Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today as we enter a new year to honor a brave young soldier who, sadly, did not see this new year. Army SSG Pernell Herrera died December 31, 2011, while serving in Afghanistan. He was 33 years old.

At times like this, words of elected officials seem so inadequate. Words will not ease the profound loss of Staff Sergeant Herrera's family. Words will not fully express our gratitude for Staff Sergeant Herrera's service to our Nation. But the death of a young soldier like Staff Sergeant Herrera demands our attention. It demands our respect, and it demands that we remember.

Pernell Herrera just wanted to serve his country. He enlisted in the New Mexico National Guard in 2006. He was assigned to C Company, 1st Battalion, 171st Aviation Regiment, and he served honorably over the last 5\1/2\ years. His journey ended in the course of that service. We are forever in his debt.

When we talk about our fallen soldiers, we honor their sacrifices and we also honor their lives. Pernell Herrera was born in Los Alamos. He grew up in Espanola and graduated from Espanola High School. He leaves behind a son Julian and a daughter Alicia.

Pernell wrote about himself on his Facebook page the following description:

I am a very easygoing dad of one son, and one daughter.

They are the biggest joys of my life. I enjoy spending my

free time with my mom, and brother, family and friends. I'm

currently in Afghanistan with the United States Army. I have

served in the military for 5 years.

In the decade that our military has been fighting in Afghanistan, thousands of our fellow citizens have volunteered in service to our country. They have put their own safety at risk to protect the safety of others--in defense of the ideals we hold so dear. Some of these brave warriors, such as Staff Sergeant Herrera, tragically, do not come home.

To Staff Sergeant Herrera's family, I offer my deepest sympathies. We mourn your loss while we also honor his dedication to our country, and we are thankful for his service.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss H.R. 3801, the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2012, and I urge the Senate to pass this legislation today. Passing this bill will not only help to secure our southwest border, but it also affords us the opportunity to honor an incredible colleague.

I had the privilege of serving with Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in the House of Representatives, and she is the force behind this legislation. She originally introduced it in 2010, before the senseless act of violence that took place, and she won its passage. But the Senate failed to take it up.

Over this past year, we have been working with Gabby's staff, and I was honored to introduce her bill in the Senate with Senators Heller, Bingaman, and Feinstein. It passed by unanimous consent in December but was held up in the House because of a procedural issue. This allowed Gabby to reintroduce it in the House this week with Congressman Jeff Flake. Yesterday, as we all bid Gabby an emotional farewell, the House overwhelmingly passed it by a vote of 408-0.

I commend the House leadership for working to make sure this important legislation passed as Gabby's final legislative act before resigning. I want to especially say how honored I am to have worked on this legislation with her.

Like all Americans, I have watched in awe at Gabby's courage and her remarkable grace. She inspires us all. She represents the best of our Nation. Dr. Martin Luther King once said that darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Gabby is truly a shining light to all who know her.

The Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act is a testament to Gabby's commitment to securing our borders from illegal activity. A new trend in drug smuggling is to fly a one-person ultralight aircraft over the border to drop drugs. Hundreds are flown across the southwest border each year. Each one can carry hundreds of pounds of narcotics.

Because ultralights are not categorized under existing law as aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration, they do not fall under the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. This means a drug smuggler piloting an ultralight is subject to weaker criminal penalties than one who uses a small plane.

Ultralight presents a unique challenge for Border Patrol and prosecutors. Our legislation will close any unintended loopholes. It will give our law enforcement and prosecutors the additional tools they need to combat drug smuggling. It will also add an attempt and conspiracy provision to the aviation smuggling law. This enables prosecutors to charge people other than the pilot who are involved in aviation smuggling. It gives prosecutors a new tool to go after the ground crews who aid pilots as well as those who pick up drugs that are being dropped off in the United States.

This bill will also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to establish and collaborate in identifying the equipment and technology for border protection to detect ultralights. The ultimate purpose of this legislation is to make our communities safer, and it is fitting that Gabby, from the very beginning, has been so instrumental in making it happen. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of her staff who worked on this bill tirelessly every day. Peter Ambler is one of her staff members who has been key. I know Gabby's staff is very dedicated to her, and I know Gabby's perseverance to advance her legislative priorities during her recovery demonstrate what a good public servant she is.

Gabby, we know you will be back. But until then, we wish you and Mark all the very best, and we thank you for your extraordinary service to our Nation.

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

Mr. President, I very much appreciate joining all my colleagues on the floor who have been speaking about the Citizens United case. I think what we are seeing in the Senate is what we are seeing in the country. The citizens of this country are concerned about unlimited corporate funds in campaigns, and Senators who are also concerned about that are standing and speaking out, as I know our Presiding Officer has, and are offering constitutional amendments in trying to resolve the situation we have before us.

Two years ago this week, the Supreme Court issued its misguided decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Citizens United was a victory for special interests at the expense of the average American. It held that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans. It enables these corporations to spend freely from their treasuries on campaign advertising. It also gave rise to so-called super PACs that we are seeing too much of. These super PACs can raise and spend unlimited funds to campaign for or against candidates.

Now, what do we mean by corporate treasuries and super PACs? Let me cite an example. Exxon--the large oil company--has $80 billion in its corporate treasury. If Exxon wanted to go out and create a super PAC or contribute to these 200-plus super PACs that are out there to the tune of $80 billion, it could do it. That is what the Supreme Court opened in terms of its ruling.

The toxic effect of this ruling has become brutally clear in the last 2 years. The Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to unprecedented campaign spending, drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans. Huge sums of unregulated, unaccountable money are flooding the airwaves. An endless wave of attack ads, paid for by billionaires, is poisoning our political discourse. The American public--rightly so-- looks on in disgust. As we head into the election year, this bad situation will only get worse. The checkbooks are out, and the money is gushing. Citizens United really means citizens denied--denied a fair playing field, denied an equitable influence in our political system, denied their right to be truly heard, and denied the right to even know who is spending all of this money.

While much of the focus this week is on Citizens United, we must realize that the corruption of our campaign finance system did not suddenly happen 2 years ago. The Citizens United decision sparked a renewed focus on the need for reform, but the Supreme Court laid the groundwork for a broken system many years ago.

In 1976, the Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that restricting candidate campaign expenditures violates the first amendment right to free speech. It established the flawed precedent that money and speech are the same. Since then, the influence of money has continued to play an increasing role in our Nation's elections. Sadly, in many cases, a candidate's ability to either raise money or self-finance can outweigh the quality of a candidate's ideas or dedication to public service.

The Buckley and Citizens United decisions, among others, demonstrate the Court's willingness to ignore longstanding precedent and declare our campaign finance laws unconstitutional. Because of this, I believe the only way to truly fix the problem is to first amend the Constitution and grant Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system. In November of last year, I introduced such an amendment. I am proud to say it currently has 19 cosponsors and support continues to grow.

Our proposed constitutional amendment is broadly tailored and similar to bipartisan proposals introduced in previous sessions of Congress dating back to 1983. It would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for Federal political campaigns, including independent expenditures, and it would allow States to regulate such spending at their level. It would not dictate any specific policies or regulations.

I chose my approach to not only overturn the previous bad Court decisions but also to prevent future ones. We don't know what a future Court may do. In Citizens United, the Court upheld campaign contribution disclosure requirements. A future Court might declare the same laws unconstitutional. Our amendment would remedy this problem by restoring Congress's authority--stripped by Buckley v. Valeo and subsequent decisions--to regulate the campaign finance system. If ratified, the amendment would ensure that campaign finance laws would stand constitutional challenges regardless of the makeup of the Supreme Court.

The text of my constitutional amendment and any of the others is less important right now than the concept. Hearings can be held, and the text can be worked out. That is really the easy part of a difficult process. What is harder to achieve--and something we rarely see in our country--is gaining the widespread support necessary to amend the Constitution.

The Citizens United decision was disastrous, and it may have been the very catalyst we needed to build a movement to amend the Constitution. There is a groundswell of support growing across the country for a constitutional amendment to rein in the out-of-control campaign finance system. City councils, from places as diverse as Los Angeles and New York to Missoula, MT, have endorsed resolutions calling on Congress to pass an amendment. Several grassroots organizations and coalitions have formed to advocate an amendment. Hundreds of thousands of citizens have signed petitions. Is it difficult to amend the Constitution? Yes, and it should be. But I believe the growing momentum demonstrates that this is the right time for Congress to act.

Our Founders did not intend for elections to be bought and paid for by secretive super PACs. Our Founders did not bequeath a government of the millionaires, by the millionaires, and for the millionaires. Money can have a corrosive effect on the political process. We have seen evidence of that in campaigns at all levels of government.

We need to put elections back in the hands of average Americans and not in

the hands of special interests with unlimited bank accounts. We need to answer to the American people and not just to the privileged. Our Nation cannot afford a system that says ``come on in'' to the rich and powerful but then says ``don't bother'' to everyone else. The faith of the American people in their electoral system is being corrupted by big money. It is time to restore that faith. It is time for Congress to take back control. It is time for a constitutional amendment that will allow real reform.

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

Mr. President, last week we marked the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, an event that led to the U.S. into the Second World War. But that wasn't the only important 70th anniversary commemorated last week. Seventy years ago, on December 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, halfway across the world the long battle for control of the strategically important country of the Philippines began.

This is a battle that began in the air and on the sea, but would ultimately see the surrendered American and Filipino troops forced on a brutal death

march, languishing in substandard POW camps, and in many cases, succumbing to malnourishment, mistreatment, and disease.

It is on behalf of all of these soldiers that I introduce legislation to honor the Defenders of Bataan, a peninsula on the island of Luzon where the battle ended, but the hellish journey began, with a Congressional Gold Medal. They are most deserving and this honor is, I believe, long overdue.

Soon after the air and naval battle for the Philippines began, the Japanese would land a sizable force to take control of Luzon. Ten days later the Japanese began their main offensive into the island.

On Christmas Eve, 1941, General MacArthur put War Plan Orange 3 into effect. This plan called for some troops to delay the Japanese advance as the greater force withdrew into Bataan. According to historical documents, the purpose of the plan was to keep Manila Bay from Japanese control until the U.S. Navy could reopen the supply lines that had been cut off after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

With the supply lines cut off, troops also had no hope of reinforcements. Despite this logistical nightmare, they valiantly fought to defend the Philippines. For months, against all odds, they held back the enemy advance. The Japanese, hoping for a swift victory, were forced to slow the pace of their Pacific strategy. The delay enabled U.S. and allied forces the chance to regroup in the Pacific and prepare for the eventual liberation of occupied Pacific islands and the Philippines.

But by April of 1942, the defenders of Bataan were malnourished and exhausted. With no hope of overcoming the overwhelming conditions, they were ordered to surrender. While many followed the order to lay down their arms, others still fought to disrupt the Japanese by forming guerrilla units to maintain the opposition.

One such guerrilla leader was Oklahoma native and Choctaw Warrior Lt. Colonel Edward McClish, who, according to the U.S. Navy's historical website, ``had an organization of more than 300 soldiers, with four machine guns, 150 rifles, and six boxes of ammunition.''

Following capture, the defenders of Bataan suffered three years of intense hardship. Many would not survive. They would be forced to endure what became known as the horrendous 65-mile Bataan Death March. They would languish in substandard POW camps, where their malnourishment worsened and disease was rampant. Many others would be shipped to Japan on the dreaded hell ships. One such ship, the Arisan Maru, claimed nearly 1,800 American lives.

For us New Mexicans, the events of Bataan strike home particularly hard. Eighteen hundred men from New Mexico's 200th and 515th regiments left their homes to fight. Approximately half returned. These soldiers, largely of Hispanic origin, earned the honor of being the first to fire and defend the Philippines on December 8. A special group, they were successors to the New Mexico National Guardsmen who made up part of Teddy Roosevelt's famed ``Rough Riders'' from the Spanish-American war.

One of these men, Eliseo Lopez, a Bataan defender who was born in Springer, NM, endured all the horrors Bataan had to offer. A member of the 200th Coast Artillery Regiment he trained at Ft. Bliss and was deployed to Manila before war broke out. He fought the Japanese on Bataan. He survived the Death March to Camp O'Donnell and was moved to Cabanatuan prison camp. He was taken on a hell ship to Japan, and was forced to labor in a copper mine until he was rescued in September of 1945. Mr. Lopez died this past November at the age of 92. His obituary alone is a record of the tremendous service to the United States given by the Bataan defenders.

In New Mexico, we continue to honor and respect our Bataan Defenders. We remember their suffering. We take pride in their heroism. Every year we commemorate their sacrifice with a march at White Sands Missile Range. Other States, such as Missouri, have similar marches. In April, Missouri will honor their Bataan veterans with a march on the Katy Trail State Park.

The people of the United States and Philippines are forever indebted to Eliseo Lopez and the other men who served with him and endured the similar horrors. They represented the best of America. They hailed from diverse locales, but were united in their valor and in their devotion to their country. Their courage and tenacity during the first four months of World War II, and their perseverance during 3 years of imprisonment truly deserves the recognition of a Congressional Gold Medal. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for working with me on this amendment. I think he gave us a modification that is a good one. This amendment I offer

with Senator Schumer and Senator Sanders closes the Buy American loopholes, and applies Buy American requirements to solar projects that are funded by the Department of Defense to meet energy goals in this bill. If American taxpayer funds are used to improve our military bases' energy security, then American solar firms should have the ability to compete.

I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, solar power increases energy security for American military installations and our troops in the field. With solar power, our military is less dependent on the surrounding electricity grid or fuel supplies for generators. As a result, the Department of Defense is a leader on utilizing solar power--not for environmental reasons, but for energy security reasons.

However, if we are going to use taxpayer funds to support military solar power--which also qualifies for federal solar tax incentives--we must provide a level playing field for U.S. solar manufacturers in the contracting process. Last year's Defense Authorization bill took an important step, by clarifying that DOD's Buy American Act requirements apply to solar.

Previously, when solar was installed on DOD property, Buy American would not apply because DOD purchases the power, not the panels. DOD uses that arrangement for two reasons--first, it spreads the cost out through long term power purchase agreements instead of up-front costs; second, it allows the project to use tax credits DOD cannot use.

While last year's bill attempted to fix this situation, it left two loopholes. First, the Buy American requirements from last year's bill are limited ``to the extent that such contracts result in ownership of [solar] devices by DOD.'' The nature of power purchase agreements means that often this requirement is not fulfilled, thus allowing Chinese solar makers to undercut bids for DOD funded solar projects.

Second, last year's provision also only applied when ``reserved for the exclusive use'' of DOD for the ``full economic life'' of the device. Solar power projects may sometimes sell back to the grid, and DOD may use them for 20 years, when they are warranted for 25. The combined effect of these loopholes is that Buy American does not currently apply to DOD-funded solar.

The amendment I am offering with Senator Schumer and Sanders closes these loopholes and applies Buy American requirements to solar projects that are funded by DOD to meet the energy goals in this bill.

If American taxpayer funds are used to improve our military bases' energy security, American solar firms should have an ability to compete. We know that other nations like China are spending vast resources to become leaders in the solar power market. They do not play by our trade rules, and they are taking advantage of our taxpayer funds.

Think about it this way: China does not spend its tax dollars on U.S. solar panels at Chinese military bases. Why should Congress provide market access that is not extended to U.S. manufacturers?

This amendment halts that practice, while maintaining all existing provisions of the Buy American Act: Nations who are in the WTO are not discriminated against--``Buy American'' does not bar nations that allow reciprocal access to U.S. firms to their government procurement. Existing exemptions such as availability and cost still apply, so we do not expect this to harm DOD's procurement in any way.

Our amendment is supported by a strong coalition of U.S. solar manufacturers and U.S. workers.

I thank Senator Schumer and his staff for working with us, along with Chairman Levin and his staff, and I urge the Senate's support.

I thank Senator McCain, I thank Senator Levin, and I appreciate their help on this amendment.

Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Parent Companies Active in Iran

Will the Senator from Michigan yield? I don't think we disposed of the Udall amendment.

Mr. President, let me first say, before I talk about my amendments, I had the opportunity yesterday to listen to Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Senator Durbin, and many other Senators with regard to the debate on this bill. I thought it was excellent debate. I thought it was lively, it was robust, it was to the point, and it was the Senate at its best. I don't know how we get to the point where we have the kind of debate they were having on this Defense authorization bill, but I hope we can do more of it, and I look forward to returning after Thanksgiving and having the opportunity to do that.

I compliment the two top Members of that committee and the other Senators who were here on that debate.

Amendments Nos. 1153, 1154, and 1202 En Bloc

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments in order to call up amendments Nos. 1153, 1154, and 1202 by number en bloc, and that once the amendments are reported the Senate return to the regular order.

Mr. President, I am offering this amendment, along with my cosponsors Senators Heller, Bingaman, Feinstein, and Gillibrand, to provide a simple fix to a loophole in the Tariff Act of 1930.

Our amendment will allow our Federal agents and prosecutors to crack down on smugglers who use ultralight aircraft, also known as ULAs, to bring drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border.

In the last Congress, then-Congressman Heller introduced a very similar bill in the House with Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords. That bill passed overwhelmingly by a 412-3 vote. I hope we can have a similar bipartisan result here in the Senate.

ULAs are single-pilot aircraft capable of flying low, landing and taking off quickly, and are typically used for sport or for recreation. However, because of increased detection and interdiction of more traditional smuggling conveyances, ULAs have increasingly been employed along the Southwest border by Mexican drug trafficking organizations to smuggle drugs into the United States.

The use of ULAs by drug smugglers presents a unique challenge for law enforcement and prosecutors. Every year hundreds of ULAs are flown across the Southwest border and each one can carry hundreds of pounds of narcotics.

Under existing law, ULAs are not categorized as aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration, so they do not fall under the aviation smuggling provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. This means that a drug smuggler piloting a small airplane is subject to much stronger criminal penalties than a smuggler who pilots a ULA.

Our amendment will close this unintended loophole and establish the same penalties if convicted--a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine--for smuggling drugs on ULAs as currently exist for smuggling on airplanes or in automobiles.

This is a common sense solution that will give our law enforcement agencies and prosecutors additional tools they need to combat drug smuggling.

The amendment would also add an attempt and conspiracy provision to the aviation smuggling law to allow prosecutors to charge people other than the pilot who are involved in aviation smuggling. This would give them a new tool to prosecute the ground crews who aid the pilots as well as those who pick up the drug loads that are dropped from ULAs in the U.S.

Finally, the amendment directs the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to collaborate in identifying equipment and technology used by DOD that could be used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to detect ULAs.

Amendment No. 1154

Mr. President, this next amendment would establish an Open Burn Pit Registry. This amendment, filed by myself and lead cosponsor Senator Corker, is important to both our active duty troops and veterans.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq open air burn pits were widely used at forward operating bases. Disposing of trash and other debris was admittedly a major challenge. Commanders had to find a way to dispose of it while concentrating on the important mission at hand.

The solution that was chosen, however, had serious medical and environmental risks. In Afghanistan and Iraq, pits of waste were set on fire, sometimes using jet fuel for ignition. Oftentimes, these burn pits would turn the sky black.

Some burn pits were small, but others covered multiple acres of land. At Joint Base Balad, Iraq, over ten acres of land were used for burning toxic debris.

This was a base, that at the height of its operations, hosted approximately 25,000 military, civilian and coalition personnel. These personnel would be exposed to a toxic soup of chemicals released into the atmosphere. According to air quality measurements taken near the base, the air at Balad had multiple particulates harmful to humans.

These particulates ranged from plastics and Styrofoam, metals, chemicals from paints and solvents, petroleum and lubricants, jet fuel and unexploded ordnance, medical and other dangerous waste . . . all of this was in the air and being inhaled into the lungs of service members.

More specifically, air samples at Joint Base Balad turned up some nasty stuff: Particulate matter--chemicals that form from the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances--Volatile Organic Compounds such as acetone and benzene. Benzene is known to cause leukemia and dioxins associated with Agent Orange.

Our veterans have slowly begun to raise the alarm as they learn why, after returning home, they are short of breath, or experiencing headaches or other symptoms and in some cases developing cancer.

Many other independent organizations have also urged action on this issue, including the American Lung Association which has stated that:

Emissions from burning waste contain fine particulate

matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic

compounds and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides

that can scar the lungs.

The registry created by this amendment will help our medical and scientific experts better analyze who was exposed and who is suffering.

In New Mexico, service members and veterans have begun to come forward about their medical conditions. Some, like MSG Jessey Baca, a member of the New Mexico Air National Guard who was stationed in Balad, Iraq, are facing serious ailments such as cancer and chronic bronchiolitis. It is stories like Master Sergeant Baca's which have motivated me to take action on this issue and I urge my colleagues to hear the stories of heroes like him in all 50 States.

During my meetings with veterans and active duty members of the military, I have truly learned how important it is that we act now.

Among active duty members there is uncertainty regarding the link between burn pits and the illnesses that they are suffering from. This uncertainty is discouraging service members from coming forward to have their illness diagnosed because they are fearful about the implications on their career.

A registry will help create the data set needed to bring certainty to the issue because it will improve our understanding of the link between the burn pits and illness. The information will also help DoD better understand the link and aid their efforts to improve treatment of our troops.

The Open Burn Pits Registry Act has bipartisan and bicameral support. In the House, Representative Akin, a Republican, is sponsoring this important piece of legislation with a strong bipartisan group.

I thank all the supporters and champions for our veterans suffering from these hidden wounds and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Amendment No. 1202

Mr. President, solar power increases energy security for American military installations and our troops in the field.

With solar power, our military is less dependent on the surrounding electricity grid or fuel supplies for generators.

As a result, the Department of Defense is a leader on utilizing solar power--not for environmental reasons, but national security reasons.

However, if we are going to use taxpayer funds to support military solar power--which also qualifies for solar energy tax incentives--we must provide a level playing field for U.S. solar manufacturers.

Last year's Defense Authorization bill took an important step, by clarifying that DOD's Buy American Act requirements apply to solar.

Previously, when solar was installed on DOD property, Buy American would not apply because DOD only owned the power, not the panels.

While last year's bill attempted to fix this situation, it left 2 loopholes:

No. 1, first, Buy American requirements still do not apply to many DOD facilities, including much of DOD housing, since these facilities are leased and not technically ``owned'' by DOD. If we do not close this loophole, several hundred megawatts of DOD taxpayer funded solar projects could go to Chinese firms.

No. 2, last year's bill only applied Buy American when solar devices are ``reserved for the exclusive use'' of DOD for the ``full economic life.'' Solar power projects often sell back to the grid, so the combined effect of both of

these loopholes is that Buy American does not apply to DOD-purchased solar on DOD property.

The amendment I am offering today, on behalf of myself and Senator Schumer, closes these loopholes and applies Buy American requirements to all solar panels that are part of contracts with DOD.

If American taxpayer funds are used to improve our military bases' energy security, American solar firms should have an ability to compete.

We know that other nations like China are spending vast resources to become leaders in the solar power market. They do not play by our trade rules, and they are taking advantage of our taxpayer funds.

This amendment halts that practice, while maintaining all existing provisions of the Buy American Act: nations who are in the WTO are not discriminated against and existing exemptions such as availability and cost still apply.

Our amendment is supported by a strong coalition of U.S. solar manufacturers, many of which are based overseas, and U.S. workers and labor unions.

I thank Sen. Schumer and his staff for their work on this and I urge the Senate's support.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I did. Let me say to Chairman Levin, not only lively, robust, but very informative. I learned a lot in the process of listening to him and to Senator McCain and Senator Durbin and the other Senators who came down about the issue. I think that is the way the Senate works best: to have the amendments and various provisions of the Defense authorization bill be a part of a lively and informative debate.

I thank the Senator for that, and I yield the floor.

At this point I am still listening and trying to ascertain as much as I can about the actual provisions of the Defense authorization bill. But the Senator is correct. There could be trouble in Udall Valley. There might be a split. We do not see that yet, but there is a possibility of it.

I also know that when the two of my colleagues--when the chairman and Senator McCain, the ranking member-- come together on a prevision and are able to persuade their committee to go with it, that says something to the Senate itself, to have that before the Senate. I want to study it very carefully. I know Senator Graham was down here, who has been very active on this issue and has a tremendous amount of experience. I look forward to the continuing debate, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, President Obama recently announced that our long war and military involvement in Iraq would be coming to a close.

For nearly a decade, our armed forces served honorably in Iraq and got the job done. While I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, my commitment to our troops and our veterans has been resolute. We must always remain mindful of the sacrifice and the obligations we hold to every veteran.

It is because of those obligations that I rise today to speak about the hidden wounds facing the veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars. These wounds were not caused by insurgents or terrorists, but by exposure to environmental pollution caused by our own open air burn pits.

Open air burn pits were widely used at forward operating bases, where disposing of trash and other debris was a major challenge, and the solution that was chosen had serious medical and environmental risks. Pits of waste were set on fire andthey would turn the sky black. At this and other bases, disposing of trash and other debris was a major challenge, a challenge which was solved using a method fraught with medical and environmental risks.

Over 10 acres of land at Joint Base Balad in Iraq were used for burning toxic debris. This is a base, that at the height of its operations, hosted approximately 25,000 military, civilian and coalition personnel. Among the toxic soup released into the atmosphere from Balad were particulates from plastics and Styrofoam, metal, chemicals from paints and solvents, petroleum and lubricants, jet fuel and unexploded ordinance, medical and other dangerous waste--all in the air and being inhaled into the lungs of service members.

Air samples at Joint Base Balad turned up some nasty stuff: Particulate matter--chemicals that form from the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances; volatile organic compounds such as acetone and benzene. Benzene is known to cause leukemia and dioxins which are associated with Agent Orange.

Our veterans have slowly begun to raise the alarm as they learn why, after returning home, they are short of breath, or experiencing headaches or other symptoms, and in some cases developing cancer. Many other independent organizations have also urged action on this issue, including the American Lung Association which has stated:

Emissions from burning waste contain fine particulate matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs.

The organizations have called on the VA and Defense Department to begin to monitor our troops and veterans who have been exposed.

Last week I added my voice to that call. The Open Burn Pits Registry Act of 2011 will give the VA the tools to help our veterans who are suffering as a result of their exposure. Establishing an open burn pit registry for those who may have been exposed is just a preliminary step. A public information campaign, to help bring veterans forward, will also be required. Once veterans are identified in the registry, they will be able to receive information about significant developments associated with their exposure. Furthermore, the identification of affected veterans could help improve the VA's ability to treat and understand the causes of these veterans' ailments.

As was noted this week, the Institute of Medicine released a report which concluded that while there was not conclusive evidence of a link between burn pits and medical ailments, that there was insufficient evidence to rule out a link as well. An online summary of the report stated a recommendation that:

a study be conducted that would evaluate the health status

of service members from their time of deployment to Joint

Base Balad over many years to determine their incidence of

chronic diseases, including cancers, that tend to not show up

for decades.

This registry will help our medical and scientific experts better analyze who was exposed and who is suffering. In New Mexico, veterans have begun to come forward about their medical conditions. Some, like MSG Jessey Baca, a member of the New Mexico Air National Guard who was stationed in Balad, Iraq, are facing serious ailments such as cancer and chronic bronchiolitis. It is stories like Master Sergeant Baca's which have motivated me to take action on this issue and I urge my colleagues to hear the stories of veterans like him in all 50 States.

The Open Burn Pits Registry Act has bipartisan and bicameral support. In the House, Representative Akin, a Republican, is sponsoring this important piece of legislation with a strong bipartisan group. On the Senate side I would like to thank my colleagues who are also addressing this important issue facing our veterans. Senator Corker and I, who is the Republican lead, have been joined by Senators McCaskill, Bingaman, Schumer, Alexander, and Bill Nelson, who have all signed on to lead this charge as original cosponsors. In addition, Senator Wyden has also indicated that he will join as a cosponsor. I thank them for being champions for our veterans suffering from these hidden wounds, and I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the United States Constitution to address our country's broken campaign finance system. Joining me in this effort are my colleagues Senators Bennet, Harkin, Durbin, Schumer, Merkley, Whitehouse, Begich, and Shaheen.

As we head into another election year, we are about to see unprecedented amounts of money spent on efforts to influence the outcome of our elections. With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, I believe the only way to address the root cause of this problem is by first amending the Constitution.

Such an amendment is not a new idea. Constitutional amendments to

grant Congress broad authority to regulate the campaign finance system have been introduced many times in the past, and most had bipartisan support. But last year's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC places a new emphasis on the need for Congress to act.

Citizens United was a victory for special interests at the expense of the average American. It held that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans, enabling them to spend freely from their corporate treasuries on campaign advertising. It also gave rise to so-called Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds to campaign for or against candidates.

We saw in the last election the initial impact of the Citizens United decision, but it is about to get much worse. A New York Times editorial on September 18 summed it up pretty well.

That piece, entitled ``How the Big Money Finds a Way In,'' stated that:

Companies, unions, and other interest groups poured about

$300 million into campaign ads in the 2010 Congressional

elections after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision

open the sluices to unlimited spending by independent groups.

That will look like a trickle compared with the gusher coming

in 2012.

While the Citizens United decision sparked a renewed focus on the need for campaign finance reform, the Court laid the groundwork for a broken system many years ago. In 1976, when the Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that restricting independent campaign expenditures violates the First Amendment right to free speech, it established the flawed precedent that money and speech are the same thing. Since then, our Nation's policymakers are all too often elected based on their ability to raise money or the size of their personal fortunes, rather than the quality of their ideas or dedication to public service.

These decisions, among others, demonstrate the Court's willingness to rule broadly and ignore longstanding precedent to declare our campaign finance laws unconstitutional. Because of this, I believe that the only way to truly fix the problem is to first amend the Constitution to grant Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.

Our proposed amendment is similar to bipartisan proposals in previous Congresses. It would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns, including independent expenditures, and allow states to regulate such spending at their level. It would not dictate any specific policies or regulations. Instead, it would allow Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation that withstands constitutional challenges.

I understand how difficult amending the constitution can be, but also believe that momentum is growing to reign in the out of control campaign spending. Just because getting a constitutional amendment through Congress and ratified by the States is extremely difficult, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We know our Founders did not intend for elections to be bought and paid for by undisclosed donors operating through secretive organizations--that is the antithesis of democracy and we must do everything possible to address the problem.

The only way to restore the democratic nature of our election system is to fundamentally change it. That can only be done after the Constitution is amended to allow such changes. Many of my predecessors understood this and spent years championing the cause. Senator Fritz Hollings introduced bipartisan constitutional amendments similar to the one we introduce today in every Congress from the 99th to the 108th. Senators Schumer and Cochran introduced one in the 109th Congress.

Those were all before the Citizens United decision, but Senator Hollings has continued to call for an amendment since his retirement. Just last October, he wrote a piece for The Huffington Post titled ``Money is a Cancer in Politics.'' In that article he wrote:

Like a dog chasing its tail, Congress has tried for thirty-

five years to control spending in federal elections, only to

be thwarted by the Supreme Court intent on equating speech

with money. To return to Madison's freedom of speech,

Congress needs to pass a Joint Resolution amending the

Constitution to authorize Congress to limit or control

spending in federal elections.

Our constituents' faith in the election system has been fundamentally corrupted by big money from outside interest groups. It is time for Congress to take back control of the campaign finance system by passing a constitutional amendment that will allow real reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution and an article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the United States Constitution to address our country's broken campaign finance system. Joining me in this effort are my colleagues Senators Bennet, Harkin, Durbin, Schumer, Merkley, Whitehouse, Begich, and Shaheen.

As we head into another election year, we are about to see unprecedented amounts of money spent on efforts to influence the outcome of our elections. With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, I believe the only way to address the root cause of this problem is by first amending the Constitution.

Such an amendment is not a new idea. Constitutional amendments to

grant Congress broad authority to regulate the campaign finance system have been introduced many times in the past, and most had bipartisan support. But last year's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC places a new emphasis on the need for Congress to act.

Citizens United was a victory for special interests at the expense of the average American. It held that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans, enabling them to spend freely from their corporate treasuries on campaign advertising. It also gave rise to so-called Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds to campaign for or against candidates.

We saw in the last election the initial impact of the Citizens United decision, but it is about to get much worse. A New York Times editorial on September 18 summed it up pretty well.

That piece, entitled ``How the Big Money Finds a Way In,'' stated that:

Companies, unions, and other interest groups poured about

$300 million into campaign ads in the 2010 Congressional

elections after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision

open the sluices to unlimited spending by independent groups.

That will look like a trickle compared with the gusher coming

in 2012.

While the Citizens United decision sparked a renewed focus on the need for campaign finance reform, the Court laid the groundwork for a broken system many years ago. In 1976, when the Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that restricting independent campaign expenditures violates the First Amendment right to free speech, it established the flawed precedent that money and speech are the same thing. Since then, our Nation's policymakers are all too often elected based on their ability to raise money or the size of their personal fortunes, rather than the quality of their ideas or dedication to public service.

These decisions, among others, demonstrate the Court's willingness to rule broadly and ignore longstanding precedent to declare our campaign finance laws unconstitutional. Because of this, I believe that the only way to truly fix the problem is to first amend the Constitution to grant Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.

Our proposed amendment is similar to bipartisan proposals in previous Congresses. It would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns, including independent expenditures, and allow states to regulate such spending at their level. It would not dictate any specific policies or regulations. Instead, it would allow Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation that withstands constitutional challenges.

I understand how difficult amending the constitution can be, but also believe that momentum is growing to reign in the out of control campaign spending. Just because getting a constitutional amendment through Congress and ratified by the States is extremely difficult, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We know our Founders did not intend for elections to be bought and paid for by undisclosed donors operating through secretive organizations--that is the antithesis of democracy and we must do everything possible to address the problem.

The only way to restore the democratic nature of our election system is to fundamentally change it. That can only be done after the Constitution is amended to allow such changes. Many of my predecessors understood this and spent years championing the cause. Senator Fritz Hollings introduced bipartisan constitutional amendments similar to the one we introduce today in every Congress from the 99th to the 108th. Senators Schumer and Cochran introduced one in the 109th Congress.

Those were all before the Citizens United decision, but Senator Hollings has continued to call for an amendment since his retirement. Just last October, he wrote a piece for The Huffington Post titled ``Money is a Cancer in Politics.'' In that article he wrote:

Like a dog chasing its tail, Congress has tried for thirty-

five years to control spending in federal elections, only to

be thwarted by the Supreme Court intent on equating speech

with money. To return to Madison's freedom of speech,

Congress needs to pass a Joint Resolution amending the

Constitution to authorize Congress to limit or control

spending in federal elections.

Our constituents' faith in the election system has been fundamentally corrupted by big money from outside interest groups. It is time for Congress to take back control of the campaign finance system by passing a constitutional amendment that will allow real reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution and an article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of John Bryson to be Secretary of Commerce.

The Department of Commerce includes a diverse collection of agencies that work on everything from predicting the weather to issuing patents.

But the Department's over-arching mission is to promote job creation and economic growth. Today, that mission is more important than ever.

With the national unemployment rate hovering around 9 percent, we should have a Secretary of Commerce in place who can lead the Department in meeting its important mission.

After considering his nomination in the Senate Commerce Committee, I believe Mr. Bryson is well qualified to be Secretary of Commerce.

Bryson knows something about job creation from his experience as a business leader in the energy sector. He also served on the boards of well-known companies such as Boeing and the Walt Disney Company.

Those experiences will help Bryson meet the challenges of leading the Department of Commerce.

I know firsthand some of the good work that the Department of Commerce has done to help businesses in my home State through the Economic Development Administration, EDA, manufacturing extension partnership, MEP, and trade adjustment for firms initiatives.

I have visited small businesses that received assistance from these Department of Commerce agencies and know how vital such support can be for entrepreneurs who want to grow their business or maybe export for the first time.

The Department of Commerce already faces enough challenges to meet its vital mission. Delaying Mr. Bryson's nomination any further would only add to those challenges at a time when we can ill afford it.

I urge my Senate colleagues to support his nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in 1992, Congress created the Udall Foundation, to honor the service of Mo Udall, my uncle, and father of the Senator from the great State of Colorado, Mark Udall. In 2009 that mandate was expanded to also honor the service of my dad, Stewart Udall, and a legacy of two brothers who fought to preserve and protect our environment and advocate on behalf of Native people.

The Udall Foundation would not be what it is today without the tireless work of one man--Terrence L. Bracy. Terry's been there since the very beginning and has served as chairman of the foundation for 17 years, appointed by both President Clinton and President George W. Bush. At the end of this year, Terry will step down from the board, closing the first chapter of the Udall Foundation . . . and I rise today to express my deep gratitude to him for his service to the Foundation and honoring the Udall legacy.

What started as only a vision is now an organization dedicated to educating a new generation of Americans to preserve and protect their national heritage through scholarship, fellowship, and internship programs that focus on environmental and Native American issues, as well as promoting environmental conflict resolution.

I know Senator Mark Udall agrees with me when I say that Terry Bracy is the Udall Foundation. Over the past 17 years, he has continually pushed the Foundation to new heights--developing new programs, providing new opportunities for young people, and finding new ways to make a difference on issues relating to the environment and tribal communities.

He created an organization to inspire young people to tackle the tough policy problems that confront our nation. And Terry deeply cares about the students that are touched by the foundation's various programs.

After the Washington internship program, Terry and his lovely wife, Nancy, always got us all together. Early on, it was at their house in Virginia. The Senator from Colorado and I would answer questions and share our experiences with these exceptional young people, getting to know a new generation of leaders who, thanks to Terry, were inspired to carry on the torch of public service.

Under his leadership, the foundation also created the Native Nations Institute, accepted stewardship of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution from Congress, and most recently, established the Stewart L. Udall Parks in Focus Program.

And while he has always looked forward to what the foundation could become, he has also continually reinforced the legacy of the two Udall brothers. It was Terry who pursued changing the name of the organization to the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, after two brothers whose joint legacy as public servants and environmental visionaries will endure through the ages. The dedication ceremony in 2009 was the final public appearance of my father before his passing, and I know he was deeply honored and appreciative of the hard work of his friend Terry.

I would like to extend my thanks to Terry for his service to this nation in preserving the legacy of two American brothers who fought to change the world, and for continuing to champion the causes to which they dedicated their lives.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bingaman in introducing the Southern New Mexico Economic Development Act, legislation that will bring additional business from Mexico to cities and towns in southern New Mexico.

Our bill would increase economic opportunities for southern New Mexico businesses by extending the distance that Mexicans who are issued Border Crossing Cards, BCC, by the U.S. State Department can travel in New Mexico without the need to obtain a Form I-94 and pay an additional fee.

The BCC is a credit card-style document with many security features and 10-year validity. BCCs are only issued to applicants who are citizens and residents of Mexico. Applicants must meet the eligibility standards for B1/B2 visas and undergo fingerprinting and an interview at the U.S. Consulate and they must demonstrate that they have ties to Mexico that would compel them to return after a temporary stay in the United States.

Currently, BCC holders who are authorized to enter into the United States can remain up to 30 days and travel no more than 25 miles beyond the border, except in Arizona where they can travel up to 75 miles. Those who wish to travel farther or remain longer must request an I-94 form, arrival/departure record, at the port of entry and pay a small fee. Our bill would extend the distance BCC holders who enter the United States from New Mexico ports of entry can travel within the State from 25 miles to 75 miles.

Arizona provides a precedent for making this change. In 1999, the border zone in Arizona was extended from 25 miles to 75 miles because there were no large Arizona cities within 25 miles of the border. This was done through the Federal rulemaking process. The extension was designed to specifically include Tucson within the zone so that it could get the economic benefit of BCC holders entering Arizona. Tucson conducted a study indicating that, after implementation of this rule, the commercial gain from Mexican visitors was estimated to reach $56.3 million a year.

However, in Texas, New Mexico, and California, the border zone limit remains 25 miles. This doesn't hurt Texas and California since El Paso, San Diego, and many smaller towns in those states are within the 25 mile zone. However, like Arizona, New Mexico does not have a city within 25 miles of the border. This means BCC holders cannot travel to southern New Mexico cities like Las Cruces, Deming, and Lordsburg without additional paperwork and paying a fee. Because of this, many visitors face the inconvenience

of having to drive all the way to Juarez and enter the U.S. at an El Paso port of entry, despite living closer to a port of entry in New Mexico.

Extending the zone can be done through rulemaking, as it was with Arizona, and I am happy to work with Secretary Napolitano and CBP Commissioner Bersin to make that happen. However, if we are unable to resolve this issue through rulemaking, I believe it will be necessary to push for passage of the legislation we are introducing today.

There is strong support from elected officials and the business community in southern New Mexico for extending the border zone to 75 miles. Just recently, Luna County Commissioner Jay Spivey worked with State Senator John Arthur Smith and Representative Dona Irwin to introduce a Joint Memorial calling on DHS to extend the border zone to 75 miles. The Memorial unanimously passed both houses of the New Mexico state legislature in September.

This is fundamentally an issue of fairness--New Mexico should have the same opportunities the other three Border States enjoy because of the economic benefits of BCC holders visiting their cities.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bingaman in introducing the Southern New Mexico Economic Development Act, legislation that will bring additional business from Mexico to cities and towns in southern New Mexico.

Our bill would increase economic opportunities for southern New Mexico businesses by extending the distance that Mexicans who are issued Border Crossing Cards, BCC, by the U.S. State Department can travel in New Mexico without the need to obtain a Form I-94 and pay an additional fee.

The BCC is a credit card-style document with many security features and 10-year validity. BCCs are only issued to applicants who are citizens and residents of Mexico. Applicants must meet the eligibility standards for B1/B2 visas and undergo fingerprinting and an interview at the U.S. Consulate and they must demonstrate that they have ties to Mexico that would compel them to return after a temporary stay in the United States.

Currently, BCC holders who are authorized to enter into the United States can remain up to 30 days and travel no more than 25 miles beyond the border, except in Arizona where they can travel up to 75 miles. Those who wish to travel farther or remain longer must request an I-94 form, arrival/departure record, at the port of entry and pay a small fee. Our bill would extend the distance BCC holders who enter the United States from New Mexico ports of entry can travel within the State from 25 miles to 75 miles.

Arizona provides a precedent for making this change. In 1999, the border zone in Arizona was extended from 25 miles to 75 miles because there were no large Arizona cities within 25 miles of the border. This was done through the Federal rulemaking process. The extension was designed to specifically include Tucson within the zone so that it could get the economic benefit of BCC holders entering Arizona. Tucson conducted a study indicating that, after implementation of this rule, the commercial gain from Mexican visitors was estimated to reach $56.3 million a year.

However, in Texas, New Mexico, and California, the border zone limit remains 25 miles. This doesn't hurt Texas and California since El Paso, San Diego, and many smaller towns in those states are within the 25 mile zone. However, like Arizona, New Mexico does not have a city within 25 miles of the border. This means BCC holders cannot travel to southern New Mexico cities like Las Cruces, Deming, and Lordsburg without additional paperwork and paying a fee. Because of this, many visitors face the inconvenience

of having to drive all the way to Juarez and enter the U.S. at an El Paso port of entry, despite living closer to a port of entry in New Mexico.

Extending the zone can be done through rulemaking, as it was with Arizona, and I am happy to work with Secretary Napolitano and CBP Commissioner Bersin to make that happen. However, if we are unable to resolve this issue through rulemaking, I believe it will be necessary to push for passage of the legislation we are introducing today.

There is strong support from elected officials and the business community in southern New Mexico for extending the border zone to 75 miles. Just recently, Luna County Commissioner Jay Spivey worked with State Senator John Arthur Smith and Representative Dona Irwin to introduce a Joint Memorial calling on DHS to extend the border zone to 75 miles. The Memorial unanimously passed both houses of the New Mexico state legislature in September.

This is fundamentally an issue of fairness--New Mexico should have the same opportunities the other three Border States enjoy because of the economic benefits of BCC holders visiting their cities.

Mr. President, today, I honor the life and legacy of the great Pueblo Indian Historian, Joe Simon Sando. Joe was one of New Mexico's leading historians and the preeminent expert on Pueblo History. He passed away at the age of 88 on September 13, 2011, after a lifetime of dedication to education, history, and cultural preservation.

Joe Sando taught, published and lectured throughout the world about the history and culture of the Pueblo People. His numerous publications and educational efforts brought to life the vibrant history of the Pueblo People while also acknowledging the ever changing and current culture of the pueblos.

Joe's own story started in Jemez Pueblo in northern New Mexico where he grew up speaking Towa. He later learned English, the language of his extensive publications, when he attended the Santa Fe Indian School. When World War II raged into the lives of Americans, Joe Sando bravely harkened to the call for service, joined the Navy, and served out the war on the decks of aircraft carriers.

After his military service, Joe obtained an education degree from Eastern New Mexico University and taught at the Albuquerque Indian School. He later went on to attend graduate school at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee and become an instructor at the University of New Mexico. Teaching Pueblo history at UNM, and ethnohistory at the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, Joe Sando quickly became the dominant expert in pueblo history and culture. In 1986, he helped create the Institute for Pueblo Indian Studies at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center and did not retire until 2003 at the age of 80.

Joe Sando said, ``As a Pueblo man of Jemez, I feel that the Indian people have a duty and a challenge to write their own history.'' Sando aggressively took up this challenge writing and contributing to numerous books about his culture and history from the distinct and not often published perspective of a tribal member. Joe felt that ``the traditional Pueblo history should be revealed, as the Pueblo Indians themselves know it,'' and that is exactly how he wrote it, from the pueblo perspective.

Joe Sando's contribution to society was not limited to his extensive educational efforts. He was also a generous and dedicated public servant. He was the first chairman of the All Indian Pueblo Housing Authority and the first chairman of the State Judicial Council. He also served on the Statuary Hall Commission and on the board of Americans for Indian Opportunity.

Joe was also widely honored. He was the 2005 recipient of the Southwestern Association for Indian Arts Lifetime Achievement Award. In 2007 he received an honorary Doctor of Letters from the University of New Mexico, and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the All Indian Pueblo Council. For his writing, he received the Bravo Award for Literary Excellence, Outstanding Alumnae of Eastern New Mexico University, State Heritage Preservation Award, Excellence in the Humanities Award, Lifetime Achievement Award of Indian Librarians and Indian History Teachers, and the Eugene Crawford Memorial Peace Pipe Award.

Mr. Sando was a friend to every pueblo, and had an extensive knowledge of genealogies and individuals from each pueblo. He could form a personal connection with anyone as he also determined a familial connection, using his impressive memory of families and clans.

But perhaps Joe Sando's story is better told through the history he taught and loved. The history of the Pueblo People is a vibrant part of our nation's story.

For centuries immemorial, the Pueblo People occupied the Southwest. The ancestors of the Pueblo People were guided by deity from place to place and finally they were brought to a land where they would be safe from the catastrophes of natures. This vast area of the Southwest, much of which is still occupied by the 20 remaining pueblos, was given to the ancestors of the Pueblo People at the beginning of time.

In their vast open lands of mesas, mountains, and plains, pueblo society developed around the systematic raising of food, especially corn, making hominy, succotash, cornbread, cornmeal mush, tortillas, and tamales. Also cultivated were chile, squash, pumpkins, beans, and a myriad of other products. Various dances were held according to the seasons, prayer dances and thanksgiving dances, and the ancient people were warned to respect and obey the laws of nature and the orders of their leaders who would guide them spiritually and socially. Guidelines for well-ordered living were established and lead to centuries of cultural development and continued community success.

Through the centuries, several individual pueblos emerged and three distinct language groups developed, Zuni, Keresan, and Tanoan with dialects of Tiwa, Tewa, and Towa. These languages continue to be spoken in the remaining 21 pueblo tribes.

In 1539 Europeans entered the Pueblo World and by the end of the century the Spanish were planning a permanent settlement in the pueblo region. The tentative interactions and exchange of knowledge and goods quickly turned to anger and distrust as taxes were leveed on the Pueblo People and the expressions of the pueblo culture were oppressed.

In 1598 the All Indian Pueblo Council was organized to coordinate interactions between the pueblos and the Spanish Governor, Juan de Onate. This council of pueblo leaders continues today as a functional symbol of tribal sovereignty, pueblo unity, and government-to- government relations.

But despite the council's formation and efforts, tensions escalated between the Spanish and Pueblo People. One distinctive event in 1680 lead to the first American Revolution. Religious and political pueblo leaders were accused of ``sorcery'', and were imprisoned, publicly humiliated, whipped, and some even hung. Po'pay, from the Pueblo of Ohkay Owingeh, was one of these leaders taken from his village, humiliated, and lashed. And as tradition has it, Po'pay rose from this oppression to unite the pueblos to drive the Spanish from Pueblo lands in 1680. We honor Po'pay's fight for justice and his mark on history today in our capitol, where a statue of Po'pay stands as one of the honored leaders in the National Statuary Hall Collection.

In a matter of years after the Pueblo Revolution some pueblos welcomed the Spanish back, while others continued to wage conflict. Finally, in 1706, an alliance between the Pueblo People and the Spanish was established to help protect against raids from the outside. Since then, a culture of mutual respect and interdependence has emerged and continues today.

More than a century after this alliance was established, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican American war and moved the US border south of the pueblos. Later, President Lincoln formally recognized the authority of the pueblo governors under the United States Government, and today pueblo leadership continues to conduct government-to-government interaction with the United States. In New Mexico we continue to learn about and appreciate the culture and history of the Pueblo People, and celebrate as new leaders, like Joe Sando, continue to emerge.

Joe Sando recognized his call to share the history of the Pueblo People. He said that, ``Every now and then some readers tell me that I was mandated to tell the world about the Pueblo Indians. That may be true.'' Today we record Joe Sando's story in the United States Congressional Record to honor him for taking up the call to tell the world about the Pueblo People, a story integral to our national history and ever-changing culture.