thousands of Colorado's youth an opportunity to work and learn about Colorado's natural resources in public schools; the Great Outdoors Colorado program's success was a model for President Obama's America's Great Outdoors Initiative to create a 21st-century agenda for conservation and outdoor recreation. In his cabinet role, he established reforms that forced mining and petroleum operations to better protect the surrounding environment and helped plan and promote Denver's South Platte River Valley redevelopment, transforming the area from an abandoned wasteland to a vibrant economic center. In 1994, Salazar returned to private practice. In 1998, he was elected state attorney general. Police operations were streamlined under Salazar, several new branches of law enforcement were created: the Gang Prosecution Unit, the Environmental Crimes Unit, the General Fugitive Prosecutive Unit, which targeted murderers.
He worked to strengthen consumer protection and anti-fraud laws, as well as to protect children through new policy designed to crack down on sex offenders. As Colorado Attorney General, he led numerous investigations, including into the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. Salazar was awarded the Conference of Western Attorneys General Profile in Courage award for his work. During Salazar's tenure, his office pursued several environmental cleanup cases around the state. In a water contamination case involving the Summitville mine in Rio Grande County, Salazar helped broker a joint settlement in which the federal and state government shared the $5 million settlement proceeds. In 2004, Salazar declared his candidacy for the U. S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Salazar considers himself a moderate and has at times taken positions that are in disagreement with the base of his party—for example, he opposed gay adoption for a number of years, although by 2004 he had reversed that position.
Salazar fell behind to candidate Mike Miles early in the state's caucus process. The national Democratic Party backed Salazar with contributions from the DSCC, Salazar came back to defeat Miles in the Democratic primary, going on to defeat beer executive Pete Coors of the Coors Brewing Company and win the general election for the Senate seat, his elder brother John had an electoral victory in 2004, winning a race for the U. S. House of Representatives from Colorado's 3rd congressional district, he took office on January 4, 2005. Soon after arriving in the Senate, Salazar generated controversy within his party by introducing United States Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales and sitting by his side during Gonzales' confirmation hearings. Salazar was a leading member of a bipartisan group of Senators that developed the Compre