Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, last fall I led a discussion with NM Veterans Secretary John Garcia on post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD and other issues facing our veterans. We held our discussion near Silver City, New Mexico, at the historic Fort Bayard medical facility. This was an outstanding chance to hear firsthand from veterans about the medical problems they were facing. During this meeting, I found out that one of the biggest challenges that many veterans in southern New Mexico face is finding nearby treatment for PTSD and traumatic brain injury which are called the signature wounds of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A bit of background for those who may not be familiar with my home State. Southern New Mexico is home to White Sands Missile Range, Holloman Air Force Base, and most of Fort. Bliss. It is a region filled with active duty personnel, as well as many veterans who choose to stay in New Mexico and the El Paso region after finishing their active duty service. And as more and more veterans return from Afghanistan and Iraq suffering from PTSD and traumatic brain injury, many need the services of polytrauma centers--which specialize in treating injuries like PTSD and TBI. Unfortunately, the closest polytrauma centers to southern New Mexico are hundreds of miles away. That is why, after hearing the stories of veterans who attended our Fort Bayard meeting, I began working on legislation to help improve the ability for them to access care in the region. With this legislation we hope to address that issue by requiring the Veterans Administration to submit to Congress a study on the feasibility of building a polytrauma center in the region. And we want them to consider Fort Bayard specifically as a location for that new polytrauma center. The facilities at Fort Bayard should not be wasted and could be put to good use by the Veterans Administration for a polytrauma center for the southern New Mexico/El Paso region. This plan would be a win-win for the region--it would provide veterans with much-needed, convenient access to a quality polytrauma center through the innovative use of a facility that is currently being underutilized. Veterans who have risked their lives for our country deserve convenient access to the best of care when they return home. Because as long as America faces threats and values freedom, we will need men and women willing to protect us. And as long as Americans serve in uniform, we have a sacred responsibility to support them.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, last fall I led a discussion with NM Veterans Secretary John Garcia on post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD and other issues facing our veterans. We held our discussion near Silver City, New Mexico, at the historic Fort Bayard medical facility. This was an outstanding chance to hear firsthand from veterans about the medical problems they were facing. During this meeting, I found out that one of the biggest challenges that many veterans in southern New Mexico face is finding nearby treatment for PTSD and traumatic brain injury which are called the signature wounds of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A bit of background for those who may not be familiar with my home State. Southern New Mexico is home to White Sands Missile Range, Holloman Air Force Base, and most of Fort. Bliss. It is a region filled with active duty personnel, as well as many veterans who choose to stay in New Mexico and the El Paso region after finishing their active duty service. And as more and more veterans return from Afghanistan and Iraq suffering from PTSD and traumatic brain injury, many need the services of polytrauma centers--which specialize in treating injuries like PTSD and TBI. Unfortunately, the closest polytrauma centers to southern New Mexico are hundreds of miles away. That is why, after hearing the stories of veterans who attended our Fort Bayard meeting, I began working on legislation to help improve the ability for them to access care in the region. With this legislation we hope to address that issue by requiring the Veterans Administration to submit to Congress a study on the feasibility of building a polytrauma center in the region. And we want them to consider Fort Bayard specifically as a location for that new polytrauma center. The facilities at Fort Bayard should not be wasted and could be put to good use by the Veterans Administration for a polytrauma center for the southern New Mexico/El Paso region. This plan would be a win-win for the region--it would provide veterans with much-needed, convenient access to a quality polytrauma center through the innovative use of a facility that is currently being underutilized. Veterans who have risked their lives for our country deserve convenient access to the best of care when they return home. Because as long as America faces threats and values freedom, we will need men and women willing to protect us. And as long as Americans serve in uniform, we have a sacred responsibility to support them.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. My amendment stated: The President is not authorized to deploy ground forces, including special operations forces, in pursuance of any goals related to United States policy in Libya, unless expressly authorized by Congress or as determined necessary by the President to protect a member of the United States Armed Forces currently deployed in the region. I believe any authorization of military force should contain similar language. I understand Senator Webb and Senator Corker have introduced a resolution with these prohibitions and exceptions to protect our troops and I support these efforts to limit the mission in Libya. It is important that we do not escalate military actions in Libya. An escalation would be a dangerous course, and it would be costly to the region and our country. While the markup has been postponed, it is my understanding that Senator Kerry and others are working on language that would fulfill our constitutional obligations and comply with the War Powers Act. I look forward to consideration of a resolution of this kind in the Foreign Relations Committee and strongly believe it should include language similar to the amendment I was going to offer. I have been proud to serve in the Congress for more than a decade. We have fought two lengthy wars during this period of time. I have seen the impact on our military, on their families, on our national deficit. Before the United States escalates its involvement in another overseas conflict, Congress must weigh in. It is our constitutional duty. Exhibit 1 Draft Amendment to S. Res. 194 That the President is not authorized to deploy ground forces, including special operations forces, in pursuance of any goals related to United States policy in Libya, unless expressly authorized by Congress or as determined necessary by the President to protect a member of the United States Armed Forces currently deployed in the region.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I rise today because I believe the United States is headed down a slippery path toward an escalation of military force in Libya. I also believe if the U.S. military is to be involved in such an escalation, then the Congress must exercise its constitutional authority and approve or disapprove the President's proposal. I supported President Obama's initial decision to engage in a limited military operation to prevent an imminent humanitarian catastrophe. President Obama and the international community were clear that targeting of civilians by Muammar Qadhafi would not be tolerated. It has been over 60 days since the President notified the Congress that he intended to use military force in Libya. We are adrift. We are without direction. We are in danger of fighting an expanded war, a war that was originally justified as a limited military operation, a no-fly zone, to prevent civilian casualties and imminent catastrophe. This war has now been slowly expanded for one that is pushing for regime change. We have been down this path before. Let's not go there. In Libya we are now receiving reports that helicopter gunships are being used to target ground forces--something that was never originally intended under the premise of a no-fly zone. In fact, it seems that the no-fly zone has slowly evolved into what some have called a no-drive zone. Congress has not approved this action. I do not believe the U.N. Security Council approved such an action in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. We also hear it is now the policy to support regime change and that there are some plans to arm rebel groups. Some outside groups and Members of Congress are clamoring to escalate the war in Libya. They believe air power will never dislodge Muammar Qadhafi and his family. The Congress has not approved the use of military force to achieve regime change. Flooding the region with small arms is also being proposed. This would be a major mistake and could lead to a host of unintended consequences. We do not know enough about the rebels fighting Qadhafi, but we do know there are plenty of mercenaries, as well as members of al-Qaida, waiting to exploit any chaos. If arms are flooded into the region, there is no guarantee they will be able to account for those arms. In my opinion, there is a high likelihood those arms could end up in the hands of some very unsavory and dangerous individuals. The bottom line is this: Congress has not had the opportunity to weigh in. Like my colleagues, I deplore Muammar Qadhafi. I support a democratic transition and his departure from power, but the military goals should be defined and limited as a matter of policy. It should not include regime change. This would be a dangerous escalation. As many of you know, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was planning a markup for last Thursday of S. Res. 194, titled ``Expressing the Sense of the Senate on the United States Military Operations in Libya.'' I had strong concerns about the resolution we were scheduled to consider. A sense of the Senate is clearly not an authorization for use of military force. A sense of the Senate does not meet the requirements of the War Powers Act. And a sense of the Senate falls short of meeting our constitutional obligation to declare war. I drafted an amendment to S. Res. 194. I ask unanimous consent the text of this amendment be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the Senator for his statement. I believe with all of us working together--our chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Cardin, and others, as well as the Presiding Officer, who is also on the Foreign Relations Committee with us--we can come to a resolution which complies with what the President has stated. The President says he has no intention of sending ground forces into Libya. But it is important at this point in time, as the Senator from Illinois pointed out and as the Constitution mandates, that we step in and express the will of the American people on this issue. That is the whole purpose of what I am on the floor for today, and I look forward to working very closely with the Senator from Illinois. With that, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, today's vote to extend expiring provisions of the so-called PATRIOT Act is not the first time Congress has extended the sunset provisions, nor will it be the last. In 2006, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act was passed and, among other things, extended until December 2009 the three provisions we are discussing today. When those provisions were set to expire, a 3-month extension was included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. Three months later, Congress passed a 1-year extension until February 2011. As that deadline loomed, and without sufficient time to have a real debate, we passed the extension that expires at midnight tonight. Immediately after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, it may have been understandable that our emotions made it unlikely that we would have a rationale and deliberative debate about the PATRIOT Act. But at the time, as I voted against the bill, I said on the House floor that ``the saving grace here is that the sunset provision forces us to come back and to look at these issues again when heads are cooler and when we are not in the heat of battle.'' But that hasn't happened. Each time a sunset date nears, we hear a lot of highly charged rhetoric from Members in both parties and in both Chambers of Congress about how devastating it will be to our national security if we let the PATRIOT Act expire. I find this to be deeply disturbing because it demonstrates that 10 years after the attacks on 9/11 we are still using fear to prevent an open and honest debate. Let's put this rhetoric aside and discuss the facts. First, the PATRIOT Act is not about to expire. Three provisions of the law are set to expire, but the vast majority of the authorities contained in the law will remain unchanged. Two of the expiring provisions were enacted as part of the PATRIOT Act. Section 206 of the act amended FISA to permit multipoint, or ``roving,'' wiretaps. Section 215 enlarged the scope of materials that could be sought under FISA to include ``any tangible thing.'' It also lowered the standard required before a court order may be issued to compel their production. The third provision was enacted in 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, IRTPA. This provision changed the rules regarding the types of individuals who may be targets of FISA-authorized searches. Also known as the ``lone wolf'' provision, it permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization. Let's also be clear about what would happen if these provisions did expire. The two provisions from the PATRIOT Act that amended FISA authorities would read as they did before the PATRIOT Act was passed in 2001. That means they would not be revoked completely but instead would be more limited in scope. And what would happen if the ``lone wolf'' provision expired? Not much. In the 7 years since its enactment, it is never been used. Even if the provisions expire, they contain exceptions for ongoing investigations, and the government can continue to use those provisions beyond the sunset date. This is what a recent CRS report says about this: A grandfather clause applies to each of the three provisions. The grandfather clauses authorize the continued effect of the amendments with respect to investigations that began, or potential offenses that took place, before the provision's sunset date. Thus, for example, if a non-U.S. person were engaged in international terrorism before the sunset date of May 27, 2011, he would still be considered a ``lone wolf'' for FISA court orders sought after the provision has expired. Similarly, if an individual is engaged in international terrorism before that date, he may be the target of a roving wiretap under FISA even after authority for new roving wiretaps has expired. Those are pretty broad exceptions, and I am fairly confident that our ability to protect the Nation would continue even if the three provisions expire. So let's put the hyperbole aside and not stoke irrational fears for political expediency. I am very disappointed that we couldn't have a candid debate and an opportunity to vote on several amendments. With a decade of hindsight, more voices from very different places on the political spectrum agree that the entire law bears scrutiny and debate. We should no longer neglect our duty to review the full scope of a law with such serious constitutional challenges before rushing to reauthorize it, again.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, let me just say to my colleague from Kentucky, Senator Paul, I very much appreciate his yielding a little time, and I am looking forward to hearing some of his statements on the PATRIOT Act. I know this is an issue that is close to his heart. I served with his father in the House, and I know he was very passionate on this issue. I know it is an issue on which the Senator from Kentucky campaigned and about which he has great passion, and he has brought that passion to the Senate floor. So I very much appreciate that and would like to work with him. First of all, when we call it the PATRIOT Act, I put that in quotes and call it the so-called ``PATRIOT Act.'' This is not a patriot act. Patriots stand up for the Constitution. Patriots stand up for the freedoms and liberty that are embodied in the Constitution. I think true patriots, when they are public servants, stand up and do what is right, even if it is unpopular. One of the things I talked about a little earlier today was how the PATRIOT Act became law. I was over in the House of Representatives, serving with the father of the Senator from Kentucky, and I remember well what happened on 9/11 when the planes went into the Twin Towers in New York, and then shortly after a plane was coming into the Pentagon in Washington, and how we were all horrified at this incident and what had happened. What transpired on this legislation, this bill that later became law, the so-called PATRIOT Act, is everybody became so concerned that they decided we, the institution, the Congress, could not debate it; we had to just pass legislation we had not even read. So we did not have committee hearings. We did not bring in all the people who normally would be brought into the process, who understand the Constitution. We didn't do any of that. Within a matter of weeks after 9/11, we brought a bill to the floor of the House of Representatives without the normal preparation, and basically everybody was told we just need to pass this. I remember one Senator--one Representative at the time--waving a piece of paper and saying: There is only one copy of this on the floor, and it is hot off the press. He had a piece of paper from the Xerox machine that was still hot. Those were the circumstances in which we voted, and that is how we got the so-called PATRIOT Act. What has happened since then? Senator Baucus, my colleague here from Montana, talked about the capture of Osama bin Laden. We have been in Afghanistan, we displaced the Taliban government, we eliminated the training camps, we decimated al-Qaida, we captured bin Laden. We have done all these things, but one thing we have not done is come back and revisit the PATRIOT Act, taken a really hard look at it to say is it working or is it not and allow all the Senators here the opportunity to offer amendments. I know the Senator from Kentucky has several amendments he would like to offer. I have an amendment that really focuses on what has happened here today--in the last couple of days. We had an extension. We thought we were going to have debate. Because of the gridlock and everything that goes on here, we got jammed up. My amendment would say, let's not extend this for 4 years without open debate. It would say, let's take 3 months, do another extension, and really focus on the idea that when that 3 months is up, we are going to be allowed the time to have debate, to have discussion, to have very knowledgeable individuals who serve on the Judiciary Committee--I believe the Presiding Officer serves on the Judiciary Committee, others serve on the Judiciary Committee and have the expertise--with all that expertise come to the floor. I am on an amendment with Senator Leahy which is a good, solid amendment that has to do with various aspects. I hope we can get that to the floor. We all have amendments, but we are jammed up in this process now. The amendment I would propose is that rather than 4 years, for 3 months what we do is organize ourselves so we can come back, we can have the debate, we can have an open amendment process and then move on to whatever we move on to. But at least the Senate will have worked its will. We are told over and over--and I always heard it in my civics class-- that the Senate is the greatest deliberative body. If we are a great deliberative body, we have not focused that deliberation on one of the most important aspects of our society; that is, our liberty and our freedom that is enshrined in the Constitution. I find it a little ironic, in a way, the contrast we have today with the situation in the Middle East. We have many of these countries where the people of those countries are striving for more freedom, striving for more democracy, and we are supporting that effort. President Obama and many Members of the Senate, many Members of Congress are saying we think this is a good idea, that there is a striving for more freedom. But here on the floor of the Senate, we are not willing to analyze what this so-called PATRIOT Act has done to our freedom in the United States. This is not just my view. There are some independent views as to why the PATRIOT Act needs to be examined, why the PATRIOT Act needs this open debate, needs deliberation. In March of 2007, the Justice Department inspector general came out and took a look at the PATRIOT Act process and the national security letters. As the Senator from Kentucky knows, a national security letter doesn't have court supervision. The FBI can issue a national security letter--an official in the FBI--without that kind of supervision. The inspector general concluded there was some serious abuse within the Department of Justice as to how the FBI and other officials were using national security letters. I put that information from an inspector general in the Record earlier this morning. It highlights serious problems. We have not looked at that. We have not debated that. We have not allowed amendments on that national security letter. I think the Senator from Kentucky has one on that, which he is going to be talking about in a little bit. Second, an independent branch of our government--the courts--has looked at the PATRIOT Act. Several courts have found provisions of the PATRIOT Act unconstitutional in terms of the fourth amendment, in terms of the first amendment, and many of those decisions are working their way up through the courts. It is only prudent that we, as the Senate, take a look at those rulings, analyze what the courts are saying, and then come back to this so-called PATRIOT Act and see whether we need to make changes based on what the courts have told us. We have those rulings. We have not taken a look at them. We are at a point where we need deliberation. I very much appreciate the Senator from Kentucky speaking out on this issue. Benjamin Franklin used to talk about our freedom and liberty that was in the Constitution, and I am paraphrasing here, but he would say that those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. That is a very powerful statement by one of the Founders of our democracy. With that, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding me time, and I look forward to hearing his comments on the floor and look forward to working with him so we can get an open, deliberative process here that will really serve America and move us toward the deliberative process I think we all want. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I know Senator Blumenthal is coming to speak and Senator Kerry ended a little bit early. I wish to get up for a couple minutes now, and when Senator Blumenthal comes in I will yield to him because he has some time reserved. I wish to talk this morning a little bit about the procedure and what we have gone through, in terms of the PATRIOT Act. I am very discouraged to see the path we are headed down in terms of the PATRIOT Act. I was in the Congress, as the Presiding Officer knows, when we voted almost 10 years ago on the PATRIOT Act. It was a sad occasion then because it was right after 9/11 and that horrible tragedy had happened to our country. But we rushed, in a very big way, to move forward with a piece of legislation, the so-called PATRIOT Act. That act ended up being something I think many of us regret. I wish to read a short passage from the Washington Post at the time, which I think showed the haste in which we acted, where we infringed on our constitutional rights, and I think the Post says it all. They noted: Members of both parties complained they had no idea what they were voting on, were fearful that aspects of the . . . bill went too far--yet voted for it anyway. I can tell you that, at the time, that is the way it was. We were on the floor, we had the vote, and nobody knew what was in the bill. I remember one Congressman waiving a copy of the bill, saying there is only one copy on the floor and it is hot off the Xerox machine. So it is unfortunate we moved so quickly, with so much haste. Almost 10 years later, we have not had the debate we need to have on this piece of legislation. The greatest deliberative body has not weighed in with amendments. We have not moved forward in a serious way to try to tackle this piece of legislation that is so important to our country, important to our freedom, and important to our liberty. What are the problems we should be dealing with? Just very quickly--I know my colleague, Senator Blumenthal, is here, so I will quickly move on. But two things have happened that indicate we have some serious problems with the PATRIOT Act. No. 1, in March of 2007, the inspector general of the Department of Justice, in a report concluded that ``the FBI engaged in serious misuse of national security letter authority.'' The report also said that ``in many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies.'' So there we have an inspector general telling us that the executive branch, with the piece of legislation, moved way beyond where they should. That is something we should take a hard look at. I have an amendment, and I know others do, on that. There have also been courts that have looked at parts of the PATRIOT Act and found that act to be unconstitutional. It is incumbent upon us, when we have a ruling such as that, to look at it and offer amendments and try to make changes. I harken back to what I remember reflecting on, on that day when we passed the act. Benjamin Franklin--talking about our precious freedom and liberty--said this, and I will paraphrase. He said something along these lines: Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. So that is where we are today. The so-called PATRIOT Act was enacted nearly a decade ago. Hastily passed by a Congress left reeling in the wake of a devastating terrorist attack on our Nation. Its supporters described it as a way to protect our Nation from similar attacks in the future. But this far- reaching piece of legislation went much farther than that. The PATRIOT Act's most enduring legacy is this: It gave the Federal Government the power to undermine the constitutional right to privacy of law-abiding citizens. I was a Member of the House of Representatives at the time. One of only 66 Members to vote against passing the PATRIOT Act. It was an unpopular vote at the time. But when the details of the new law were examined, its breaches on our civil liberties became clearer. And the truth came out. As I have said, the Washington Post noted, ``members of both parties complained they had no idea what they were voting on, were fearful that aspects of the . . . bill went too far--yet voted for it anyway.'' I also voted against the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act in 2006, as well as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. In February, I once again opposed the extension of three controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act: roving wiretaps . . . government access to ``any tangible items'' such as library and business records . . . and the surveillance of targets who are not connected to an identified terrorist group. Back in 2001, I said on the House floor that I was ``unable to support this bill because it does not strike the right balance between protecting our liberties and providing for the security of our citizens.'' I went on to explain that ``the saving grace here is that the sunset provision forces us to come back and to look at these issues again when heads are cooler and when we are not in the heat of battle.'' And that is exactly what we should do. To govern in a post-9/11 world, we have to strike a delicate balance: We must prevent the terrorist actions of some, without infringing on the constitutional guarantees of the vast many. We are failing to strike that balance today by forcing reauthorizations of the PATRIOT Act without scrutinizing the long-term ramifications of the law. Voting for the PATRIOT Act in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks was justifiable for many; that horrific day created an unparalleled sense of urgency. Today, we are once again up against a sense of urgency to renew the controversial provisions of the law set to expire this week. But it's no longer due to a recent attack. Instead, the urgency has been created by the false argument that our Nation will be more vulnerable to attack if we dare to let the provisions expire. Let's be honest in this debate--not act hastily out of false fears. Even if the provisions expire, the sunsets contain an exception for ongoing investigations. And the government can continue to use those provisions beyond this week. Perhaps the real fear is that the time it would take for real debate might postpone our Memorial Day recess. We were promised a real debate on this reauthorization, and we should have it! With a decade of hindsight, more voices from very different places on the political spectrum agree--the entire law bears scrutiny and debate. We can no longer neglect our duty. It is our responsibility to review the full scope of a law with such serious constitutional challenges before rushing to reauthorize it, again. I have filed two amendments that I hope the Senate will consider and vote on. The first is very simple. It extends the expiring provisions until September so that we can have a real, substantive debate and an open amendment process. This is what we thought the 3-month extension passed in February was intended to do, but adequate floor time was never scheduled and we have been extremely limited in our ability to offer amendments. This is by no means an ideal solution. In fact, I voted against the short-term extension in February. But if our options are an extension until September and an extension until 2015, I am willing to accept the lesser of two evils. I thank Senator Merkley for cosponsoring this amendment. The second amendment I have filed would reinstate a sunset provision for national security letters. This provision was in Senator Leahy's bill that was reported out of his committee and is in his amendment, but I feel strongly that it should also be considered as a stand-alone because of the importance of this issue. National security letters do not require a court order. They are a form of administrative subpoena issued by FBI agents and other officials. A March 2007 report by the Department of Justice inspector general ``concluded that the FBI engaged in serious misuse of NSL authority.'' It also said that ``in many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies.'' I believe that there must be a sunset provision for NSLs to ensure that Congress periodically reevaluates this power and is certain that it is not being abused. I have also signed on as a cosponsor to several of my colleagues' amendments. Let me just comment briefly about some of these. In addition to my NSL amendment, I cosponsored Senator Paul's amendment that prohibits any officer or employee of the United States from issuing an NSL unless a FISA court judge finds that probable cause exists to issue the NSL. This would bring NSLs into compliance with the plain text of fourth amendment. I am pleased to join Senators Mark Udall and Paul on an amendment that would eliminate the possibility of ``John Doe'' roving wiretaps that identify neither the person nor the phone to be wiretapped. This would protect innocent Americans from unnecessary surveillance and was part of the JUSTICE Act that I cosponsored in the last Congress. I have also cosponsored Mark Udall's amendment that would direct the attorney general to only delegate the authority for approving ``lone wolf'' surveillance to the deputy attorney general. It would also require the attorney general to provide notice to Congress of applications for ``lone wolf'' surveillance. Finally, with Senator Sanders, I have cosponsored an amendment that exempts libraries and bookstores from section 215 orders and NSLs. A similar amendment passed the House 287-238 in the 2005 PATRIOT Act debate, but was later dropped in conference. The ACLU, the American Booksellers Association, the American Library Association, and the Campaign for Reader Privacy all support this amendment. All of these amendments are designed to protect the civil liberties of all Americans and each deserves a full debate on the floor and an up-or-down vote by the Members of this body. Failing to do so is once again failing to provide the adequate time and consideration of this far-reaching legislation. As a former Federal prosecutor and New Mexico's attorney general, I am familiar with the needs of law enforcement to pursue suspects and a strong supporter of law enforcement. But I also believe that our Constitution must be guarded against encroachment, even in the name of security. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I, with my colleague Senator Bingaman, wish to recognize Dr. Phillip O. Barry on the occasion of his retirement from a distinguished career serving higher education institutions in our home state of New Mexico and elsewhere. A former Fulbright scholar, Dr. Barry has spent the past 36 years working in community colleges to improve learning opportunities for New Mexicans, Iowans, and New Jerseyans. Access to quality higher education makes all the difference for our children and our economy. In order to secure the future of the Nation, we must provide the best education possible. Innovative administrators like Dr. Barry play a vital role in achieving this important goal. As a community college president, Dr. Barry devoted 24 years to leading these institutions into the 21st century and helping them expand to meet the needs of more students and an evolving economy. In his 15 years at Mesalands Community College in Tucumcari, NM, Dr. Barry transformed Mesalands from a technical school into a community college, including leading the college through a rigorous accreditation process. He established the college's foundation in order to ensure the financial security of the school for the future. Through Dr. Barry's leadership and foresight, Mesalands Community College created such innovations as its Dinosaur Museum, the North American Wind Research and Training Center, and an intercollegiate rodeo program. Dr. Barry's vision for and guidance of Mesalands Community College has been instrumental to the continued development and success of the college. Senator Bingaman and I thank Dr. Barry for his commitment to higher education in New Mexico and to the community college students of today and tomorrow. Thanks to Dr. Barry and institutions like those he led, a growing number of Americans are able to continue their educations, achieve secondary degrees, and help ensure our country's future competitiveness in an increasingly global economy. We wish Dr. Barry continued success, and for a most happy retirement.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act. This legislation addresses an issue affecting interstate commerce and an iconic American animal. I am pleased to be working on this in a bipartisan manner with Representative Ed Whitfield of Kentucky. Although many recognize the horse as an iconic American animal, particularly for the West, there are probably few who know how long horseracing has been a part of our nation's history. My colleagues in Kentucky, Maryland, and New York can boast of the Sport of Kings' long tradition in their States. Yet the first recorded horserace in what is now the United States took place in New Mexico. In 1541, the Spanish explorer Coronado challenged one of his officers to a match race while they were camped near Bernalillo. The Spanish brought not only horses, but also horseracing to what is now the United States. Decades before the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock, Don Juan de Onate crossed into present day New Mexico with Spanish colonists who were not just settlers but caballeros, or ``horse'' men. Native American petroglyphs record early encounters with these new arrivals travelling on horseback. Horseracing became a tradition in the Southwest as it later did in Eastern states. That tradition continues today at racetracks in New Mexico and over 30 other States across the nation. With the Kentucky Derby this Saturday, many Americans will turn their attention to Churchill Downs for the most exciting two minutes in sports. Some of the best of horseracing will be on display. Away from the crowds, however, horseracing finds itself facing an unattractive reality. Too many of its equine athletes are overmedicated and doped. The Sport of Kings is no place for such a drug problem. American horseracing stands apart from the rest of the world when it comes to permissive medication rules and tolerance of doping. Unlike other countries that ban race day medications, racing jurisdictions here allow injecting horses just hours before post time. There are trainers who violate medication rules multiple times, seemingly with impunity. According to a recent Racing Commissioners International, RCI, letter, one trainer has been sanctioned at least 64 times for various rule violations, including medication violations involving the class 2 painkiller mepivacaine and the class 3 drug clenbuterol. According to the New York Times, only two of the top 20 trainers, by racing purses won, have never been cited for a medication violation. This tolerance of doping represents a shameful abuse of an iconic American animal, and it is time to put an end to it. Anyone who goes to the track outside of a Triple Crown or Breeders' Cup race knows that attendance is down across the country. The decline is especially stark considering that horseracing was once the No. 1 spectator sport in the United States. One poll of sports industry insiders found that most think horseracing is in decline or dying. With the loss of fans, comes the loss of revenue that ultimately sustains a $40 billion industry and 400,000 jobs nationwide, including 10,000 jobs in my home State. As current fans leave the sport, many potential new fans will probably never come to the track while doping is rampant. Although a horse may need therapeutic medication from time to time, there is no excuse for injecting almost all thoroughbreds hours before they race. As RCI Chairman William Koester rightly noted, that just does not pass the smell test with the public or anyone else. While medicating sound horses on race day is concerning, the doping of sore horses is appalling. Sore and lame horses should not be raced. Feeling no pain, an injured horse on drugs may continue to charge down the track, endangering every horse and jockey in the race. Drugs may account for the fact that the U.S. horse fatality rate is more than three times higher than in comparable British flat racing. Trainers or anyone else caught doping racehorses should face stiff penalties, including fines and meaningful suspensions. This is a matter of concern to me as a senator from a state where quarterhorse and thoroughbred racing is an important industry. But it should be of concern to all my Senate colleagues since Congress granted a special privilege to horseracing that no other U.S. gambling enterprise enjoys: interstate and online wagering. The Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978, IHA, allows off-track, or ``simulcast,'' wagering across state lines. Internet wagering on horseraces subject to the IHA was granted a special exemption from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, UIGEA. Given the benefits of the IHA, the horse racing industry should not only protect the safety and welfare of its animals and jockeys, but also ensure the integrity of the sport. I reluctantly believe that Congressional action is needed to address this critical challenge facing the industry. Unlike other sports, horseracing lacks a governing body that can issue uniform medication rules and ban performance enhancing drugs. That is why recent calls from the RCI and the Jockey Club to phase out race day medication are not enough to save American horseracing. Despite repeated pledges from the racing industry to address this issue, horseracing's drug problem has festered for decades. The legislation Representative Whitfield and I are introducing today would amend the Interstate Horseracing Act to ban performance-enhancing drugs and require stiff penalties for doping. Under the Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act, anyone who knowingly provides or races a horse on performance enhancing drugs faces minimum fines and suspensions. The winner of each race plus one additional horse must be tested for performance enhancing drugs. To ensure quality testing, the bill requires that test labs are accredited to quality standards. This legislation envisions that individual state racing commissions would continue to enforce horseracing rules within their jurisdiction, including the new anti-doping rules. However, the Federal Trade Commission can also enforce the anti-doping rules if there is inadequate enforcement. The new rules would apply only to those races that are already governed by the IHA. In addition to the animal welfare issues that doping creates, I know how important drug reform is for those who make their living from the sport. Passing this legislation will help bring integrity back to racing, benefitting everyone involved and, most importantly, the health and safety of the horses at the center of it all. I urge my colleagues to support the Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act. This legislation addresses an issue affecting interstate commerce and an iconic American animal. I am pleased to be working on this in a bipartisan manner with Representative Ed Whitfield of Kentucky. Although many recognize the horse as an iconic American animal, particularly for the West, there are probably few who know how long horseracing has been a part of our nation's history. My colleagues in Kentucky, Maryland, and New York can boast of the Sport of Kings' long tradition in their States. Yet the first recorded horserace in what is now the United States took place in New Mexico. In 1541, the Spanish explorer Coronado challenged one of his officers to a match race while they were camped near Bernalillo. The Spanish brought not only horses, but also horseracing to what is now the United States. Decades before the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock, Don Juan de Onate crossed into present day New Mexico with Spanish colonists who were not just settlers but caballeros, or ``horse'' men. Native American petroglyphs record early encounters with these new arrivals travelling on horseback. Horseracing became a tradition in the Southwest as it later did in Eastern states. That tradition continues today at racetracks in New Mexico and over 30 other States across the nation. With the Kentucky Derby this Saturday, many Americans will turn their attention to Churchill Downs for the most exciting two minutes in sports. Some of the best of horseracing will be on display. Away from the crowds, however, horseracing finds itself facing an unattractive reality. Too many of its equine athletes are overmedicated and doped. The Sport of Kings is no place for such a drug problem. American horseracing stands apart from the rest of the world when it comes to permissive medication rules and tolerance of doping. Unlike other countries that ban race day medications, racing jurisdictions here allow injecting horses just hours before post time. There are trainers who violate medication rules multiple times, seemingly with impunity. According to a recent Racing Commissioners International, RCI, letter, one trainer has been sanctioned at least 64 times for various rule violations, including medication violations involving the class 2 painkiller mepivacaine and the class 3 drug clenbuterol. According to the New York Times, only two of the top 20 trainers, by racing purses won, have never been cited for a medication violation. This tolerance of doping represents a shameful abuse of an iconic American animal, and it is time to put an end to it. Anyone who goes to the track outside of a Triple Crown or Breeders' Cup race knows that attendance is down across the country. The decline is especially stark considering that horseracing was once the No. 1 spectator sport in the United States. One poll of sports industry insiders found that most think horseracing is in decline or dying. With the loss of fans, comes the loss of revenue that ultimately sustains a $40 billion industry and 400,000 jobs nationwide, including 10,000 jobs in my home State. As current fans leave the sport, many potential new fans will probably never come to the track while doping is rampant. Although a horse may need therapeutic medication from time to time, there is no excuse for injecting almost all thoroughbreds hours before they race. As RCI Chairman William Koester rightly noted, that just does not pass the smell test with the public or anyone else. While medicating sound horses on race day is concerning, the doping of sore horses is appalling. Sore and lame horses should not be raced. Feeling no pain, an injured horse on drugs may continue to charge down the track, endangering every horse and jockey in the race. Drugs may account for the fact that the U.S. horse fatality rate is more than three times higher than in comparable British flat racing. Trainers or anyone else caught doping racehorses should face stiff penalties, including fines and meaningful suspensions. This is a matter of concern to me as a senator from a state where quarterhorse and thoroughbred racing is an important industry. But it should be of concern to all my Senate colleagues since Congress granted a special privilege to horseracing that no other U.S. gambling enterprise enjoys: interstate and online wagering. The Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978, IHA, allows off-track, or ``simulcast,'' wagering across state lines. Internet wagering on horseraces subject to the IHA was granted a special exemption from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, UIGEA. Given the benefits of the IHA, the horse racing industry should not only protect the safety and welfare of its animals and jockeys, but also ensure the integrity of the sport. I reluctantly believe that Congressional action is needed to address this critical challenge facing the industry. Unlike other sports, horseracing lacks a governing body that can issue uniform medication rules and ban performance enhancing drugs. That is why recent calls from the RCI and the Jockey Club to phase out race day medication are not enough to save American horseracing. Despite repeated pledges from the racing industry to address this issue, horseracing's drug problem has festered for decades. The legislation Representative Whitfield and I are introducing today would amend the Interstate Horseracing Act to ban performance-enhancing drugs and require stiff penalties for doping. Under the Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act, anyone who knowingly provides or races a horse on performance enhancing drugs faces minimum fines and suspensions. The winner of each race plus one additional horse must be tested for performance enhancing drugs. To ensure quality testing, the bill requires that test labs are accredited to quality standards. This legislation envisions that individual state racing commissions would continue to enforce horseracing rules within their jurisdiction, including the new anti-doping rules. However, the Federal Trade Commission can also enforce the anti-doping rules if there is inadequate enforcement. The new rules would apply only to those races that are already governed by the IHA. In addition to the animal welfare issues that doping creates, I know how important drug reform is for those who make their living from the sport. Passing this legislation will help bring integrity back to racing, benefitting everyone involved and, most importantly, the health and safety of the horses at the center of it all. I urge my colleagues to support the Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, the State of New Mexico lost a great man on March 17, 2011, when Jose S. Chavez passed away at the age of 93. He was a man who served our country proudly during World War II and was a survivor of the Bataan Death March. I would like to honor his memory today. Mr. Chavez was a man of strength. He had a strong faith, a strong will to survive, and was described as the strength and patriarch of his large and loving family. As a member of the 200th Coastal Artillery and 515th Anti-Aircraft Battalion, Mr. Chavez served his country in the Phillipines during World War II. He was captured along with many other of his fellow soldiers and forced to endure the horrors of the Bataan Death March and the more than 3 years of captivity which followed. Mr. Chavez is credited with saving many lives during the horrific march--picking up and carrying men to keep them from being killed. Mistaken for dead and put in a grave three times during his captivity, Mr. Chavez refused to give up. It was his strong faith in God, and also in those he served with, which helped him and others survive the inhumane conditions they faced. After returning home he worked as a farmer before continuing his service to his country by reenlisting in the military and later taking a government job. Mr. Chavez's strength extended beyond the battlefield to his home life, where he was the pillar of his large family. He built the home that he and his wife of 65 years, Susie, lived in and was known as the man who could fix anything and could always be found tinkering away at a project. His family will miss his strong-willed and loving personality, and certainly feel the void left by Mr. Chavez's passing. Let us take a moment today to remember Mr. Chavez and the remarkable strength he shared not only with his family, but with our country during his service.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2011. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, known as RECA, was first passed in 1990 after years of work and litigation. The act was later improved in 2000 through amendments made by Congress, and today I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Bennet, Crapo, Mark Udall, and Risch, to once again improve the act through introduction of this legislation. This bill honors the individuals who unwittingly gave their health and even their lives to national efforts to develop uranium and a Cold War nuclear arsenal during the mid-20th century. Some Americans were sickened through exposure to aboveground atomic weapons tests, and others were exposed to heavy doses of radiation from working in the uranium mining industry. All the while, the government was slow to implement Federal protections. As a result, a generation of Americans who worked in the mines and lived near testing sites became sick with serious diseases like lung cancer and kidney disease. Much of the United States' uranium development and weapons testing occurred in New Mexico and the West. Mines and mills drew workers into rural communities. These workers, and much of the country, were unaware of the dangers of radiation exposure. As mining and milling continued and our national understanding of the dangers of radiation exposure developed, the Federal Government continued to fail to ensure that uranium workers and their families were safe from the hazards of exposure to radioactive materials. As a result, numerous illnesses and cancers began to emerge in the men and women who worked in the uranium mining industry and lived downwind of weapons testing sites. In my home State of New Mexico, the Pueblo of Laguna was home to the nation's largest open pit uranium mine. Additionally, many large and small mines and mill sites were opened within the Navajo Nation. In fact, much of the State's northwestern area is spackled with hundreds of abandoned uranium mines. Workers from across the State came to these mines and mills, especially from the economically struggling communities of rural New Mexico. In the late '70s, my father, Stewart Udall, took up the fight for these workers. In 1979, my father filed 32 claims against the Department of Energy on behalf of widows of deceased Navajo uranium miners. In many ways, this marked the beginning of the fight for compensation for all uranium workers. I remember working those years with my whole family to collect information and push for recognition. It was a family effort to fight injustice, and for me, it continues to be a family priority. Ten years later, the original RECA legislation was passed in the United States Congress, giving a level of restitution to sick miners and millers, as well as individuals downwind of nuclear tests. The RECA legislation was later expanded upon through an amendment adopted in 2000. The legislation we introduce today takes the next step to address the remaining shortfalls of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Specifically, the bill would include post-1971 uranium workers as qualified claimants. While the Federal Government ceased purchase of domestic uranium in 1971, implementation of Federal work safety standards was slow and regulation of mines was poor. As a result, thousands of miners and millers were never made aware of the dangers of the yellow cake they handled on a regular basis. In recently conducted surveys, the majority of uranium workers from this time period report that they did not have showers or washbasins in the mines where they worked. They often took contaminated clothing home for laundering, unaware of the hazards and with no other option for cleaning. Many also report that ventilation to prevent unnecessary exposure was not provided in their work areas. Today, these workers continue to suffer and die from illnesses related to radiation exposure. But because their employment dates began after 1971, the cut-off included in the original RECA legislation, they have no opportunity for compensation. Our bill changes that. If the measure passes, individuals working between 1971 and 1990 will qualify to claim compensation for exposure-related diseases. The bill we're introducing today would also expand the geographic areas that qualify for downwind compensation to include New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, and Guam. And for the first time, the bill recognizes downwind exposure from the original atomic weapons test site--the Trinity Site in New Mexico. Those exposed as a result of aboveground weapons tests would receive increased compensation as a result of passage of the bill being introduced today. This would make their compensation consistent with their counterparts who worked in mines and mills. Comprehensive epidemiological research on the impacts of uranium development on communities and families of uranium workers is long overdue. Our legislation would authorize funding for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to award grants to universities and non-profits to carry out such research. Many who have suffered as a result of cold war uranium and weapons development do not have the documentation to prove their exposure. Often, mines and mills did not keep proper documentation of their workers, and many communities impacted do not have a tradition of keeping birth and marriage certification. The RECA Amendments of 2011 would broaden the use of affidavits to substantiate employment history and residence in an affected downwind area. Employees would also be able to combine their time worked in multiple positions to meet the work-time requirements for compensation in the original RECA legislation if today's legislation is adopted. Finally, this legislation would allow miners to be compensated for kidney disease. And it would allow core drillers to join miners, millers, and ore transporters on the current list of uranium workers who qualify for compensation under the Act. For more than two decades now, the United States has tried to compensate in some way for the sickness and loss of life that came as a result of cold war era uranium and weapons development. Much has been accomplished, but today we are taking the next step to close this sad chapter in history and to improve the reach of compassionate compensation to those Americans who have suffered, but have not qualified under RECA in its current form. Thousands continue to suffer from deadly illnesses as a result of radiation exposure, but many do not qualify for compensation because they began employment after 1971, or because they worked for a short time in several different mines and mills. Others qualify for a level of compensation, but still struggle to pay the expensive medical bills associated with their illnesses. I look forward to working with my colleagues to recognize these individuals and expand RECA to include all who are justified in receiving radiation exposure compensation, and I urge the Judiciary Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, to expedite hearing on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2011. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, known as RECA, was first passed in 1990 after years of work and litigation. The act was later improved in 2000 through amendments made by Congress, and today I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Bennet, Crapo, Mark Udall, and Risch, to once again improve the act through introduction of this legislation. This bill honors the individuals who unwittingly gave their health and even their lives to national efforts to develop uranium and a Cold War nuclear arsenal during the mid-20th century. Some Americans were sickened through exposure to aboveground atomic weapons tests, and others were exposed to heavy doses of radiation from working in the uranium mining industry. All the while, the government was slow to implement Federal protections. As a result, a generation of Americans who worked in the mines and lived near testing sites became sick with serious diseases like lung cancer and kidney disease. Much of the United States' uranium development and weapons testing occurred in New Mexico and the West. Mines and mills drew workers into rural communities. These workers, and much of the country, were unaware of the dangers of radiation exposure. As mining and milling continued and our national understanding of the dangers of radiation exposure developed, the Federal Government continued to fail to ensure that uranium workers and their families were safe from the hazards of exposure to radioactive materials. As a result, numerous illnesses and cancers began to emerge in the men and women who worked in the uranium mining industry and lived downwind of weapons testing sites. In my home State of New Mexico, the Pueblo of Laguna was home to the nation's largest open pit uranium mine. Additionally, many large and small mines and mill sites were opened within the Navajo Nation. In fact, much of the State's northwestern area is spackled with hundreds of abandoned uranium mines. Workers from across the State came to these mines and mills, especially from the economically struggling communities of rural New Mexico. In the late '70s, my father, Stewart Udall, took up the fight for these workers. In 1979, my father filed 32 claims against the Department of Energy on behalf of widows of deceased Navajo uranium miners. In many ways, this marked the beginning of the fight for compensation for all uranium workers. I remember working those years with my whole family to collect information and push for recognition. It was a family effort to fight injustice, and for me, it continues to be a family priority. Ten years later, the original RECA legislation was passed in the United States Congress, giving a level of restitution to sick miners and millers, as well as individuals downwind of nuclear tests. The RECA legislation was later expanded upon through an amendment adopted in 2000. The legislation we introduce today takes the next step to address the remaining shortfalls of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Specifically, the bill would include post-1971 uranium workers as qualified claimants. While the Federal Government ceased purchase of domestic uranium in 1971, implementation of Federal work safety standards was slow and regulation of mines was poor. As a result, thousands of miners and millers were never made aware of the dangers of the yellow cake they handled on a regular basis. In recently conducted surveys, the majority of uranium workers from this time period report that they did not have showers or washbasins in the mines where they worked. They often took contaminated clothing home for laundering, unaware of the hazards and with no other option for cleaning. Many also report that ventilation to prevent unnecessary exposure was not provided in their work areas. Today, these workers continue to suffer and die from illnesses related to radiation exposure. But because their employment dates began after 1971, the cut-off included in the original RECA legislation, they have no opportunity for compensation. Our bill changes that. If the measure passes, individuals working between 1971 and 1990 will qualify to claim compensation for exposure-related diseases. The bill we're introducing today would also expand the geographic areas that qualify for downwind compensation to include New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, and Guam. And for the first time, the bill recognizes downwind exposure from the original atomic weapons test site--the Trinity Site in New Mexico. Those exposed as a result of aboveground weapons tests would receive increased compensation as a result of passage of the bill being introduced today. This would make their compensation consistent with their counterparts who worked in mines and mills. Comprehensive epidemiological research on the impacts of uranium development on communities and families of uranium workers is long overdue. Our legislation would authorize funding for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to award grants to universities and non-profits to carry out such research. Many who have suffered as a result of cold war uranium and weapons development do not have the documentation to prove their exposure. Often, mines and mills did not keep proper documentation of their workers, and many communities impacted do not have a tradition of keeping birth and marriage certification. The RECA Amendments of 2011 would broaden the use of affidavits to substantiate employment history and residence in an affected downwind area. Employees would also be able to combine their time worked in multiple positions to meet the work-time requirements for compensation in the original RECA legislation if today's legislation is adopted. Finally, this legislation would allow miners to be compensated for kidney disease. And it would allow core drillers to join miners, millers, and ore transporters on the current list of uranium workers who qualify for compensation under the Act. For more than two decades now, the United States has tried to compensate in some way for the sickness and loss of life that came as a result of cold war era uranium and weapons development. Much has been accomplished, but today we are taking the next step to close this sad chapter in history and to improve the reach of compassionate compensation to those Americans who have suffered, but have not qualified under RECA in its current form. Thousands continue to suffer from deadly illnesses as a result of radiation exposure, but many do not qualify for compensation because they began employment after 1971, or because they worked for a short time in several different mines and mills. Others qualify for a level of compensation, but still struggle to pay the expensive medical bills associated with their illnesses. I look forward to working with my colleagues to recognize these individuals and expand RECA to include all who are justified in receiving radiation exposure compensation, and I urge the Judiciary Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, to expedite hearing on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, cell phones today are becoming ubiquitous and more essential to our everyday lives. Americans today have over 300 million wireless phones. We use these phones in new and innovative ways. Consumers today increasingly use their cell phones for much more than just talking. Mobile broadband services now allow us to surf the Internet, search for nearby shops or restaurants, and watch videos right on our wireless handsets. Since we now use these devices in new ways, it can be more difficult for consumers to realize they have exceeded their monthly subscriptions for cell phone service. This can have dramatic consequences for consumers. Consider the case of a Navy ROTC midshipman who mistakenly left his smartphone's roaming function turned on while he was abroad. His phone downloaded e-mail messages, and he was sent a bill for almost $1,300. News outlets have highlighted other cases from across the country, including cases where children on family subscription plans racked up thousands of dollars in extra charges. A 13-year-old's cell phone data usage led to a bill for almost $22,000. Bob St. Germain of Massachusetts was billed $18,000 for a 6-week period when his son used a cell phone to connect a computer to the Internet. I am proud to have Mr. St. Germain's support for the legislation I am introducing today. Unfortunately, these stories we hear about in the media are certainly not isolated cases, just the most egregious. In fact, a recent Federal Communications Commission, FCC, survey found that 30 million Americans, or 1 in 6 adult cell phone users, have experienced cases of ``bill shock.'' Cell phone bill shock occurs when a consumer's monthly bill increases when they have not changed their plan. In about one in four cases, the consumer's bill increased by more than $100. According to a survey by Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports magazine, the median bill shock amount was $83. With new, advanced developments in technology, bill shock is a growing problem. The introduction of faster ``4G'' networks will make it easier than ever for customers to burn through data limits. Americans who have cell phone ``family plans'' with multiple phone lines may face even greater difficulty monitoring their usage. More and more cell phone companies are dropping their unlimited data plans, and the risk of bill shock only stands to get worse. Although consumers can already access their phone usage by requesting this information from their cell phone provider, the FCC survey found that almost 85 percent of American consumers who suffered bill shock were not alerted that they were about to exceed their allowed voice minutes, text messages, or data downloads. In many cases, a simple alert message would help consumers avoid bill shock. That is why today I am pleased to introduce the Cell Phone Bill Shock Act of 2011. This legislation is similar to what I proposed in the last Congress. It would require that cell phone companies do two things: first, that they notify cell phone customers when they have used 80 percent of their limit of voice minutes, text messages, or data usage. This notification could be in the form of a text message or email, and should be free of charge. Second, this legislation would require cell phone companies to obtain a customer's consent before charging for services in excess of their limit of voice, text, or data usage. Customers could give such consent by calling or sending a free text message or email to their phone company. In the European Union, wireless phone companies already provide similar notifications when wireless consumers are roaming and when they reach 80 percent of their monthly data roaming services. Congress already approved legislation to help consumers avoid bank overdraft fees from debit card and ATM transactions. Banks must now obtain their customer's permission before allowing debit card transactions which would incur overdraft fees. My legislation extends that same concept to cell phone customers, who should benefit from similar protections against ``bill shock.'' The texting and Internet capabilities that make today's cell phones more useful than ever should be applied to help consumers avoid bill shock. Sending an automatic text notification to one's phone or an email alert should not place a burden on cell phone companies. Passing my commonsense legislation will help prevent consumers from facing ``bill shock'' problems in the future. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, cell phones today are becoming ubiquitous and more essential to our everyday lives. Americans today have over 300 million wireless phones. We use these phones in new and innovative ways. Consumers today increasingly use their cell phones for much more than just talking. Mobile broadband services now allow us to surf the Internet, search for nearby shops or restaurants, and watch videos right on our wireless handsets. Since we now use these devices in new ways, it can be more difficult for consumers to realize they have exceeded their monthly subscriptions for cell phone service. This can have dramatic consequences for consumers. Consider the case of a Navy ROTC midshipman who mistakenly left his smartphone's roaming function turned on while he was abroad. His phone downloaded e-mail messages, and he was sent a bill for almost $1,300. News outlets have highlighted other cases from across the country, including cases where children on family subscription plans racked up thousands of dollars in extra charges. A 13-year-old's cell phone data usage led to a bill for almost $22,000. Bob St. Germain of Massachusetts was billed $18,000 for a 6-week period when his son used a cell phone to connect a computer to the Internet. I am proud to have Mr. St. Germain's support for the legislation I am introducing today. Unfortunately, these stories we hear about in the media are certainly not isolated cases, just the most egregious. In fact, a recent Federal Communications Commission, FCC, survey found that 30 million Americans, or 1 in 6 adult cell phone users, have experienced cases of ``bill shock.'' Cell phone bill shock occurs when a consumer's monthly bill increases when they have not changed their plan. In about one in four cases, the consumer's bill increased by more than $100. According to a survey by Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports magazine, the median bill shock amount was $83. With new, advanced developments in technology, bill shock is a growing problem. The introduction of faster ``4G'' networks will make it easier than ever for customers to burn through data limits. Americans who have cell phone ``family plans'' with multiple phone lines may face even greater difficulty monitoring their usage. More and more cell phone companies are dropping their unlimited data plans, and the risk of bill shock only stands to get worse. Although consumers can already access their phone usage by requesting this information from their cell phone provider, the FCC survey found that almost 85 percent of American consumers who suffered bill shock were not alerted that they were about to exceed their allowed voice minutes, text messages, or data downloads. In many cases, a simple alert message would help consumers avoid bill shock. That is why today I am pleased to introduce the Cell Phone Bill Shock Act of 2011. This legislation is similar to what I proposed in the last Congress. It would require that cell phone companies do two things: first, that they notify cell phone customers when they have used 80 percent of their limit of voice minutes, text messages, or data usage. This notification could be in the form of a text message or email, and should be free of charge. Second, this legislation would require cell phone companies to obtain a customer's consent before charging for services in excess of their limit of voice, text, or data usage. Customers could give such consent by calling or sending a free text message or email to their phone company. In the European Union, wireless phone companies already provide similar notifications when wireless consumers are roaming and when they reach 80 percent of their monthly data roaming services. Congress already approved legislation to help consumers avoid bank overdraft fees from debit card and ATM transactions. Banks must now obtain their customer's permission before allowing debit card transactions which would incur overdraft fees. My legislation extends that same concept to cell phone customers, who should benefit from similar protections against ``bill shock.'' The texting and Internet capabilities that make today's cell phones more useful than ever should be applied to help consumers avoid bill shock. Sending an automatic text notification to one's phone or an email alert should not place a burden on cell phone companies. Passing my commonsense legislation will help prevent consumers from facing ``bill shock'' problems in the future. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, the Navajo Code Talkers were a small group of marines who contributed to the American victory in the Pacific during World War II. Their language and their bravery made victory possible and helped save Allied soldiers' lives. These Navajo warriors have one less man among their ranks today. My home State of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation lost a great man on February 28, 2011, when Joe Antonio Silversmith passed away at the age of 86. I would like to take a few moments to honor Mr. Silversmith's memory and his service to our country. In 1943, as a young man of only 18, Mr. Silversmith heeded the call of duty and enlisted in the 297th Marine Platoon. He served in the South Pacific until 1946. Mr. Silversmith and the 45,000 other Native Americans who enlisted to serve our country in World War II had only been recognized as citizens of the United States for 17 years when World War II began. Approximately 400 of these men, including Mr. Silversmith, served as Code Talkers--turning their native language into a powerful code, unbreakable by the Japanese. In 2001, Mr. Silversmith finally received the recognition he deserved for his heroic World War II service when he and his fellow Code Talkers received the Congressional Gold Medal. For Mr. Silversmith, his service to others did not end with his military career. A man of strong personal faith, he eventually became a full-time minister after returning to New Mexico. For those who knew him, Mr. Silversmith's devotion to his flocks-- demonstrated through his dedication to his congregation and, more literally, his love of herding of sheep--will be remembered fondly. A man of courage, a hero to his family and the American people, and a role model to young Navajos, Mr. Silversmith stood up for his ideals. He encouraged those he knew to pursue their dreams, but to never forget their roots. We owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Silversmith, his fellow Code Talkers, and all those who have sacrificed in service to our country. Let's honor Mr. Silversmith by heeding his advice to keep our roots close to our hearts while striving to achieve our own lofty goals for the widest influence of good.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President my home State of New Mexico lost a great man on March 13, 2011. Charlie F. James, a World War II veteran and survivor of the Bataan Death March, passed away at the age of 89. He was the last survivor of the Bataan Death March living in Eddy County and I would like to take a moment to honor his memory. Mr. James enlisted in the National Guard while still a young man in high school and was called to active duty service in January 1941, less than a year after graduating and just 3 days after getting married. In September, Mr. James and the rest of 2nd Battalion/F-Battery were shipped off to Manila in the Philippines. The Japanese attack on the Philippines in December of 1941, mere hours after Pearl Harbor, led to 4 months of intense combat with very little in the way of supplies. His unit only had one functioning 37mm anti-aircraft gun left when allied troops at Bataan were ordered to surrender in April 1942. While those 4 months of fighting were difficult for Mr. James and his fellow soldiers, the next 3\1/2\ years were even more horrific. Mr. James survived the Bataan Death March to then face ghastly conditions in Japanese prisons, and forced labor in Japan. Mr. James was liberated on September 2, 1945, and honorably discharged. He was the recipient of many awards for his service, including a Purple Heart and Bronze Star. Mr. James became a member of numerous veterans groups and he maintained close relationships with many of his comrades, including many who were held as prisoners of war. After being discharged, Mr. James returned to New Mexico and to the two loves in his life: his wife, Lucille, and ranching. Having grown up in Carlsbad, his passion for his cattle ran deep in his roots. Those who knew Mr. James hold many fond memories of him surrounded by his land and tending to his cattle. Let us honor this man who was the last of a generation, one of an ever dwindling number of men who gave up years of their youth to protect our Nation, and thank Mr. James for his bravery, patriotism, and service.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, who will develop a computer small enough to fit into our eyeglasses? Who will build the first fully-automated, completely sustainable house or hospital? Which country will successfully test time travel? I hope that it will be the United States, but I am not confident. When we compare the science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, success of students globally, we are not in the lead. The President, Congress and our business community all agree that we must do better in order to compete and excel in STEM fields globally. If we are going to remain competitive, we must develop and retain high- quality math and science teachers. We must provide those teachers with strong professional development so they can develop higher-order thinking in their students. We must encourage higher education leaders to strengthen K-8 teacher education programs to provide a deeper understanding of the content knowledge necessary to teach math and science. We must engage students earlier about possible careers in STEM fields. Our economic growth and our national security depend on a workforce skilled in STEM fields. The demand for scientists and engineers is expected to increase at four times the rate of other occupations. But our students just aren't performing well enough in math and science, and too few of them are pursuing careers in these technical fields. The biggest problems we face as a global society--including problems with food and water supply, safe housing, economic prosperity and energy efficiency--require excellence in STEM fields. But students are entering our high schools without a strong foundation in STEM. And colleges are not sufficiently preparing a diverse group of STEM graduates to excel in graduate school and STEM careers. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, about one- third of fourth graders and one-fifth of eighth graders cannot perform basic math computations. And U.S. high school seniors recently tested below the international average for 21 countries in mathematics and science. For example, only 34 percent of fourth graders, 30 percent of eighth graders, and 21 percent of 12th graders test ``proficient'' in science on the national assessment of educational progress, or NAEP. We must invest in our teachers, students and leaders to surpass students in the major European and Asian countries that we currently lag behind. That is why today I am introducing the STEM Act, or STEM Support for Teachers in Education and Mentoring Act, will help us accomplish this goal. The STEM Act would identify best teaching practices. It would strengthen networks of teachers, colleges and businesses for STEM collaboration. It would create meaningful opportunities for teacher training and mentoring. The STEM Act also would establish a planning grant program for states to identify STEM skills needed by the workforce, and develop effective State STEM networks for communication and collaboration among businesses, schools teachers and administrators, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit organizations. Middle school is an important time in a student's career to be inspired by STEM possibilities. Our middle and high school teachers want more professional development to spark this interest. To give teachers and schools the tools they need to encourage and prepare students for STEM careers, the STEM Act would create training programs using best practice models of STEM master teachers, and provide summer institutes for current teachers and administrators to strengthen teacher effectiveness. There are programs in my home state of New Mexico that are piloting some of these initiatives. These efforts demonstrate how to increase teacher effectiveness to help students learn STEM subjects, and create opportunities for students to be inspired to pursue a STEM field. The Institute for Math and Science Education, IMSE, and the STEM Outreach Center at New Mexico State University help coordinate Pre K-20 STEM education efforts across the state and region. Faculty and staff in the College of Education created a network of mathematicians, scientists, educational researchers, and business and community leaders to facilitate research and outreach grants. MC \2\--Mathematically Connected Communities is building a statewide learning community of mathematics educators, mathematicians, and public school leaders. MC \2\ offers summer mathematics academies to provide teachers with in-depth study of mathematics. It provides continuous professional development during the school year, helps create school district leadership teams, and develops web-based math resources. There is a similar program for science, called Scientifically Connected Communities, SC \2\. The Southern New Mexico Science, Engineering, Math and Aerospace Academy, SNM SEMAA, is a NASA-sponsored, after-school program for K-12 that helps students who are traditionally under-represented in the Science, Engineering, Math, Aerospace, and Technology, SEMAT, fields. SEMAA engages students and their parents in inquiry-based learning and research through innovative, hands-on experience with new technologies. The Chemical Olympics organizes competitions in chemistry experimentation to increase interest in chemistry and the other sciences among secondary school students. NASA Summer of Innovation is a collaboration between the New Mexico Space Grant Consortium and STEM Outreach Center to prepare educators from across my state to coordinate a month-long summer camp in their hometowns that are designed to introduce students to inquiry-based science. Innovate-Educate encourages states to develop statewide networks that help create relationships and programs to advance STEM policies and best practices, aligned with industry needs. As a Nation, we cannot afford to lag behind other countries in preparing our students to succeed in science, technology, engineering and math. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these STEM initiatives, and preparing our teachers and students to take us into the future.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, who will develop a computer small enough to fit into our eyeglasses? Who will build the first fully-automated, completely sustainable house or hospital? Which country will successfully test time travel? I hope that it will be the United States, but I am not confident. When we compare the science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, success of students globally, we are not in the lead. The President, Congress and our business community all agree that we must do better in order to compete and excel in STEM fields globally. If we are going to remain competitive, we must develop and retain high- quality math and science teachers. We must provide those teachers with strong professional development so they can develop higher-order thinking in their students. We must encourage higher education leaders to strengthen K-8 teacher education programs to provide a deeper understanding of the content knowledge necessary to teach math and science. We must engage students earlier about possible careers in STEM fields. Our economic growth and our national security depend on a workforce skilled in STEM fields. The demand for scientists and engineers is expected to increase at four times the rate of other occupations. But our students just aren't performing well enough in math and science, and too few of them are pursuing careers in these technical fields. The biggest problems we face as a global society--including problems with food and water supply, safe housing, economic prosperity and energy efficiency--require excellence in STEM fields. But students are entering our high schools without a strong foundation in STEM. And colleges are not sufficiently preparing a diverse group of STEM graduates to excel in graduate school and STEM careers. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, about one- third of fourth graders and one-fifth of eighth graders cannot perform basic math computations. And U.S. high school seniors recently tested below the international average for 21 countries in mathematics and science. For example, only 34 percent of fourth graders, 30 percent of eighth graders, and 21 percent of 12th graders test ``proficient'' in science on the national assessment of educational progress, or NAEP. We must invest in our teachers, students and leaders to surpass students in the major European and Asian countries that we currently lag behind. That is why today I am introducing the STEM Act, or STEM Support for Teachers in Education and Mentoring Act, will help us accomplish this goal. The STEM Act would identify best teaching practices. It would strengthen networks of teachers, colleges and businesses for STEM collaboration. It would create meaningful opportunities for teacher training and mentoring. The STEM Act also would establish a planning grant program for states to identify STEM skills needed by the workforce, and develop effective State STEM networks for communication and collaboration among businesses, schools teachers and administrators, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit organizations. Middle school is an important time in a student's career to be inspired by STEM possibilities. Our middle and high school teachers want more professional development to spark this interest. To give teachers and schools the tools they need to encourage and prepare students for STEM careers, the STEM Act would create training programs using best practice models of STEM master teachers, and provide summer institutes for current teachers and administrators to strengthen teacher effectiveness. There are programs in my home state of New Mexico that are piloting some of these initiatives. These efforts demonstrate how to increase teacher effectiveness to help students learn STEM subjects, and create opportunities for students to be inspired to pursue a STEM field. The Institute for Math and Science Education, IMSE, and the STEM Outreach Center at New Mexico State University help coordinate Pre K-20 STEM education efforts across the state and region. Faculty and staff in the College of Education created a network of mathematicians, scientists, educational researchers, and business and community leaders to facilitate research and outreach grants. MC \2\--Mathematically Connected Communities is building a statewide learning community of mathematics educators, mathematicians, and public school leaders. MC \2\ offers summer mathematics academies to provide teachers with in-depth study of mathematics. It provides continuous professional development during the school year, helps create school district leadership teams, and develops web-based math resources. There is a similar program for science, called Scientifically Connected Communities, SC \2\. The Southern New Mexico Science, Engineering, Math and Aerospace Academy, SNM SEMAA, is a NASA-sponsored, after-school program for K-12 that helps students who are traditionally under-represented in the Science, Engineering, Math, Aerospace, and Technology, SEMAT, fields. SEMAA engages students and their parents in inquiry-based learning and research through innovative, hands-on experience with new technologies. The Chemical Olympics organizes competitions in chemistry experimentation to increase interest in chemistry and the other sciences among secondary school students. NASA Summer of Innovation is a collaboration between the New Mexico Space Grant Consortium and STEM Outreach Center to prepare educators from across my state to coordinate a month-long summer camp in their hometowns that are designed to introduce students to inquiry-based science. Innovate-Educate encourages states to develop statewide networks that help create relationships and programs to advance STEM policies and best practices, aligned with industry needs. As a Nation, we cannot afford to lag behind other countries in preparing our students to succeed in science, technology, engineering and math. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these STEM initiatives, and preparing our teachers and students to take us into the future.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, football fans today are wondering if there will be a National Football League season this fall. Many fans could find that their Sundays are not the same if team owners and players do not reach an agreement. Business owners who depend on those fans will also be affected. That is an issue that members of Congress have weighed in on already. But today I want to discuss a more important issue for the future of football. Football is facing a concussion crisis--a brain injury crisis--that affects up to 4.5 million football players who are still too young to play in the NFL but may aspire to make it to the pros some day. This fall, those kids and young adults will put on their uniforms and pads and take to the gridiron. It is a time-honored tradition that will continue regardless of what happens to the upcoming NFL season. For many rural communities in states like New Mexico, high school football means Friday night lights excitement and civic pride in the school team. This year, about 8,000 New Mexican high school players will continue this American tradition. But football is a contact sport, and thousands of student athletes are injured every year. Many of those injuries are concussions. In fact, one study estimates that as many as one in five football players suffers head injuries in any given football season. For young people between 15 and 24 years old, playing sports is the second-leading cause of traumatic brain injury, behind only motor vehicle crashes. Every year, there are up to 3.8 million sports-related concussions, many of which go undiagnosed and unreported. Those alarming statistics highlight the need for more awareness about sports concussion. That is why it is appropriate to discuss this important public health and children's safety issue today, which is ``Brain Injury Awareness Day.'' Retired NFL great Nick Lowery--the all time leading scorer for the Kansas City Chiefs and one of the greatest kickers to play the game-- explained to me: When I played football in high school, in college, and in the National Football League, suffering a concussion was often shrugged off as merely having your `bell rung.' My teammates had no shortage of toughness and wanted to build the mentality to `out tough' our opponents. . . . We now know that multiple concussions can lead to lasting brain damage and should be treated as a serious matter. Today's NFL players want to set a good example for the next generation. There have been alarming news stories about what has happened to several retired NFL players who were famous for that toughness Lowery described. Long after their careers ended, some of those NFL greats succumbed to chronic traumatic encephalopathy, CTE, caused by repeated head trauma. Last month, retired NFL player Dave Duerson took his own life with a gunshot to the chest. According to news reports, he left instructions to his family that his brain be given to the NFL Brain Bank, presumably to be examined for evidence of CTE. Yet, what is even more alarming is that researchers have already found CTE in the brain of a deceased 18-year-old high school football player with a history of concussions. Researchers do not yet know how early an athlete might develop CTE. TBI can also be an ``invisible'' injury. Without the kind of brain injury awareness that families and health care providers are trying to raise today, an athlete who suffers a mild TBI may not link that injury to common symptoms later such as headaches, nausea, and cognitive changes. One of my constituents, Alexis Ball, is a bright college student and star soccer player at the University of New Mexico. She told my office how she struggled for months with post-concussive symptoms. Concussions forced her to sit out from play and miss classes. Thankfully, she's recovered today and now volunteers to raise concussion awareness among young athletes in Albuquerque. But there are other cases that are much more unfortunate. The parents of one high school student athlete from Oregon named Max Conradt wrote me to explain how Max, their 17-year-old son, returned to play quarterback too soon after suffering a concussion. Max was wearing a 20-year-old helmet when he suffered another concussion that led to brain damage. Max's parents wrote me to ask, ``How is it possible that our son was issued a helmet three years older than he was?'' Unfortunately, there are an estimated 100,000 helmets out there that are more than a decade old. These helmets will be worn by high school and younger football players this fall. Many coaches will not know that some of their helmets might be older than their players. And one helmet safety expert has stated that even the best new football helmets would need to be four times better--in terms of attenuating direct, linear forces--to protect against concussion. These facts drive my serious concerns about the current voluntary safety standards for new and reconditioned football helmets, which have not been significantly revised in three decades. On this Brain Injury Awareness Day 2011, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation, the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act, to require improvements to the voluntary football helmet standards, including clearly visible warning and date of manufacture labels, concussion resistance, if feasible, reconditioned helmets and youth helmets. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by colleagues Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator Blumenthal. We are joined by Representatives Bill Pascrell and Todd Platts, who lead the Congressional TBI Task Force, and Representative Anthony Weiner--all of whom are original sponsors of the companion bill in the House of Representatives. The Children's Sports Equipment Safety Act takes a ``light touch'' approach to improving safety. This legislation gives industry groups time to put safety first and improve their voluntary helmet standards before any mandatory federal safety rules replace them. But if those improvements are not made, then the Consumer Product Safety Commission must issue product safety rules for football helmets to protect kids. I want to emphasize that the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act isn't just about football helmets. This legislation would also increase the potential penalties for making false injury prevention claims for other types of sports and athletic gear. Tackling false advertising with more severe penalties may be an increasingly important tool if companies continue to sell new headbands, helmets, and mouth guards with potentially deceptive and misleading safety claims. Young athletes could put themselves at great risk if they think a new ``anti-concussion'' football helmet, soccer headband, or mouth guard makes them invulnerable to brain injury. The costs of such injuries in financial terms alone are staggering. The direct medical costs and indirect costs of traumatic brain injuries totaled an estimated $60 billion in the United States in the year 2000. That figure of course does not account for the pain and suffering of victims and their families. I am pleased that the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act enjoys support from a broad range of organizations and individuals. DeMaurice Smith, the Executive Director of the NFL Players Association, NFLPA, states in a letter that: Not only is the NFLPA committed to the safety of professional football players, but to all who play the sport. We recognize a significant portion of those players are youth and high school athletes who are currently at risk for traumatic brain injury due to the absence of helmet safety standards. We support the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act as introduced and commend you for addressing this issue. Other supporters include: Brain Injury Association of America; Brain Trauma Foundation; Cleveland Clinic; Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; National Consumers League; National Research Center for Women & Families; and Safe Kids USA. Nick Lowery, who played 18 years as a professional football player and is a member of the Kansas City Chiefs Hall of Fame, notes that: Improving sports safety for kids and discouraging sports equipment companies from making false injury prevention claims are two straightforward ways to reduce brain injuries. You can count on my enthusiastic support for this important children's safety and consumer protection legislation. Sports and exercise should be encouraged for everyone--especially children. We must do more to ensure that kids participate in sports and exercise for all the health benefits they bring. While there will always be some risk of injury, we must make sure that athletes, coaches and parents know about the dangers and signs of concussion. We must make sure that they are using safe equipment. And we must take false advertising of safety gear out of the game. I ask all my colleagues for their support of the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act as part of this vital effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.