Floor Statements

Mr. President, football fans today are wondering if there will be a National Football League season this fall. Many fans could find that their Sundays are not the same if team owners and players do not reach an agreement. Business owners who depend on those fans will also be affected. That is an issue that members of Congress have weighed in on already.

But today I want to discuss a more important issue for the future of football. Football is facing a concussion crisis--a brain injury crisis--that affects up to 4.5 million football players who are still too young to play in the NFL but may aspire to make it to the pros some day.

This fall, those kids and young adults will put on their uniforms and pads and take to the gridiron. It is a time-honored tradition that will continue regardless of what happens to the upcoming NFL season. For many rural communities in states like New Mexico, high school football means Friday night lights excitement and civic pride in the school team. This year, about 8,000 New Mexican high school players will continue this American tradition.

But football is a contact sport, and thousands of student athletes are injured every year. Many of those injuries are concussions. In fact, one study

estimates that as many as one in five football players suffers head injuries in any given football season. For young people between 15 and 24 years old, playing sports is the second-leading cause of traumatic brain injury, behind only motor vehicle crashes. Every year, there are up to 3.8 million sports-related concussions, many of which go undiagnosed and unreported.

Those alarming statistics highlight the need for more awareness about sports concussion. That is why it is appropriate to discuss this important public health and children's safety issue today, which is ``Brain Injury Awareness Day.''

Retired NFL great Nick Lowery--the all time leading scorer for the Kansas City Chiefs and one of the greatest kickers to play the game-- explained to me:

When I played football in high school, in college, and in

the National Football League, suffering a concussion was

often shrugged off as merely having your `bell rung.' My

teammates had no shortage of toughness and wanted to build

the mentality to `out tough' our opponents. . . . We now

know that multiple concussions can lead to lasting brain

damage and should be treated as a serious matter. Today's NFL

players want to set a good example for the next generation.

There have been alarming news stories about what has happened to several retired NFL players who were famous for that toughness Lowery described. Long after their careers ended, some of those NFL greats succumbed to chronic traumatic encephalopathy, CTE, caused by repeated head trauma. Last month, retired NFL player Dave Duerson took his own life with a gunshot to the chest. According to news reports, he left instructions to his family that his brain be given to the NFL Brain Bank, presumably to be examined for evidence of CTE.

Yet, what is even more alarming is that researchers have already found CTE in the brain of a deceased 18-year-old high school football player with a history of concussions. Researchers do not yet know how early an athlete might develop CTE.

TBI can also be an ``invisible'' injury. Without the kind of brain injury awareness that families and health care providers are trying to raise today, an athlete who suffers a mild TBI may not link that injury to common symptoms later such as headaches, nausea, and cognitive changes.

One of my constituents, Alexis Ball, is a bright college student and star soccer player at the University of New Mexico. She told my office how she struggled for months with post-concussive symptoms. Concussions forced her to sit out from play and miss classes. Thankfully, she's recovered today and now volunteers to raise concussion awareness among young athletes in Albuquerque.

But there are other cases that are much more unfortunate. The parents of one high school student athlete from Oregon named Max Conradt wrote me to explain how Max, their 17-year-old son, returned to play quarterback too soon after suffering a concussion. Max was wearing a 20-year-old helmet when he suffered another concussion that led to brain damage. Max's parents wrote me to ask, ``How is it possible that our son was issued a helmet three years older than he was?''

Unfortunately, there are an estimated 100,000 helmets out there that are more than a decade old. These helmets will be worn by high school and younger football players this fall. Many coaches will not know that some of their helmets might be older than their players. And one helmet safety expert has stated that even the best new football helmets would need to be four times better--in terms of attenuating direct, linear forces--to protect against concussion.

These facts drive my serious concerns about the current voluntary safety standards for new and reconditioned football helmets, which have not been significantly revised in three decades.

On this Brain Injury Awareness Day 2011, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation, the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act, to require improvements to the voluntary football helmet standards, including clearly visible warning and date of manufacture labels, concussion resistance, if feasible, reconditioned helmets and youth helmets.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by colleagues Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator Blumenthal. We are joined by Representatives Bill Pascrell and Todd Platts, who lead the Congressional TBI Task Force, and Representative Anthony Weiner--all of whom are original sponsors of the companion bill in the House of Representatives.

The Children's Sports Equipment Safety Act takes a ``light touch'' approach to improving safety. This legislation gives industry groups time to put safety first and improve their voluntary helmet standards before any mandatory federal safety rules replace them. But if those improvements are not made, then the Consumer Product Safety Commission must issue product safety rules for football helmets to protect kids.

I want to emphasize that the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act isn't just about football helmets. This legislation would also increase the potential penalties for making false injury prevention claims for other types of sports and athletic gear.

Tackling false advertising with more severe penalties may be an increasingly important tool if companies continue to sell new headbands, helmets, and mouth guards with potentially deceptive and misleading safety claims. Young athletes could put themselves at great risk if they think a new ``anti-concussion'' football helmet, soccer headband, or mouth guard makes them invulnerable to brain injury. The costs of such injuries in financial terms alone are staggering. The direct medical costs and indirect costs of traumatic brain injuries totaled an estimated $60 billion in the United States in the year 2000. That figure of course does not account for the pain and suffering of victims and their families.

I am pleased that the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act enjoys support from a broad range of organizations and individuals. DeMaurice Smith, the Executive Director of the NFL Players Association, NFLPA, states in a letter that:

Not only is the NFLPA committed to the safety of

professional football players, but to all who play the sport.

We recognize a significant portion of those players are youth

and high school athletes who are currently at risk for

traumatic brain injury due to the absence of helmet safety

standards. We support the Children's Sports Athletic

Equipment Safety Act as introduced and commend you for

addressing this issue.

Other supporters include: Brain Injury Association of America; Brain Trauma Foundation; Cleveland Clinic; Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; National Consumers League; National Research Center for Women & Families; and Safe Kids USA.

Nick Lowery, who played 18 years as a professional football player and is a member of the Kansas City Chiefs Hall of Fame, notes that:

Improving sports safety for kids and discouraging sports

equipment companies from making false injury prevention

claims are two straightforward ways to reduce brain injuries.

You can count on my enthusiastic support for this important

children's safety and consumer protection legislation.

Sports and exercise should be encouraged for everyone--especially children. We must do more to ensure that kids participate in sports and exercise for all the health benefits they bring. While there will always be some risk of injury, we must make sure that athletes, coaches and parents know about the dangers and signs of concussion. We must make sure that they are using safe equipment. And we must take false advertising of safety gear out of the game.

I ask all my colleagues for their support of the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act as part of this vital effort.

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

Mr. President, football fans today are wondering if there will be a National Football League season this fall. Many fans could find that their Sundays are not the same if team owners and players do not reach an agreement. Business owners who depend on those fans will also be affected. That is an issue that members of Congress have weighed in on already.

But today I want to discuss a more important issue for the future of football. Football is facing a concussion crisis--a brain injury crisis--that affects up to 4.5 million football players who are still too young to play in the NFL but may aspire to make it to the pros some day.

This fall, those kids and young adults will put on their uniforms and pads and take to the gridiron. It is a time-honored tradition that will continue regardless of what happens to the upcoming NFL season. For many rural communities in states like New Mexico, high school football means Friday night lights excitement and civic pride in the school team. This year, about 8,000 New Mexican high school players will continue this American tradition.

But football is a contact sport, and thousands of student athletes are injured every year. Many of those injuries are concussions. In fact, one study

estimates that as many as one in five football players suffers head injuries in any given football season. For young people between 15 and 24 years old, playing sports is the second-leading cause of traumatic brain injury, behind only motor vehicle crashes. Every year, there are up to 3.8 million sports-related concussions, many of which go undiagnosed and unreported.

Those alarming statistics highlight the need for more awareness about sports concussion. That is why it is appropriate to discuss this important public health and children's safety issue today, which is ``Brain Injury Awareness Day.''

Retired NFL great Nick Lowery--the all time leading scorer for the Kansas City Chiefs and one of the greatest kickers to play the game-- explained to me:

When I played football in high school, in college, and in

the National Football League, suffering a concussion was

often shrugged off as merely having your `bell rung.' My

teammates had no shortage of toughness and wanted to build

the mentality to `out tough' our opponents. . . . We now

know that multiple concussions can lead to lasting brain

damage and should be treated as a serious matter. Today's NFL

players want to set a good example for the next generation.

There have been alarming news stories about what has happened to several retired NFL players who were famous for that toughness Lowery described. Long after their careers ended, some of those NFL greats succumbed to chronic traumatic encephalopathy, CTE, caused by repeated head trauma. Last month, retired NFL player Dave Duerson took his own life with a gunshot to the chest. According to news reports, he left instructions to his family that his brain be given to the NFL Brain Bank, presumably to be examined for evidence of CTE.

Yet, what is even more alarming is that researchers have already found CTE in the brain of a deceased 18-year-old high school football player with a history of concussions. Researchers do not yet know how early an athlete might develop CTE.

TBI can also be an ``invisible'' injury. Without the kind of brain injury awareness that families and health care providers are trying to raise today, an athlete who suffers a mild TBI may not link that injury to common symptoms later such as headaches, nausea, and cognitive changes.

One of my constituents, Alexis Ball, is a bright college student and star soccer player at the University of New Mexico. She told my office how she struggled for months with post-concussive symptoms. Concussions forced her to sit out from play and miss classes. Thankfully, she's recovered today and now volunteers to raise concussion awareness among young athletes in Albuquerque.

But there are other cases that are much more unfortunate. The parents of one high school student athlete from Oregon named Max Conradt wrote me to explain how Max, their 17-year-old son, returned to play quarterback too soon after suffering a concussion. Max was wearing a 20-year-old helmet when he suffered another concussion that led to brain damage. Max's parents wrote me to ask, ``How is it possible that our son was issued a helmet three years older than he was?''

Unfortunately, there are an estimated 100,000 helmets out there that are more than a decade old. These helmets will be worn by high school and younger football players this fall. Many coaches will not know that some of their helmets might be older than their players. And one helmet safety expert has stated that even the best new football helmets would need to be four times better--in terms of attenuating direct, linear forces--to protect against concussion.

These facts drive my serious concerns about the current voluntary safety standards for new and reconditioned football helmets, which have not been significantly revised in three decades.

On this Brain Injury Awareness Day 2011, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation, the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act, to require improvements to the voluntary football helmet standards, including clearly visible warning and date of manufacture labels, concussion resistance, if feasible, reconditioned helmets and youth helmets.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by colleagues Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator Blumenthal. We are joined by Representatives Bill Pascrell and Todd Platts, who lead the Congressional TBI Task Force, and Representative Anthony Weiner--all of whom are original sponsors of the companion bill in the House of Representatives.

The Children's Sports Equipment Safety Act takes a ``light touch'' approach to improving safety. This legislation gives industry groups time to put safety first and improve their voluntary helmet standards before any mandatory federal safety rules replace them. But if those improvements are not made, then the Consumer Product Safety Commission must issue product safety rules for football helmets to protect kids.

I want to emphasize that the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act isn't just about football helmets. This legislation would also increase the potential penalties for making false injury prevention claims for other types of sports and athletic gear.

Tackling false advertising with more severe penalties may be an increasingly important tool if companies continue to sell new headbands, helmets, and mouth guards with potentially deceptive and misleading safety claims. Young athletes could put themselves at great risk if they think a new ``anti-concussion'' football helmet, soccer headband, or mouth guard makes them invulnerable to brain injury. The costs of such injuries in financial terms alone are staggering. The direct medical costs and indirect costs of traumatic brain injuries totaled an estimated $60 billion in the United States in the year 2000. That figure of course does not account for the pain and suffering of victims and their families.

I am pleased that the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act enjoys support from a broad range of organizations and individuals. DeMaurice Smith, the Executive Director of the NFL Players Association, NFLPA, states in a letter that:

Not only is the NFLPA committed to the safety of

professional football players, but to all who play the sport.

We recognize a significant portion of those players are youth

and high school athletes who are currently at risk for

traumatic brain injury due to the absence of helmet safety

standards. We support the Children's Sports Athletic

Equipment Safety Act as introduced and commend you for

addressing this issue.

Other supporters include: Brain Injury Association of America; Brain Trauma Foundation; Cleveland Clinic; Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; National Consumers League; National Research Center for Women & Families; and Safe Kids USA.

Nick Lowery, who played 18 years as a professional football player and is a member of the Kansas City Chiefs Hall of Fame, notes that:

Improving sports safety for kids and discouraging sports

equipment companies from making false injury prevention

claims are two straightforward ways to reduce brain injuries.

You can count on my enthusiastic support for this important

children's safety and consumer protection legislation.

Sports and exercise should be encouraged for everyone--especially children. We must do more to ensure that kids participate in sports and exercise for all the health benefits they bring. While there will always be some risk of injury, we must make sure that athletes, coaches and parents know about the dangers and signs of concussion. We must make sure that they are using safe equipment. And we must take false advertising of safety gear out of the game.

I ask all my colleagues for their support of the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act as part of this vital effort.

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

Mr. President, today I join Senator Bingaman in reintroducing a bill to designate the Valles Caldera National Preserve in New Mexico as a unit of the National Park System. The Valles Caldera is one of the largest volcanic calderas in the world. The vast grass-filled valleys, forested hillsides, and numerous volcanic peaks make the area a treasure to New Mexico, and a landscape of national significance millions of years in the making. It is appropriate that an area of such value be protected in perpetuity as a unit of the National Park Service.

Around 1.5 million years ago a series of explosive rhyolitic eruptions created the massive caldera and dropped hundreds of meters of volcanic ash for miles. This volcanic activity gave the Pajarito Plateau its distinctive cliffs of pink and white tuff overlaying the black basalts of the Rio Grande Rift.

In the millennia following the caldera's explosive creation, erosion and weathering carved vibrant canyons and left pinion-topped mesas stretching like fingers away from the massive crater. In time, magma and water drained from the great valley, and a diversity of plants and wildlife took their place. With such resources and natural beauty, it is no wonder that for millennia people have also been an integral part of the Valles Caldera.

For the Pueblo Tribes of northern New Mexico, the Valles Caldera has been a part of life from time immemorial. The continued cultural and religious significance of the area must and will be respected and protected as the preserve moves into the management of the National Park Service.

Private ownership of the Caldera began with Spanish settlers who introduced livestock to the grassy valleys that continue to fatten elk and cattle in the summer months. After a series of owners managed the caldera, the Federal Government finally purchased the area in 2000 through the Valles Caldera Preservation Act, which I was proud to help shepherd through Congress with Senator Bingaman and then-Senator Domenici. The subsequent creation of the Valles Caldera National Preserve included the establishment of a board of directors and the Valles Caldera Trust to manage the area, and mandates for stakeholder involvement and eventual financial self-sufficiency of the Trust.

I applaud the decade of work that both the Board of Trustees and the Valles Caldera Trust have dedicated to the preserve. The exceptional dedication of Caldera employees has led to the creation of a robust science and research program, to the development of incredible educational opportunities for visiting schools and universities, to a restoration of natural resources, and to an expansion of cutting-edge scientific research.

Since 1939, the National Park Service has deemed the area of significant national value because of its unique and unaltered geology, and its singular setting, which are conducive to public recreation, reflection, education, and research. By utilizing the resources and skills within the National Park Service, I believe the Valles Caldera National Preserve will continue to prosper as a natural wonder full of significant geology, ecology, history, and culture.

The bill that we introduce today reflects the comments and proposals that emerged through a successful committee process on a similar bill that Senator Bingaman and I introduced last year. In September 2010, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported the bill out favorably, and it is my hope that the Committee will act quickly to move this reintroduced bill to the Senate floor for a vote. I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman and all of the stakeholders who care about the future of this preserve to complete our efforts to establish Park Service management of the preserve.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Bingaman in reintroducing a bill to designate the Valles Caldera National Preserve in New Mexico as a unit of the National Park System. The Valles Caldera is one of the largest volcanic calderas in the world. The vast grass-filled valleys, forested hillsides, and numerous volcanic peaks make the area a treasure to New Mexico, and a landscape of national significance millions of years in the making. It is appropriate that an area of such value be protected in perpetuity as a unit of the National Park Service.

Around 1.5 million years ago a series of explosive rhyolitic eruptions created the massive caldera and dropped hundreds of meters of volcanic ash for miles. This volcanic activity gave the Pajarito Plateau its distinctive cliffs of pink and white tuff overlaying the black basalts of the Rio Grande Rift.

In the millennia following the caldera's explosive creation, erosion and weathering carved vibrant canyons and left pinion-topped mesas stretching like fingers away from the massive crater. In time, magma and water drained from the great valley, and a diversity of plants and wildlife took their place. With such resources and natural beauty, it is no wonder that for millennia people have also been an integral part of the Valles Caldera.

For the Pueblo Tribes of northern New Mexico, the Valles Caldera has been a part of life from time immemorial. The continued cultural and religious significance of the area must and will be respected and protected as the preserve moves into the management of the National Park Service.

Private ownership of the Caldera began with Spanish settlers who introduced livestock to the grassy valleys that continue to fatten elk and cattle in the summer months. After a series of owners managed the caldera, the Federal Government finally purchased the area in 2000 through the Valles Caldera Preservation Act, which I was proud to help shepherd through Congress with Senator Bingaman and then-Senator Domenici. The subsequent creation of the Valles Caldera National Preserve included the establishment of a board of directors and the Valles Caldera Trust to manage the area, and mandates for stakeholder involvement and eventual financial self-sufficiency of the Trust.

I applaud the decade of work that both the Board of Trustees and the Valles Caldera Trust have dedicated to the preserve. The exceptional dedication of Caldera employees has led to the creation of a robust science and research program, to the development of incredible educational opportunities for visiting schools and universities, to a restoration of natural resources, and to an expansion of cutting-edge scientific research.

Since 1939, the National Park Service has deemed the area of significant national value because of its unique and unaltered geology, and its singular setting, which are conducive to public recreation, reflection, education, and research. By utilizing the resources and skills within the National Park Service, I believe the Valles Caldera National Preserve will continue to prosper as a natural wonder full of significant geology, ecology, history, and culture.

The bill that we introduce today reflects the comments and proposals that emerged through a successful committee process on a similar bill that Senator Bingaman and I introduced last year. In September 2010, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported the bill out favorably, and it is my hope that the Committee will act quickly to move this reintroduced bill to the Senate floor for a vote. I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman and all of the stakeholders who care about the future of this preserve to complete our efforts to establish Park Service management of the preserve.

Madam President, America's environmental laws are public health laws. Undermining those public health laws may protect special interests, but last year the Clean Air Act protected American families from 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks and 86,000 emergency room visits.

In New Mexico, over 170,000 residents suffer from asthma, and over 47,000 of those are children. Thousands also suffer from other respiratory illnesses. The House bill puts hundreds of thousands of New Mexicans at greater risk from pollution from powerplants, oil refineries, mines, and cement kilns.

The Clean Air Act has cut six major pollutants by over 40 percent, but air pollution still claims 70,000 lives per year, three times that of car accidents.

If we weaken that act, unfortunately, that number will rise. That is why the American Lung Association opposes these environmental rollbacks in the House bill.

The Clean Air Act also protects pregnant mothers and developing children from mercury, a neurotoxin that creates problems in brain development, including attention and memory problems. Mercury comes out of smoke stacks into the air, deposits into our water, and is also consumed in the fish that we eat.

One New Mexico pediatrician, Dr. K.P. Stoller, notes that ``mercury is the most toxic non-radioactive element on the periodic table.'' In New Mexico, over 2,000 pounds of mercury are emitted each year. Clean Air Act standards are making progress reducing that amount.

The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes the House bill because it would allow for more highly toxic mercury than existing law in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Overall, the House continuing resolution undermines the Clean Air Act, leading to more pollution, asthma, hospital visits, and less healthy children.

These efforts run counter to the progress we are trying to make in New Mexico. At the University of New Mexico, the New Mexico Environmental Public Health Tracking Network and the National Tracking Network at the Center for Disease Control work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to provide air quality data. We use that data to better understand how to prevent disease and develop air pollution standards for our State.

Unfortunately, these State air pollution control efforts are targeted for cuts in the House bill. The funding is not a lot of money so some people believe the real reason is to stop public health protections from going forward.

These standards are designed to reduce pollution, not put industrial facilities out of business. We have heard from few, if any, businesses in New Mexico that want these antipublic health provisions in the House bill.

Instead we are seeing dozens of e-mails from people simply asking that the Environmental Protection Agency do its job to protect public health.

Here are some additional facts about the House bill.

It cuts $2 billion in local wastewater and drinking water treatment funds, costing over 50,000 jobs. Dozens of rural communities from New Mexico are in desperate need of funds to rebuild aging water treatment plants and remove septic tanks that are polluting our limited supplies of groundwater.

It blocks the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing the Clean Water Act to protect wetlands. Wetlands definitions are a controversial issue, but the Supreme Court has ruled on this twice, and Federal agencies need to move forward to resolve uncertainty and issue permits in a responsible way.

It cuts $60 million from the 2010 enacted level and more than $140 million from the President's 2012 Budget for grants to State and local environmental and public health agencies. Nearly every State is in a budget crisis.

America's leading public health professionals have responded to efforts to block clean air safeguards. For example: 1,882 Doctors, Nurses and Health Professionals:

Please fulfill the promise of clean, healthy air for all

Americans to breathe. Support full implementation of the

Clean Air Act and resist any efforts to weaken, delay or

block progress toward a healthier future for all Americans.

From the American Lung Association:

The House of Representatives also adopted amendments that

would block implementation of the Clean Air Act and its

lifesaving protections . . . These provisions and others

adopted by the House of Representatives in H.R. 1 would

result in millions of Americans--including children, seniors,

and people with chronic disease such as asthma--being forced

to breathe air that is unhealthy. Breathing air pollution can

cause asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, cancer and

shorten lives.

From the American Public Health Association:

Attempts to remove protections already in place must be

stopped. The public health community is very concerned about

the long-term health consequences of global climate change.

Blocking EPA's authority to reduce carbon dioxide and other

greenhouse gases could mean the difference between chronic

debilitating illness or a healthy life.

From the Trust for America's Health:

The potential consequences for public health are grave

because the Clean Air Act protects the most vulnerable

populations--those with asthma and other lung disease,

children, older adults, and people with heart disease and

diabetes--from the dangers of pollution . . . The science

says carbon pollution is bad for our health. Rolling back

EPA's ability to protect the public from this threat

literally has life and death stakes.

From the American Thoracic Society:

The Clean Air Act is one of the best public health success

stories of the past four decades and has saved thousands of

American lives. Any effort to revise the Clean Air Act should

be carefully considered and focused on enhancing the public

health benefits--not on granting big polluters a free pass to

increase the amount of carbon pollution they release into the

environment.

The American Lung Association has said the health of 137.2 million Americans--including as many as 29.8 million children under the age of 14 and close to 2 million children suffering from asthma attacks--are potentially exposed to unhealthful levels of smog, air pollution.

Scientific evidence increasingly shows that air pollution plays a major role as a trigger for asthma episodes. Specifically, fine particles, sulfur dioxide and ozone have been linked to increases in patients' use of asthma medication, emergency department visits and hospital admissions.

Powerplant particle pollution is estimated to cause more than 603,000 asthma episodes per year, 366,000 of which could be avoided by cleaning up the power plants.

Estimates of the annual human health costs of outdoor air pollution range from $14 billion to $55 billion annually.

Each year, pollution claims 70,000 lives in the United States.

In 2010, the United States will save a projected $1,100 billion in health benefits--i.e., avoided illness and death--associated with reductions in air pollution due to implementation of the Federal Clean Air Act.

Let me thank the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer. She has done an excellent job in terms of outlining in committee the real issues facing us. The big issue is, as we have heard today from Leader Reid and Chairman Boxer, H.R. 1, or what we call the House Republican budget, is not only a budget bill, it is loaded with all these environmental riders that attack public health by repealing public health laws.

I wish to reflect, as Chairman Boxer did, on the history. We used to have tremendous bipartisan support in terms of public health and environmental laws. I remember the glory days of the Senate in the 1960s and 1970s. It was the Senate that passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, created the Environmental Protection Agency, passed the Endangered Species Act. All of those were passed and created with significant bipartisan support. In fact, anywhere from 8 to 12 Republicans believed these were strong laws that needed to be passed. We don't need to look further than the majorities.

In 1967, the Air Quality Act passed 88 to 0. In 1970, the Clean Air Act passed 73 to 0, championed by a number of Republican Senators. In 1990, the Clean Air Act, championed by President George H.W. Bush and his EPA Administrator, William Reilly, passed 89 to 10. So there was broad bipartisan support.

What has happened to the Senate and to the Congress in terms of protecting public health? I suggest what we have seen with this House Republican budget is very strong powerful special interests weighing in, and those folks on that side kind of catering to that kind of mentality rather than looking out for public health and the American people.

I rise to talk about the impact of this bill on Americans and on public health and on New Mexicans.

At this point, I wish to engage in a colloquy with Senator Merkley on some of the damaging aspects he sees in terms of public health and the environment in H.R. 1, the House Republican budget.

Madam President, if the American people knew what was happening here I think they would be out in the streets in Washington, as we are seeing in Wisconsin where people are turning out and are energized, because the rollback of these environmental laws is a rollback on public health.

As Senator Merkley has discussed persuasively, we are talking about preventing heart attacks, preventing emergency room visits. In New Mexico alone over 170,000 residents suffer from asthma. Over 47,000 of those are children. Thousands suffer from respiratory illnesses. With the rollbacks in the House Republican budget, those folks will suffer a lot more. It is going to impact vulnerable populations.

The House Republican budget puts hundreds of thousands of New Mexicans at greater risk from pollution, from powerplants, oil refineries, mines, and cement kilns. The Clean Air Act has had a very positive impact over the years that it has been a law. It has cut six major pollutants by over 40 percent. But air pollution still claims 70,000 lives per year, three times that of car accidents. So if we weaken that act by these riders and this approach in the House Republican budget, that number is going to rise. The number of lives claimed each year is going to rise. That is why one of the major organizations that monitors this, the American Lung Association, opposes these environmental rollbacks in the House bill.

The Clean Air Act also protects pregnant mothers and developing children from mercury, a neurotoxin that creates problems in brain development, including attention and memory problems. Mercury comes out of the smokestacks into the air, deposits into our water, and is also consumed in the fish we eat.

Just to give a little example, in New Mexico--and Senator Merkley may have this up in Oregon too--we have these coal-fired powerplants that are emitting mercury. It gets into the streams. We now have a warning on every stream in New Mexico--every stream in New Mexico--that if you are going to catch fish and eat them, do not do it more than about once a week. They actually warn pregnant women to not eat the fish from New Mexico's streams at all. I do not think people realize how much pollution there is out there.

With that, I yield back to Senator Merkley for any additional comments the Senator has. I see our good friend, Senator Cardin, is on the floor and also has been a real leader on this issue. I know he wants to speak also.

Madam President, in conclusion, from my perspective, I think it is most important at this point in our history in America that we take actions on the Senate floor that are going to create jobs, that are going to try to move us forward in terms of our economic development.

This House Republican budget is devastating in terms of creating jobs. Leader Reid, I think, said 700,000 Americans are fired as a result of this job-killing bill, this House Republican budget. It is a devastating--devastating--thing to the fragile economic recovery we have going on right now.

I am very happy to hear--very happy to hear--that Senator Reid says we are going to bring the House Republican budget here to the Senate floor. We are going to have an up-or-down vote on that budget. And it will be out there. We are going to have lively debate until we have that vote, and it will be out there for the American people to see the devastating consequences it could have if we adopted it.

With that, I say to Senator Merkley, I know you have some concluding remarks.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ROADS SAFE Act of 2011. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker and 7 other colleagues.

This legislation will encourage the development of new tools to fight drunk driving. It has the potential to save 8,000 lives every year by ensuring that no one celebrating Fat Tuesday or St. Patrick's Day--or at any other time of the year--drives home drunk.

Tragic drunk driving crashes often prompt communities to more to prevent drunk driving. This was the case in my home State of New Mexico back in December of 1992. That is when a drunk driver killed a mother and her three girls on Christmas Eve. He was speeding down the highway 90 miles an hour, going the wrong way down an interstate highway.

This crash helped change attitudes in my State. I was the state Attorney General back then and I went after drunk drivers. I worked to impose stronger penalties for repeat drunk driver offenders, a lower legal limit for intoxication, and shut down drive-through liquor windows. I was successful in these efforts, in part, due to the new focus, throughout the state on eliminating drunk driving.

We made progress in New Mexico on drunk driving, but we have a long way to go and it should not take yet another tragedy for us to do even more to prevent drunk driving.

In 2009, drunk driving killed nearly 11,000 Americans, including 114 people in New Mexico. That is an average of 30 people killed every day by drunk driving. This death toll is unacceptable. And it is all the more shocking when you consider that each one of those deaths was preventable.

The United States has made significant progress in reducing drunk driving over the years. Compared to 20 years ago, our roads are much safer today. Yet even as the overall number of people killed on our highways has declined, drunk driving still accounts for about one-third of all traffic fatalities.

It is even more worrisome that a drunk driver has just a 2 percent chance of being caught. In fact, one study found that a first-time drunk driving offender has, on average, driven drunk 87 times before being arrested. Imagine, 87 times. Something must be done to prevent these drivers from getting on the road in the first place.

The good news is there are potential technologies out there that could do just that, which is why Senator Corker and I are introducing the ROADS SAFE Act today. New safety technology has already transformed the automobile and saved countless lives. For example, airbags and antilock brakes are now standard features in many vehicles. These safety devices are built into the car and are unobtrusive to the driver. Such technologies are an important reason we have fewer traffic fatalities today.

Imagine a future where vehicles could detect whether a driver is drunk when he gets behind the wheel--before he even starts his vehicle. That would mean no drunk driving crashes if it were impossible for drunk drivers to drive. If such technology were widely deployed in cars, approximately 8,000 lives could be saved every year.

I realize many may think this is a farfetched idea. But consider this: vehicles today can already give driving directions, thanks to GPS satellite navigation devices. Some cars can even parallel park themselves. New Mexico and other states require convicted drunk drivers to use an ignition interlock, a breathalyzer device they blow into before their vehicle's engine will start. The success of ignition interlocks for preventing repeat drunk driving offenses suggests a better technology could be used to prevent all drunk driving.

In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration partnered with leading automakers to explore the feasibility of in-vehicle technologies to prevent drunk driving. The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety Program--or DADSS--is a great example of how we can leverage federal funds with private investment to improve the safety of our transportation system. The goal of DADSS is to explore the feasibility, potential benefits, and public policy challenges associated with using in-vehicle technology to prevent drunk driving. The recent progress of this cooperative effort fuels optimism that such technology could be deployed within 5 to 10 years.

Clearly, such advanced technologies must win widespread public acceptance in order to be effective. They must be moderately priced, absolutely reliable, and unobtrusive to sober drivers.

Some of the industry groups will claim that this initiative is meant to stop all social alcohol consumption. They claim that you will no longer be able to enjoy a glass of wine with dinner. They are wrong. The aim is to stop drunk driving, not discourage responsible social drinking. If deployed the technology will be set to detect drunk drivers, those with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.

Development of this technology is also widely supported by the public, many of whom have a glass of wine with dinner. A recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety poll found that 64 percent of Americans believe advanced alcohol detection technology is a good idea and that it is reliable.

So, what would the ROADS SAFE Act do? This legislation would authorize $12 million annually for the DADSS program. This is not new spending. Funding for this program would come from the existing, and often unspent, Seat Belt Incentive grants program.

This is a smart investment in public safety. In addition to the human costs, drunk driving also has direct and indirect economic costs. Those include damaged property, medical bills, and lost productivity. In economic terms, drunk driving costs $129 billion dollars per year. Of course, such monetary costs cannot be compared to the value of saving 8,000 lives every year.

Several organizations dedicated to fighting drunk driving already support this bipartisan proposal. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Century Council, and the Distilled Spirits Council all have signed on in support of the ROADS SAFE Act.

I urge my Senate colleagues to join me, Senator Corker, and these important organizations in the fight against drunk driving. We urge you to support the ROADS SAFE Act. We have made much progress in our efforts to prevent drunk driving, but there is so much more to be done.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ROADS SAFE Act of 2011. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker and 7 other colleagues.

This legislation will encourage the development of new tools to fight drunk driving. It has the potential to save 8,000 lives every year by ensuring that no one celebrating Fat Tuesday or St. Patrick's Day--or at any other time of the year--drives home drunk.

Tragic drunk driving crashes often prompt communities to more to prevent drunk driving. This was the case in my home State of New Mexico back in December of 1992. That is when a drunk driver killed a mother and her three girls on Christmas Eve. He was speeding down the highway 90 miles an hour, going the wrong way down an interstate highway.

This crash helped change attitudes in my State. I was the state Attorney General back then and I went after drunk drivers. I worked to impose stronger penalties for repeat drunk driver offenders, a lower legal limit for intoxication, and shut down drive-through liquor windows. I was successful in these efforts, in part, due to the new focus, throughout the state on eliminating drunk driving.

We made progress in New Mexico on drunk driving, but we have a long way to go and it should not take yet another tragedy for us to do even more to prevent drunk driving.

In 2009, drunk driving killed nearly 11,000 Americans, including 114 people in New Mexico. That is an average of 30 people killed every day by drunk driving. This death toll is unacceptable. And it is all the more shocking when you consider that each one of those deaths was preventable.

The United States has made significant progress in reducing drunk driving over the years. Compared to 20 years ago, our roads are much safer today. Yet even as the overall number of people killed on our highways has declined, drunk driving still accounts for about one-third of all traffic fatalities.

It is even more worrisome that a drunk driver has just a 2 percent chance of being caught. In fact, one study found that a first-time drunk driving offender has, on average, driven drunk 87 times before being arrested. Imagine, 87 times. Something must be done to prevent these drivers from getting on the road in the first place.

The good news is there are potential technologies out there that could do just that, which is why Senator Corker and I are introducing the ROADS SAFE Act today. New safety technology has already transformed the automobile and saved countless lives. For example, airbags and antilock brakes are now standard features in many vehicles. These safety devices are built into the car and are unobtrusive to the driver. Such technologies are an important reason we have fewer traffic fatalities today.

Imagine a future where vehicles could detect whether a driver is drunk when he gets behind the wheel--before he even starts his vehicle. That would mean no drunk driving crashes if it were impossible for drunk drivers to drive. If such technology were widely deployed in cars, approximately 8,000 lives could be saved every year.

I realize many may think this is a farfetched idea. But consider this: vehicles today can already give driving directions, thanks to GPS satellite navigation devices. Some cars can even parallel park themselves. New Mexico and other states require convicted drunk drivers to use an ignition interlock, a breathalyzer device they blow into before their vehicle's engine will start. The success of ignition interlocks for preventing repeat drunk driving offenses suggests a better technology could be used to prevent all drunk driving.

In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration partnered with leading automakers to explore the feasibility of in-vehicle technologies to prevent drunk driving. The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety Program--or DADSS--is a great example of how we can leverage federal funds with private investment to improve the safety of our transportation system. The goal of DADSS is to explore the feasibility, potential benefits, and public policy challenges associated with using in-vehicle technology to prevent drunk driving. The recent progress of this cooperative effort fuels optimism that such technology could be deployed within 5 to 10 years.

Clearly, such advanced technologies must win widespread public acceptance in order to be effective. They must be moderately priced, absolutely reliable, and unobtrusive to sober drivers.

Some of the industry groups will claim that this initiative is meant to stop all social alcohol consumption. They claim that you will no longer be able to enjoy a glass of wine with dinner. They are wrong. The aim is to stop drunk driving, not discourage responsible social drinking. If deployed the technology will be set to detect drunk drivers, those with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.

Development of this technology is also widely supported by the public, many of whom have a glass of wine with dinner. A recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety poll found that 64 percent of Americans believe advanced alcohol detection technology is a good idea and that it is reliable.

So, what would the ROADS SAFE Act do? This legislation would authorize $12 million annually for the DADSS program. This is not new spending. Funding for this program would come from the existing, and often unspent, Seat Belt Incentive grants program.

This is a smart investment in public safety. In addition to the human costs, drunk driving also has direct and indirect economic costs. Those include damaged property, medical bills, and lost productivity. In economic terms, drunk driving costs $129 billion dollars per year. Of course, such monetary costs cannot be compared to the value of saving 8,000 lives every year.

Several organizations dedicated to fighting drunk driving already support this bipartisan proposal. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Century Council, and the Distilled Spirits Council all have signed on in support of the ROADS SAFE Act.

I urge my Senate colleagues to join me, Senator Corker, and these important organizations in the fight against drunk driving. We urge you to support the ROADS SAFE Act. We have made much progress in our efforts to prevent drunk driving, but there is so much more to be done.

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

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

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, last month, my home State of New Mexico lost a great man when Mr. Evangelisto ``Evans'' Ramirez Garcia, a survivor of the Bataan Death March, passed away at the age of 97. The loss of a hero such as Mr. Garcia is felt not only by New Mexicans but by our entire country--which is forever indebted to those brave men captured in Bataan. I would like to take a few moments to honor him today.

Mr. Garcia's life tells a story of patriotism in its finest form. He served in two wars, earning a Purple Heart, Bronze Star, and POW Medal among other commendations, and continued to support veterans' issues long after he completed his military service.

Cutting his university studies short to enlist in the U.S. Army in 1941, Mr. Garcia and his fellow soldiers stationed in the Philippines played a vital role in the eventual victory of the Allied forces. They gave little merit to their own safety or comfort and helped to slow the Japanese advance, giving Allied troops the time to reorganize and reverse Japan's progress.

Mr. Garcia credited his faith as giving him the spiritual strength to survive the three years of inhumane conditions and atrocities he faced at the hands of his captors--including the 55-mile Bataan Death March.

Mr. Garcia's dedication to his country did not waiver in the following years and he reenlisted in the Army as the Korean war escalated. He served another year before settling down in Santa Fe.

As an active member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a regular volunteer at the VA Hospital, and a participant in marches commemorating the Bataan Death March, Mr. Garcia touched many lives through his continued support of fellow veterans.

For those who knew him it was evident that he was no less devoted in his personal life. He was a loving father, grandfather, and great- grandfather. For his family, it will be the times spent fishing together that they will remember and miss the most.

While Mr. Garcia was a hero to his country, he was a personal hero to two of his grandsons who followed in his footsteps and joined the military themselves.

Let us honor this hero's legacy, and all those who serve our country, by continuing Mr. Garcia's work and supporting those who have made so many sacrifices for our country.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my pending amendments, Nos. 49 and 51, be modified with the changes that I have at the desk.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my home State of New Mexico lost a great man this month with the passing of Mr. Ursulo Ortiz. Mr. Ortiz was 92 when he died on February 5, surrounded as he was throughout his life by his loving family. I would like to take a few moments to honor him today.

The word ``dedicated'' comes to mind when recalling Mr. Ortiz dedicated to his family, his country, and his faith. Mr. Ortiz was part of a generation that witnessed some of our country's most historic and all too often difficult moments firsthand. And he took away from that experience an appreciation for all the small joys life has to offer.

Mr. Ortiz was an entrepreneur with a strong work ethic, but he will be remembered most as a loving husband and proud father, grandfather, and great-grandfather.

Mr. Ortiz's dedication to our country is self-evident. He enlisted in the Army within weeks of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Coming from a land-locked State, he did not even know how to swim when he put aside regard for his own life to rush up the beaches and soaring cliffs of Normandy on D-Day.

Mr. Ortiz and his unit went on to liberate Paris and, later, concentration camps in the former Czechoslovakia. He was a hero and bringer of freedom, and served with honor.

For those closest to Mr. Ortiz, it is his dedication to his family and his love of life that will be missed most. He left a legacy for future generations through the family's weaving business, which he supported from the time he graduated high school until the day he passed it onto his daughter.

But more than that, his legacy is in the lasting memories held by those dearest to him memories of lighter moments spent listening to music and dancing. It is in those simple, everyday moments that Ortiz's spirit will live on.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 49, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this amendment is simple. It provides for a no-cost, fair-value land exchange between Dona Ana County in southern New Mexico and the adjacent property owners.

The Dona Ana County airport in Santa Teresa is a key component for economic growth in the region.

Unfortunately, when the land patent was granted to the county in 1982, it was described in aliquot parts. This created several triangles of land that have been difficult to improve because they meet at their corners an do not share common boundaries.

The county has requested the land exchange so that they may create a secondary access to the airport for general aviation. This new access would separate general vehicle traffic from taxiing aircraft.

The land exchange will also provide an alternate entry to the airport's fuel farm. And it will allow the county to expand airport capabilities to meet the needs of this growing community.

This region of New Mexico is growing and the airport needs to be able to expand to meet increased demand.

This land exchange will help achieve that goal and will improve the economic opportunities in this region. I hope my colleagues will concur that this amendment should be agreed to.

Amendment No. 51

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up amendment No. 51, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this amendment would significantly improve the privacy protections for passengers being screened by TSA whole body scanners, also referred to as advanced, imagining technology, or AIT.

In 2010, the TSA greatly expanded the use of AIT machines at airport checkpoints around the United States.

The image produced by an AIT machine is highly revealing and many passengers are uncomfortable being screened by the technology. Unfortunately, TSA's policy for passengers who refuse AIT screening is to conduct a full pat-down, hardly an ideal alternative for someone with privacy concerns.

There is a promising option to address the ongoing privacy concerns with AIT. New software, called automatic target recognition, can be installed on existing AIT machines to enhance privacy by eliminating passenger-specific images and instead detecting potential threat items and indicating their location on a generic outline of a person.

This month, TSA will begin testing the new software at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport, Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International, and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Senate amendment No. 51 would require TSA to have automatic target recognition software installed on all AIT machines by January 1, 2012. This will provide ample time for TSA to thoroughly field test the software and work with the manufacturers to make necessary adjustments.

However, by imposing a deadline, it will ensure that TSA and the manufacturers make the implementation of the software a priority and will eliminate the potential for unnecessary delay.

This is an issue that has received bi-partisan attention and I hope that this amendment will receive strong support from both sides of the aisle.

In closing, I would like to thank my chairman and ranking member for their hard work on the underlying bill.

It is an honor to serve with them and I look forward to working together on the many important issues before the committee.

Just to conclude, I thank our chairman of the Commerce Committee, Jay Rockefeller. I think both Chairman Rockefeller and ranking member Kay Bailey Hutchison have done an excellent job on this FAA authorization bill. I do not have any doubt that they, working in the committee, have pulled us all together. It is a remarkable bill because it is a job- creating bill. It is a bill that we need right now with the economic slowdown we have in America.

The other aspect of this bill that I think is very important is updating the air traffic control system. That is something that is terribly important. It is called NextGen. We are moving on to the next generation of air traffic control. I think it is important to remind people that we are behind the country of Mongolia when it comes to air traffic control. So it is very important that we get this bill passed.

I agree with Leader Reid when he said we cannot be on this forever. We need to move it along. I look forward to helping with that process.

I yield the floor.