Iraq Security Agreement Act of 2008

Mr. President, I introduce this bill today to prevent misuse of the Antiquities. Act of 1906 to create very large marine monuments. The Antiquities Act was intended to protect landmarks, not create the largest protected areas in the United States unilaterally without congressional assent.

The Bush administration acted covertly to convey protected status to 139,000 square miles of the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In so doing, the administration short-circuited the extensive Marine Sanctuaries process that was already underway and notified the delegation only after the press conference. Now they have turned their attention to the Gulf of Mexico.

We learned that the President, with mixed support from his top advisors, is considering using his authorities under the Antiquities Act to unilaterally and permanently declare ``marine monuments'' in various locations of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Some of these areas are in my backyard--in the Gulf of Mexico--but other areas of the Atlantic and Pacific are also under consideration.

I certainly understand the need to conserve and appropriately manage our most sensitive and vulnerable marine areas, which can serve as nurseries for fish stocks and provide critical habitat for other important species. That is why I support the processes Congress established in the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. But any declarations of new or additional protected status to marine areas should continue to follow the scientific and public processes outlined in the Sanctuaries Act. This is a good process that allows all affected parties--from the environmental community to recreational fishermen to the oil and gas industries--to have a say.

Mr. President, I introduce this bill today to restore historic Jackson Barracks in New Orleans to its pre-Hurricane Katrina status as a national historic treasure. Jackson Barracks represents the rich military history of New Orleans, and indeed our great State. However, the rebuilding of the structures on this significant garrison has been hindered by bureaucratic roadblocks and gaps in funding. This bill directly addresses those challenges.

As you know, Hurricane Katrina brought torrential floods and driving

winds to New Orleans and the surrounding region. The devastation from the storm touched every structure at Jackson Barracks. The original Jackson Barracks consists of 14 Antebellum Garrison Structures built between 1834 and 1835. These historic buildings were not spared and suffered tremendous damage.

There is a pressing need to complete the restoration and renovation of the barracks. Jackson Barracks requires additional renovations and restorations that are not within the scope of the Federal Emergency Management Agency hurricane restoration funding. With the agreement of the Chief, National Guard Bureau and the Secretary of the Interior, this bill would reprogram the savings from several military construction projects elsewhere on Jackson Barracks to assist in the completion of historic preservation at the post.

I ask the support of my colleagues in enabling the National Park Service to aid in the restoration of Jackson Barracks through the Historic Preservation Fund. I am not asking for additional dollars, but rather that the money that was saved on previous projects be recommitted and used for this vital need.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Cane River National Heritage Area Commission and modify the boundaries of the heritage area. In 1994, Congress recognized this area as one of the nation's cultural and historic treasures. In the 1700s, Creole culture flowered across the stunning landscapes of the Cane River, and the Creole culture continues to enliven the region to this day. In terms of beauty, it is not only the landscape but the Creole architecture from that time period that charms visitors. Today, the 35 mile region includes the Cane River Creole National Historical Park, seven national historic landmarks, three state historic sites, and 24 properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Anchored by the city of Natchitoches, which traces its history to a French colonial settlement established in 1714 near the Natchitoches Indian village on the Red River, the region's colonial forts, Creole plantations, churches, cemeteries, archeological sites, historic transportation routes, and commercial centers provide a unique view into Louisiana's past.

I am proud to represent the people of Louisiana by asking the 110th Congress to reauthorize this National Heritage Area and reaffirm the importance of the Cane River Creole culture as a nationally significant element of American heritage.

This should not be a difficult task. Congress has once before agreed to establish a Cane River Creole National Historical Park to serve as the focus of interpretive and educational programs on the history of the Cane River area and to assist in the preservation of certain historic sites along the river. Now, I ask this Congress to do it again by reauthorizing the Cane River National Heritage Area.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled the Lower Mississippi River National Historic Site Study Act. This bill will direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating sites in Plaquemines Parish along the Lower Mississippi River Area as a unit of the National Park System. To be eligible for favorable consideration as a unit of the National Park System, an area must possess nationally significant natural, cultural or recreational resources. The Lower Mississippi River area in Plaquemines Parish meets and exceeds these criteria.

I am proud to come to the floor today to introduce this bill. Anyone who has visited Plaquemines Parish knows that it is one of the Nation's unique treasures. The natural beauty there at the mouth of the Mississippi is impossible to describe, but impossible not to love. The area is rich in history, and it is a preserve for one of the nation's most unique cultural melanges.

That mix began after the Native Americans in the region began to intermingle with the Spanish explorers who traveled along the banks of the river in the 1500s. In 1682, Rene-Robert Cavelier de LaSalle claimed all the land drained by the Mississippi for France area. In 1699, the area became the site of the first fortification on the Lower Mississippi River, known as Fort Mississippi. Since then, it has been the home to 10 different fortifications, including Fort St. Philip and Fort Jackson.

Fort St. Philip, originally built in 1749, proved to be instrumental during the Battle of New Orleans by blocking the British Navy from going up river. Fort Jackson was built at the request of General Andrew Jackson and partially constructed by famous local Civil War General P.G.T. Beauregard. This fort was the site of the famous Civil War battle know as the ``Battle of Forts'' which is also referred to as the ``night the war was lost.''

As this glimpse of the region's military history shows, the Lower Plaquemines region is of national cultural and historical significance.

There are also many other important and unique attributes to this area. This area is home to the longest continuous river road and levee system in the U.S. It is also home to the ancient Head of Passes site, Plaquemines Bend, geological features and two national wildlife refuges.

Finally, the area has a rich cultural heritage. Over the years, many different cultures have made this area home including Creoles, Europeans, Indians, Yugoslavs, African-Americans and Vietnamese. These cultures have worked together to create the infrastructure for transportation of our Nation's energy which is being produced by these same people out in the Gulf of Mexico off our shores. They have also created a fishing industry that contributes to Louisiana's economy.

I think it is easy to see why this area would make an excellent addition to the National Park Service. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill which simply allows the National Park Service to study the suitability and feasibility of bringing this area into the system. I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly enact this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Kennedy and Sanders, to introduce the Time for Innovation Matters in Education, or TIME Act, of 2008. This bill would improve and expand students' instructional time, while ensuring rigorous standards, as a means to help close the academic achievement gap that exists for so many of our disadvantaged students.

The fundamental principle underlying this bill is that the amount of instructional time provided by the vast majority of school calendars is simply inadequate for today's students and teachers. Teachers need more time to plan and deliver instruction, and students need more time for 21st century learning.

The demands on 21st century learners reflect the rapid increase in technological advances that we have all experienced in the last 30 or 40 years. Twenty first century learning demands an increase in the rigor of mathematics and science education, and the acquisition of subject area knowledge in areas that simply did not exist years ago, such as computer literacy. These increased demands should not be met at the expense of ignoring other subjects such as social studies, art, and physical education. Yet, these other areas are often ignored to allow for time for some of the major academic subjects. That is the consequence of failing to match the gradual increase in educational demands with a corresponding increase in instructional time.

Instead, here we are in the 21st century, continuing to adhere to a school calendar that was established over 100 years ago, and which was designed to accommodate a predominantly agricultural society. In nearly every State, the school calendar is based on approximately 180 or fewer instructional days, or on approximately 1000 instructional hours, per school year. This means that American students are spending fewer than 20 percent of their waking hours in school.

In the recent National Research Council report entitled, How People Learn, the authors comment on the importance of being realistic about the amount of time it takes to learn complex subject matter. Simply put, they note that ``significant learning takes major investments of time.'' The TIME Act is an initial investment that will provide teachers and students with the expanded opportunities they need to achieve high quality instruction and learning. We know that time needs are significant if our students are to achieve a 21st century education.

Although all students are likely to benefit from expanded learning time, we must prioritize these opportunities for students who are most at risk for poor academic achievement. International reports like the PISA study demonstrate that although American students, as a group, have poor academic achievement relative to students in other industrialized nations, this disparity is most pronounced for students that are overrepresented among our Nation's poor. In fact, the 2006 PISA report shows that achievement scores for White, non-Hispanic students meet or exceed average scores reported across participating nations, whereas the average scores for Black or Hispanic students are well below that average.

Likewise, although research has demonstrated that all students are at risk for losing educational gains during the extended summer breaks that are currently the norm for most schools, children from low income households experience significantly greater achievement losses during summer breaks because they lack opportunities to attend the quality summer programs available to their less disadvantaged peers. Each year, this disparity contributes to the growing achievement gap. Researchers have shown us that these out-of-school experiences account for most of the achievement difference observed by 9th grade, which in turn influences when and whether students will graduate from high school and attend postsecondary school. Investing in more time during the school year can help to diminish these achievement gaps, improve graduation rates, and make a lasting difference in these students' lives.

But effective expanded learning opportunities require more than just more time. The time must be well spent. Students must be appropriately engaged in their learning, and teachers must have the training and support to use the longer school time effectively. Researchers have identified that expanded learning time benefits teachers, by providing more opportunities for cooperative planning and more time to individualize instruction. Involved students and teachers are critical to successful expanded learning time programs, and both benefit from effective programming.

States have begun to explore expanded learning programs, and have demonstrated their effectiveness. In Massachusetts, 10 schools converted their calendars to expand the mandatory number of school days and the number of hours within a school day. Outcomes include not only increased student achievement, but greater school satisfaction among parents, teachers, and students. In my own State of New Mexico, expanded learning initiatives have been pursued, in the form of longer school days or additional school days throughout the year. Early reports demonstrate increased achievement in math and reading, beyond grade-level expectations. Unfortunately, the funds available for these initiatives are limited to voluntary participation. We must make these programs become a regular part of the school day for all students and teachers, particularly those who are greatest risk for academic failure.

Most districts and State educational agencies do not have the capacity or infrastructure to guide, support, and fund expanded learning day programs, but good models for turning around low- performing schools do exist. Federal support can be used to build States' and schools' capacity based on evidence from such models.

Towards this goal, the TIME Act will: provide incentives for States and local educational agencies to develop plans for research-based, sustainable, and replicable expanded learning programs, for high- priority schools, with a focus on increasing rigorous and varied instructional opportunities for students and teachers; allow local educational agencies to determine appropriate objectives of their extended learning programs, such as increasing math and science scores for all students, enhance art or physical education, or increase academic English proficiency for English language learners; encourage States to take a leadership role and deliver technical assistance to schools that implement such programs; encourage schools to form partnerships with organizations that have successful track records in supporting or delivering effective expanded learning programs; and promote research on expanded learning program implementation, through local, State, and national data collection efforts. The results of these evaluations can inform best practices for future delivery of expanded learning models to additional schools.

I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy for his leadership on this legislation, and for his ongoing commitment to enhancing educational opportunities for all Americans; particularly our most disadvantaged youths. Moreover, Senator Kennedy's State of Massachusetts is a leader in school-wide expanded learning initiatives. Massachusetts has demonstrated that expanded

learning enhances students' success, and it has done so in formerly struggling schools in some of the State's poorest school districts.

The TIME Act expands upon these models of success by promoting similar initiatives across the country. I hope that this legislation will be incorporated into reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Like my colleagues Senator Kennedy and Sanders, I believe that all students deserve the time needed for a quality education. I also believe that all schools should expand well beyond their current limited calendar, especially if America is to maintain and increase its competitive edge in the global economy. We must invest in a systematic approach to improving schools so that every child graduates prepared for success. The TIME Act is an initial investment toward this goal.

Today I join a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing the Iraq Security Agreement Act of 2008. This bill, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, prohibits the Bush administration from entering into a binding security agreement with Iraq without the approval of Congress. It would also prohibit the obligation of any funds to implement such an agreement.

I regret that I am compelled to introduce this legislation. If the President had embarked on these negotiations in a more responsible manner--by being clear about the objective, by ensuring that the agreements would not tie the hands of the next administration, by actively consulting with Congress as a partner in the process--this bill would be unnecessary. But the Administration has done none of these things, and so my colleagues and I want to ensure that Congress, and thus the American people, is brought into the process.

Let me take a step back and summarize how we got to this point. From October 2003 until the present day, the American military presence in Iraq has been authorized under international law through a series of UN Security Council Resolutions. Last November, President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki signed a ``Declaration of Principles,'' which set out a framework for our countries to negotiate, by yesterday--July 31, 2008-- agreements governing cooperation in the political, economic and security spheres. The Declaration indicated that the two countries would not seek to renew the United Nations mandate for American troops in Iraq past December 31, 2008. Among other things, the Declaration contemplates ``providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq'' and supporting Iraq ``in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups,'' including Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and ``all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation.'' In other words, all the folks fighting in Iraq and killing each other.

The Declaration may result in two pacts. One would be a ``Strategic Framework Agreement'' that will ``set the broad parameters of the overall bilateral relationship in every field,'' according to the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. This might be better titled ``What the United States will do for Iraq,'' because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction--promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to build a stable country.

The second agreement is a ``Status of Forces Agreement'' or SOFA, governing the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. The administration claims that this agreement is mostly ``routine'' because we have SOFAs with over 90 countries around the globe. But conditions our soldiers face in Iraq are far from ``routine,'' despite recent improvements in security. Moreover, this SOFA would be much broader than the typical SOFA, from what we know. It would provide us with access to bases from which our military would operate, provisions that are usually in a separate facilities or ``basing'' agreement. This SOFA would also deal with contractor immunity, would permit U.S. forces to engage in combat operations in Iraq, and would provide authority for detaining insurgents. This is not a typical SOFA.

One of these agreements will reportedly contain a ``security arrangement''--a pledge by the United States to consult on next steps if Iraq is threatened. The Administration suggests that such an agreement is unremarkable, and that it does not bind the United States. But at a time when we have over 100,000 troops on the ground, an expansive program to train and equip Iraqi forces, and multiple U.S. military facilities, the pledge is, in reality, little different from a binding security commitment. Certainly, the government of Iraq and its people will perceive that we are signing up to defend Iraq against external threats.

Yesterday's deadline has apparently not been met. The New York Times reports, however, that the Bush administration and Iraqi government are close to an agreement. But Congress still remains largely in the dark.

We have not seen draft language. We do not definitively know which portions of the agreement will be binding, and which will not be. We are not in a position to evaluate whether the agreement will create obligations--either legal or political--that will constrain the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican. The President cannot make such a sweeping commitment on his own authority. Congress must grant approval. The legislation we introduce today requires that Congress be made part of the process.

I have often stated that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. More than 5 years ago, President Bush went to war in Iraq without gaining that consent--by overstating the intelligence and understating the difficulty, cost and duration of the mission.

In the final months of his term, President Bush is once again acting without the informed consent of the American people, putting us on a course to commit the Nation to a new phase of a long war in Iraq, and thereby bind his successors to his vision of U.S. policy in Iraq. By these agreements, the President will make it harder for his successor to change course.

Let me be clear. I support the concept of a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. But not at the cost of limiting our operational latitude or making security commitments--legal or political--that are not approved by Congress.

Administration officials have indicated that the Iraqi government is resisting the inclusion of key provisions that U.S. forces need in order to operate in Iraq. Given the difficulty of securing Iraq's consent to the broad authorities that the United States now has by virtue of the U.N. Security Council Resolutions, I believe the best option for the United States at this juncture is to seek an extension of the current United Nations Security Counsel resolution for Iraq.

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

Today I join a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing the Iraq Security Agreement Act of 2008. This bill, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, prohibits the Bush administration from entering into a binding security agreement with Iraq without the approval of Congress. It would also prohibit the obligation of any funds to implement such an agreement.

I regret that I am compelled to introduce this legislation. If the President had embarked on these negotiations in a more responsible manner--by being clear about the objective, by ensuring that the agreements would not tie the hands of the next administration, by actively consulting with Congress as a partner in the process--this bill would be unnecessary. But the Administration has done none of these things, and so my colleagues and I want to ensure that Congress, and thus the American people, is brought into the process.

Let me take a step back and summarize how we got to this point. From October 2003 until the present day, the American military presence in Iraq has been authorized under international law through a series of UN Security Council Resolutions. Last November, President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki signed a ``Declaration of Principles,'' which set out a framework for our countries to negotiate, by yesterday--July 31, 2008-- agreements governing cooperation in the political, economic and security spheres. The Declaration indicated that the two countries would not seek to renew the United Nations mandate for American troops in Iraq past December 31, 2008. Among other things, the Declaration contemplates ``providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq'' and supporting Iraq ``in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups,'' including Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and ``all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation.'' In other words, all the folks fighting in Iraq and killing each other.

The Declaration may result in two pacts. One would be a ``Strategic Framework Agreement'' that will ``set the broad parameters of the overall bilateral relationship in every field,'' according to the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. This might be better titled ``What the United States will do for Iraq,'' because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction--promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to build a stable country.

The second agreement is a ``Status of Forces Agreement'' or SOFA, governing the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. The administration claims that this agreement is mostly ``routine'' because we have SOFAs with over 90 countries around the globe. But conditions our soldiers face in Iraq are far from ``routine,'' despite recent improvements in security. Moreover, this SOFA would be much broader than the typical SOFA, from what we know. It would provide us with access to bases from which our military would operate, provisions that are usually in a separate facilities or ``basing'' agreement. This SOFA would also deal with contractor immunity, would permit U.S. forces to engage in combat operations in Iraq, and would provide authority for detaining insurgents. This is not a typical SOFA.

One of these agreements will reportedly contain a ``security arrangement''--a pledge by the United States to consult on next steps if Iraq is threatened. The Administration suggests that such an agreement is unremarkable, and that it does not bind the United States. But at a time when we have over 100,000 troops on the ground, an expansive program to train and equip Iraqi forces, and multiple U.S. military facilities, the pledge is, in reality, little different from a binding security commitment. Certainly, the government of Iraq and its people will perceive that we are signing up to defend Iraq against external threats.

Yesterday's deadline has apparently not been met. The New York Times reports, however, that the Bush administration and Iraqi government are close to an agreement. But Congress still remains largely in the dark.

We have not seen draft language. We do not definitively know which portions of the agreement will be binding, and which will not be. We are not in a position to evaluate whether the agreement will create obligations--either legal or political--that will constrain the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican. The President cannot make such a sweeping commitment on his own authority. Congress must grant approval. The legislation we introduce today requires that Congress be made part of the process.

I have often stated that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. More than 5 years ago, President Bush went to war in Iraq without gaining that consent--by overstating the intelligence and understating the difficulty, cost and duration of the mission.

In the final months of his term, President Bush is once again acting without the informed consent of the American people, putting us on a course to commit the Nation to a new phase of a long war in Iraq, and thereby bind his successors to his vision of U.S. policy in Iraq. By these agreements, the President will make it harder for his successor to change course.

Let me be clear. I support the concept of a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. But not at the cost of limiting our operational latitude or making security commitments--legal or political--that are not approved by Congress.

Administration officials have indicated that the Iraqi government is resisting the inclusion of key provisions that U.S. forces need in order to operate in Iraq. Given the difficulty of securing Iraq's consent to the broad authorities that the United States now has by virtue of the U.N. Security Council Resolutions, I believe the best option for the United States at this juncture is to seek an extension of the current United Nations Security Counsel resolution for Iraq.

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

Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Jack Reed, John Kerry, Tom Carper, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Joe Biden to introduce the Sunscreen Labeling Protection Act of 2008, or the SUN Act. I thank them for their support of this legislation and have enjoyed working with them on the issue of sunscreen labeling. This is an issue I have been working on for more than a decade. I also want to thank the many outside organizations who support this legislation including the American Cancer Society, the Melanoma Research Foundation, and many others as well as the leading U.S. manufacturers of sunscreen, Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic.

As we head into yet another steamy, sweltering summer locally in Washington, DC, and as Americans throughout the country hit the outdoors to enjoy a relaxing time at beaches, backyard barbeques and parks, we cannot forget how important it is to protect our skin from the sun's damaging rays.

However, I am profoundly disappointed to report that yet another summer is passing us by without adequate sunscreen labeling to protect consumers from harmful ultraviolet radiation, including UVA and UVB. Americans are being left in the lurch by the inaction of the Food and Drug Administration, which has failed to issue comprehensive and consistent standards for measuring and labeling sunscreen products for their protective value and for guarding against false claims on sunscreen products.

Americans may be surprised to learn that the Sun Protection Factor, SPF, number on the sunscreen they buy at their local convenience store or supermarket measures only the level of UVB protection provided by the sunscreen. It does not include a measure of the level of UVA protection. UVB has long been associated with sunburn while UVA has been recognized as a deeper penetrating radiation that contributes to skin cancer. While many products claim to offer UVA protection, that claim is not backed by enforceable, FDA-recommended standards by which those claims can be substantiated.

The FDA's standards for sunscreen testing and labeling lag 30 years behind our knowledge of the dangers of sun exposure. Research tells us that individual risk of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, is associated with the intensity of sunlight that a person receives over a lifetime. In 2008, it is estimated there will be more than 1 million new cases of skin cancers and 62,480 new cases of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. Tragically, there will be as many as 8,420 deaths from melanoma this year.

Many sunscreen products carry claims that they protect against cancer-causing UVA rays, but without FDA action to set standards for testing and labeling, these claims can't be validated. Indeed, an analysis released earlier this summer found that many sunscreen products have misleading labels that make unsubstantiated claims.

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and I, along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have repeatedly urged the FDA-- for over a decade now--to follow through with its

development of standards. We have written letters to the FDA dating back more than ten years, we have made phone calls, we have asked questions at hearings, and we even directed the FDA to issue final labeling for UVA and UVB in the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

The American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Dermatology, and numerous other organizations speak of the value of using sunscreen to protect our skin from damaging UVA and UVB rays as an important step in preventing skin cancer. For years, we have heard their repeated cries for industry-wide standards that will help Americans protect themselves from a preventable cause of cancer. And still there is no final action by the FDA.

The public deserves better. If you take one look at the startling numbers of Americans who will be diagnosed with skin cancer this year and who will likely die from this disease, it is clear that the public must know that what they read on the label of a sunscreen product represents a scientifically valid claim of protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

Almost a year ago, the FDA issued a proposed rule that would set standards for testing and labeling sunscreen that includes UVA and UVB. I applaud this progress. It was a long time in coming. But I must reiterate that until the proposed rule is finalized, consumers and manufacturers lack an enforceable, consistent and comprehensive standard for testing and labeling of sunscreen products.

That is why I am introducing the SUNscreen Labeling Protection Act of 2008, or the SUN Act. This simple, straightforward bill gives the FDA 180 days from the date of enactment to finalize the proposed rule for comprehensive labeling, including formulation, testing and labeling requirements for both UVA and UVB, after which point the proposed rule would become effective.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this issue. The public continues to be misled by false claims that cannot be effectively challenged because there are no enforceable FDA standards for measuring and labeling UVA protection.

If the FDA would finalize its proposed rule including UVA and UVB protection, this legislation would not be necessary. But, a year and an entire summer season has nearly passed since the rule was proposed, as have decades of inaction prior to the proposed rule even being issued. All the while, consumers have gone without the information and protection they need which is what makes this legislation so critical.

I urge my colleagues to support this critically important bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.