Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who served New Mexico and the entire country with distinction for more than three decades in Washington, a man who dedicated his life to being a champion for the least of us. That man is Senator Dennis Chavez, the Nation's longest serving Hispanic U.S. Senator. This month we mark the 122nd anniversary of his birth. In everything he did, Senator Chavez showed his concern for the underdog. He fought for public education because he knew what it could do to help the children of struggling families become successful adults. He supported farmers because he knew how difficult life can be in the small communities where the trains don't stop and the roads don't go. And he fought for civil rights because Senator Chavez believed equality of opportunity is the core of the American creed.

Dennis Chavez fought for the underdog because he was an underdog. Born into poverty in Valencia County, NM, Chavez walked along a difficult road to the pinnacle of political power. A child of an isolated small town, he would see the world and help to shape it. A high school dropout, he earned a law degree and became a lawmaker. A victim of ethnic discrimination, he wrote legislation that would eventually make employment discrimination illegal and, then, unthinkable.

Dennis Chavez was a man of conviction. He also was a man of courage. At the height of anti-Communist sentiment in the 1950s, Senator Chavez was one of the first to denounce the activities of Joseph McCarthy. Here is what he said on the Senate floor during the McCarthy hearings in 1950:

I should like to be remembered as a man who raised a voice

. . . and I devoutly hope not a voice in the wilderness . . .

at a time in the history of this body when we seem bent upon

placing limitations on the freedom of the individual. I would

consider all of the legislation which I have supported

meaningless if I were to sit idly by, silent, during a period

which may go down in history as an era when we permitted the

curtailment of our liberties, a period when we quietly

shackled the growth of men's minds.

My father, who died last month, served in the U.S. Congress with Dennis Chavez in the late 1950s and early 1960s. He always said what he saw in Senator Chavez was a visionary and a man of courage. When Senator Chavez left this world in 1962, he was eulogized by Vice President Lyndon Johnson. In that eulogy, Vice President Johnson remembered Senator Chavez as ``a man who recognized that there must be a champion for the least among us.''

Four years later, when the U.S. Congress placed Senator Chavez's statue in Statuary Hall, Rev. John Spence summed up the man nicely. Spence said Senator Chavez was ``ever a champion of the underdog, the poor and oppressed.''

But it is the quote inscribed at the bottom of the statue that best reveals the legacy of Senator Dennis Chavez. Written in three languages, Spanish, English and Navajo, it reads simply:

He left a mark that will never be forgotten in the hopes

that others would follow.

El Senador makes me proud to be a New Mexican and humble to follow in his footsteps as a Senator representing the great State of New Mexico. America is a better place because of Senator Chavez. For that, we honor him today.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Randy Fasnacht, a detailee with Senator Reed (RI) to the Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investments, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the 111th Congress.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Udall pertaining to the introduction of S. 3224 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act amendments of 2010. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, known as RECA, was first introduced in this body 21 years ago today. Proposed by the Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, this original legislation was a monumental step in recognizing some of the unheralded victims of the Cold-War era.

As the United States Government built up its Cold-War nuclear arsenal during the mid-20th century, many Americans paid the price with their health. Some were sickened through exposure to aboveground atomic weapons tests. Others were exposed to heavy doses of radiation from working in the uranium mining industry. All the while the government was slow to implement Federal protections.

As a result, a generation of Americans who worked in the mines or lived near testing sites became sick with serious diseases such as lung cancer and kidney disease and many others.

Much of the U.S. uranium development occurred on the Navajo Nation. That is where jobs in the mines and mills drew workers from the surrounding rural areas. These workers and much of the country were unaware of the dangers of radiation exposure, and this was despite reports from the European mining industry indicating that uranium mining led to high rates of lung cancer. There should have been a warning call, there should have been a wake-up call, but there wasn't.

In the ensuing years, rates of lung cancer among Navajo Indians went from disproportionately low to disproportionately high compared with the rest of the U.S. population. This was clearly a result of uranium development and related radiation exposure.

In addition to lung cancer, numerous other illnesses began to emerge in the men and women who worked in the uranium mining industry. These individuals were not limited to the Navajo Nation. In my home State of New Mexico, the Pueblo of Laguna was home to the Nation's largest open pit uranium mine. Workers from across the State came to the mines, especially from the economically struggling communities of rural New Mexico.

In the late 1970s, my father, Stewart Udall, took up the fight for these workers. In 1979, my father filed 32 claims against the Department of Energy on behalf of widows of deceased Navajo uranium miners. In many ways, this marked the beginning of the fight for compensation for all uranium workers.

I remember working those years with my whole family to collect information and push for recognition. It was a family effort to fight for justice, and for me it continues to be a family priority.

Ten years later, the original RECA legislation was introduced in the Senate. It passed in 1990, giving a level of restitution to sick miners and millers, as well as individuals living downwind of nuclear tests. Amendments to RECA have occurred over the ensuing decades, most significantly in 2000. That is when the act was expanded to include mill workers and ore transporters and expand downwind counties, among other things.

Today, with Senators Jeff Bingaman, Mike Crapo, Mark Udall, Michael Bennet, and James Risch, I introduced a piece of legislation that takes the next step in addressing the remaining shortfalls of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. I wish to highlight some of the provisions of our bill.

First, the inclusion of post-1971 uranium miners and workers as qualified claimants. While the Federal Government ceased the purchase of domestic uranium in 1971, implementation of Federal work safety standards was slow and regulation of mines was poor. As a result, thousands of miners and millers were never made aware of the dangers of the yellow cake they handled on a regular basis.

In recent surveys, the majority of uranium workers from this period reported they did not have showers or wash basins in the mines where they worked. They often took contaminated clothing home for laundering, unaware of the hazards, and with no other option for cleaning. Many also reported that ventilation to prevent unnecessary exposure was not provided in their work areas.

Today, these workers continue to suffer and die from illnesses related to radiation exposure. But because their employment dates began after 1971, they have no opportunity for compensation. Our bill changes that. If the measure passes, individuals working from 1971 until 1990 will qualify to claim compensation for exposure-related diseases.

The bill we are introducing today would also expand the geographic areas that qualify for downwind compensation to include New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, and Guam. And for the first time, the bill recognizes downwind exposure from the original atomic weapons test site--the Trinity Site in New Mexico.

This legislation would raise compensation levels for those exposed as a result of aboveground weapons tests. This would make their compensation consistent with their counterparts who worked in the mines and mills.

The bill would also facilitate epidemiological research on the impacts of uranium development on communities and families of uranium workers. It authorizes funding for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to award grants to universities and nonprofits to carry out such research. We are seeking to broaden the use of affidavits to substantiate employment history and residence in an affected downwind area.

Many who have suffered as a result of Cold-War uranium and weapons development did not have the documentation to prove their exposure. Often mines and mills did not keep proper documentation of their workers, and many communities impacted did not have a tradition of keeping birth and marriage certification. The bill would allow individuals to combine their time worked in multiple positions to meet the work time requirements for compensation in the original RECA legislation.

Finally, this legislation would allow miners to be compensated for kidney disease, and it would allow core drillers to join miners, millers, and ore transporters on the current list of uranium workers who qualify for compensation under the act.

Uranium and weapons development of the Cold-War era left a gruesome legacy in communities of mine workers and downwinders. For more than two decades now the United States has tried to compensate in some way for the sickness and loss of life. Today, we are taking the next step to close this sad chapter in history and to improve the reach of compassionate compensation to those Americans who have suffered but have not qualified under RECA in its current form.

In introducing this legislation, I honor all those who continue to suffer from deadly illnesses as a result of radiation exposure but don't qualify for compensation--especially those workers who began employment after 1971 and, thus, do not qualify for RECA.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to recognize these individuals and expand RECA to include all who are justified in receiving radiation exposure compensation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act amendments of 2010. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, known as RECA, was first introduced in this body 21 years ago today. Proposed by the Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, this original legislation was a monumental step in recognizing some of the unheralded victims of the Cold-War era.

As the United States Government built up its Cold-War nuclear arsenal during the mid-20th century, many Americans paid the price with their health. Some were sickened through exposure to aboveground atomic weapons tests. Others were exposed to heavy doses of radiation from working in the uranium mining industry. All the while the government was slow to implement Federal protections.

As a result, a generation of Americans who worked in the mines or lived near testing sites became sick with serious diseases such as lung cancer and kidney disease and many others.

Much of the U.S. uranium development occurred on the Navajo Nation. That is where jobs in the mines and mills drew workers from the surrounding rural areas. These workers and much of the country were unaware of the dangers of radiation exposure, and this was despite reports from the European mining industry indicating that uranium mining led to high rates of lung cancer. There should have been a warning call, there should have been a wake-up call, but there wasn't.

In the ensuing years, rates of lung cancer among Navajo Indians went from disproportionately low to disproportionately high compared with the rest of the U.S. population. This was clearly a result of uranium development and related radiation exposure.

In addition to lung cancer, numerous other illnesses began to emerge in the men and women who worked in the uranium mining industry. These individuals were not limited to the Navajo Nation. In my home State of New Mexico, the Pueblo of Laguna was home to the Nation's largest open pit uranium mine. Workers from across the State came to the mines, especially from the economically struggling communities of rural New Mexico.

In the late 1970s, my father, Stewart Udall, took up the fight for these workers. In 1979, my father filed 32 claims against the Department of Energy on behalf of widows of deceased Navajo uranium miners. In many ways, this marked the beginning of the fight for compensation for all uranium workers.

I remember working those years with my whole family to collect information and push for recognition. It was a family effort to fight for justice, and for me it continues to be a family priority.

Ten years later, the original RECA legislation was introduced in the Senate. It passed in 1990, giving a level of restitution to sick miners and millers, as well as individuals living downwind of nuclear tests. Amendments to RECA have occurred over the ensuing decades, most significantly in 2000. That is when the act was expanded to include mill workers and ore transporters and expand downwind counties, among other things.

Today, with Senators Jeff Bingaman, Mike Crapo, Mark Udall, Michael Bennet, and James Risch, I introduced a piece of legislation that takes the next step in addressing the remaining shortfalls of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. I wish to highlight some of the provisions of our bill.

First, the inclusion of post-1971 uranium miners and workers as qualified claimants. While the Federal Government ceased the purchase of domestic uranium in 1971, implementation of Federal work safety standards was slow and regulation of mines was poor. As a result, thousands of miners and millers were never made aware of the dangers of the yellow cake they handled on a regular basis.

In recent surveys, the majority of uranium workers from this period reported they did not have showers or wash basins in the mines where they worked. They often took contaminated clothing home for laundering, unaware of the hazards, and with no other option for cleaning. Many also reported that ventilation to prevent unnecessary exposure was not provided in their work areas.

Today, these workers continue to suffer and die from illnesses related to radiation exposure. But because their employment dates began after 1971, they have no opportunity for compensation. Our bill changes that. If the measure passes, individuals working from 1971 until 1990 will qualify to claim compensation for exposure-related diseases.

The bill we are introducing today would also expand the geographic areas that qualify for downwind compensation to include New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, and Guam. And for the first time, the bill recognizes downwind exposure from the original atomic weapons test site--the Trinity Site in New Mexico.

This legislation would raise compensation levels for those exposed as a result of aboveground weapons tests. This would make their compensation consistent with their counterparts who worked in the mines and mills.

The bill would also facilitate epidemiological research on the impacts of uranium development on communities and families of uranium workers. It authorizes funding for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to award grants to universities and nonprofits to carry out such research. We are seeking to broaden the use of affidavits to substantiate employment history and residence in an affected downwind area.

Many who have suffered as a result of Cold-War uranium and weapons development did not have the documentation to prove their exposure. Often mines and mills did not keep proper documentation of their workers, and many communities impacted did not have a tradition of keeping birth and marriage certification. The bill would allow individuals to combine their time worked in multiple positions to meet the work time requirements for compensation in the original RECA legislation.

Finally, this legislation would allow miners to be compensated for kidney disease, and it would allow core drillers to join miners, millers, and ore transporters on the current list of uranium workers who qualify for compensation under the act.

Uranium and weapons development of the Cold-War era left a gruesome legacy in communities of mine workers and downwinders. For more than two decades now the United States has tried to compensate in some way for the sickness and loss of life. Today, we are taking the next step to close this sad chapter in history and to improve the reach of compassionate compensation to those Americans who have suffered but have not qualified under RECA in its current form.

In introducing this legislation, I honor all those who continue to suffer from deadly illnesses as a result of radiation exposure but don't qualify for compensation--especially those workers who began employment after 1971 and, thus, do not qualify for RECA.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to recognize these individuals and expand RECA to include all who are justified in receiving radiation exposure compensation.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner for leading us and pulling us together in this freshman effort. It has been a pleasure to work with all of my fellow freshman Senators on the floor again and to join them right now. Last fall, we gathered right here in this Chamber to fight for health care reform. As a group, we helped lead the charge to make quality, affordable health care accessible to all Americans. Yesterday, the change we have been fighting for became a reality. With President Obama's signature, health care reform is now the law of the land.

This moment has been a long time coming. Teddy Roosevelt first called for health care reform nearly a century ago. His banner was taken up by a long and distinguished list of men and women who advocated for change. For too many years, New Mexicans, like Americans across the country, have struggled to find or afford health insurance. They have struggled to hang on to policies that get more and more expensive and more and more restrictive every day. With this reform, all of that begins to change.

No longer will insurance companies be able to discriminate based on preexisting conditions. No longer will they be able to dramatically increase rates without public scrutiny. No longer will 32 million Americans worry every day about what would happen to their families if they get sick or are in an accident. I am proud to have fought for and voted in favor of this historic legislation.

This reform will benefit all Americans, including our country's First Americans, the 1.9 million American Indian and Alaska Natives who have spent too many years suffering because the federal government hasn't lived up to its promise to them.

With this reform, we begin meeting our obligations to Native Americans by reforming the Indian health care system and permanently reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. This law, which provides a framework under which health care programs for Native Americans are delivered, hasn't been reauthorized in more than 10 years. As a result, American Indian and Alaska Natives are three times as likely as whites to be uninsured, and almost half of low-income American Indians and Alaska Natives lack health coverage.

With this reform, no longer will Native Americans be forced to suffer needlessly. No longer will they have to go without treatment for chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease.

No longer will they have to put off basic care like colonoscopies or cholesterol screenings.

I say again, today is a new day for health care in America. I am proud to have fought for, and voted in favor of, this historic legislation.

Yesterday, we began taking back control of our own health care. Today, the journey continues. I pledge to continue fighting every day to ensure New Mexican families and small businesses have the security and stability that comes with access to quality, affordable health care.

The reason I have fought so hard for reform is simple. For my constituents, the status quo is not an option. So it is the people of New Mexico I wish to talk about today. They are the reason I stand up every day and fight for comprehensive reform.

People such as Katheryn Whitesides--Katheryn lives in Clayton, NM. We met last year when she attended one of my health care townhalls. Katheryn worked hard all her life. She had affordable insurance through her employer. But since she retired, Katheryn's health insurance premiums have risen dramatically from $110 a month when she was working, to more than $800 a month today. Katheryn's insurer recently denied a claim for a treatment she received. Now, on top of skyrocketing monthly premiums, she also owes about $4,000 in medical bills. That is more money than she receives from 5 months of pension payments.

As Katheryn herself said:

It's unsustainable for me. And I know I'm not the only one.

I'm just looking for some relief--not just for me, but for

all those people coming behind me.

To folks such as Katheryn, I say: Relief is coming. This reform will make health insurance more affordable by placing caps on out-of-pocket medical expenses. It will make it more affordable by providing premium assistance through tax credits for low- and moderate-income families.

I am fighting for New Mexicans such as Katheryn, and I am also fighting for New Mexico's small business and for entrepreneurs such as Arvind Raichur. Arvind has owned a small business in Albuquerque for more than a decade. As the boss, he has made it a priority to provide his employees with good benefits. For years, he paid 100 percent of his employees' health care premiums, but he is not sure how much longer he will be able to do that and stay afloat. You see, for the past few years, Arvind's insurer has increased his company's health care premiums by between 30 and 40 percent every year, and there is nothing Arvind can do about it.

As Arvind said:

We've got no bargaining power. We've got no leverage. I'm

insuring maybe a dozen people at my company here. It's very

hard. The insurance companies give you a 30 or 40

percent increase and that's what you get. . . . It's too big

a bite.

To small business owners such as Arvind and their employees, I say: Relief is coming.

This reform will help small businesses by making it more affordable for them to offer coverage for their employees. We do this by providing tax credits for up to 50 percent of premiums and by creating small business health exchanges to build a larger employee pool.

In New Mexico, the vast majority of our insured are employed, but they and their employers can't afford coverage. These new tax credits will help our small businesses provide insurance for their employees at a cost they can afford.

For hardworking New Mexicans like Katheryn and for small business owners like Arvind, health care reform can't come fast enough. Katheryn and Arvind can't afford the health care status quo. Katheryn and Arvind are the reason I stand here today. To my friends on both sides of the aisle I say: Let's get this done.

I am proud to be part of this body as we cast our final votes in favor of this landmark reform. With this final vote, we will finish this leg of the race. I look forward to building on this solid foundation in the coming months and years.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case.

Despite much of the rhetoric surrounding this case, McDonald v. Chicago isn't a case about gun control. It is a case about our constitutional, fundamental rights as Americans.

Our freedoms in the Bill of Rights--including those of speech and religion and the press--are incorporated by the 14th amendment. They cannot be infringed upon by the states. The Supreme Court ruled on that issue long ago.

The issue in McDonald is whether an individual's second amendment right to keep and bear arms must be protected against State infringement. The case follows the Court's landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the Court--for the first time--ruled that the second amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

There is precedent dating back more than 100 years that reaffirms that the second amendment applies only to the

Federal Government. However, in 1873, the Court began to develop modern incorporation doctrine principles. These principles were used to determine if amendments apply to the States through the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

The Court in McDonald is likely to use the modern incorporation doctrine, rather than simply uphold precedent from its previous second amendment cases.

The Supreme Court in Duncan v. Louisiana summarized the modern incorporation doctrine, stating, ``the question has been asked whether a right is among those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions . . . whether it is basic in our system of jurisprudence . . . and whether it is a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial.''

I believe the second amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental, constitutional right of law-abiding Americans. And, like most of the Bill of Rights, it must also be protected from unreasonable state restrictions.

Since the Heller decision, three appellate courts have addressed whether the second amendment applies to the States. Two of the courts, the Second and Seventh Circuits, followed Supreme Court precedent. They held that the second amendment only applies to the Federal Government. This was not because the judges were in favor of gun control--as many tried to state during Justice Sotomayor's confirmation hearing. Instead, it was because they showed judicial restraint. They recognized that only the Supreme Court should overturn its own precedent. In the third case, the Ninth Circuit failed to follow Supreme Court precedent. Instead, it applied modern incorporation principles. It held that the second amendment is incorporated by the 14th amendment and protected against State infringement. Although I think the Ninth Circuit should have followed precedent, I agree with their analysis.

I would emphasize this: Even if the Court decides that the second amendment does not apply to the States, citizens do not need to worry that people are going to start taking away their firearms.

Forty-four State constitutions contain provisions addressing the right to bear arms. Most of these are much clearer than the Federal Constitution. They were adopted more recently and address specific issues such as concealed carry laws.

New Mexico's Constitution states: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

I am confident that our citizens' right to bear arms will continue, regardless of the McDonald decision. However, I believe that the Court will hold that the second amendment is incorporated by the 14th amendment.

When the Court asks whether the right to bear arms is ``among those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions . . . and is deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition,'' I have no doubt in the conclusion they will reach.

Mr. President, I rise to ask the U.S. Senate to resolve that April 5th-11th be known as National Public Health Week 2010. I submit this resolution along with my colleagues Senators Akaka, Begich, Sherrod Brown, Burris, Durbin, Menendez, Tester, Wyden, and Berkley.

Since 1995, we have recognized the first week in April as National Public Health Week in order to help focus the efforts of hundreds of thousands of public health professionals and organizations to educate the public, policymakers, and practitioners about the importance of public health.

This year's theme is ``A Healthier America: One Community at a Time.'' This is especially timely since I hope that we sill soon pass comprehensive health care reform and because for the first time, the next generation is not expected to be healthier that the previous one. This is also consistent with the First Lady Michelle Obama's efforts to reduce child obesity.

Our Nation's health is in poor shape. Despite spending more money on health care than any other country, more than 47 million Americans still do not have health insurance, nearly 900,000 people die from deaths that can be prevented each year, and we lag far behind the rest of the developed world in preventing obesity, HIV/AIDS infections, and many other diseases.

During this week, public health workers across the country will be focusing on how to more fully and effectively achieve a healthier Nation. They will be addressing the underlying social and economic conditions that encourage individuals and communities to be healthy, as well as shifting us from a Nation solely focused on treating individual illness to one that also promotes population-based health services that encourage preventive and early intervention practices.

For example, public health and prevention strategies from the foundation for health system reform. Community-level intervention has more positive health impact on people than individual interventions alone. Population-based programs address main causes of disease, disability and health disparities for a wide range of people and can help achieve increased value for our health dollar.

During National Public Health Week, Americans will be asked to champion public health by making healthy changes--big and small--in their families, individual neighborhoods, workplaces and schools.

I wish to thank the American Public Health Association for leading this effort and the National Association of County and City Health Officials, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and Partnership for Prevention for endorsing this recognition, and helping us highlight the importance of strengthening our public health system and encouraging Americans to value public health and take part in preventing disease and building healthier communities.

Mr. President, in the almost 9 years our Nation has been at war in Afghanistan, thousands of men and women have volunteered for service in defense of our country and the freedoms we hold so dear. These brave men and women sacrifice time with their families, with their wives and husbands and children and friends. They put their own safety on the line to protect the safety of others--to protect the safety of all who call the United States home. Tragically, some of these men and women make the ultimate--sacrifice giving their lives for a country and a people they love.

PFC Zachary Lovejoy was one of those brave soldiers. He was 20 years old when he died February 2, while serving in Zabul Province. His vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb. Private First Class Lovejoy spent the last day of his life doing what he loved. While his life may have ended too soon, his legacy will live on though the people who loved him, and through all of us who owe him our own lives and safety and freedom.

That is why today, I honor Zachary Lovejoy by telling the people of America about a young man who--from early in life--loved his country and dreamed of being a soldier.

Private First Class Lovejoy was born in Indiana but moved to my home State of New Mexico when he was three. He grew up in Albuquerque, the beloved son of Terry and Mike Lovejoy, and brother to Ashley. He was an active teen who loved football and wrestling and camping and skiing. He was an enthusiastic member of his school's ROTC program. Private First Class Lovejoy was a happy-go-lucky kind of guy, whose fun-loving attitude and zest for life was contagious, according to his family.

Even before he graduated from La Cueva High School, Private First Class Lovejoy knew what he wanted to do with his life. He enlisted in the Army during his senior year in high school and began basic training in August 2008. Private First Class Lovejoy was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC. He received his first deployment to Afghanistan in August 2009.

Private First Class Lovejoy's dedication to our country and its ideals made his family, his community, and everyone who knew him proud. Upon hearing of his death, the people of New Mexico--especially those who knew Lovejoy from high school--were shocked and saddened. They turned out in droves to leave messages for his family in a special memory book. And it is those messages that offer an intimate view of the legacy Private First Class Lovejoy leaves behind.

``You had such a big and amazing heart,'' one person wrote.

``You put an incredible amount of living in your all too short life,'' said another.

``It is an honor to have been a part of a true hero's life,'' wrote a third.

But there was one message that I believe sums up Private First Class Lovejoy's life best: ``Your last name described you so perfectly. You loved all your friends deeply, and spread joy around every place you went.''

To Private First Class Lovejoy's parents and sister and grandparents and fiancee Kaitlin, I offer my deepest sympathies for your loss, and my deepest thanks for your loved one's service to our country. You are forever in our hearts, and we are forever in your debt.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Udall of New Mexico pertaining to the introduction of S. 3039 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Madam President, 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 ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 to 2 p.m. today.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ROADS SAFE Act of 2010. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Bob Corker.

This legislation will encourage the development of new tools to fight drunk driving and has the potential to save 8,000 lives every year.

Tragic drunk driving crashes often prompt communities to do more to prevent drunk driving. This was the case in my home State of New Mexico back in 1992, 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. But it should not take a tragedy for us to do more to prevent drunk driving.

In 2008, drunk driving killed about 12,000 Americans, including 143 people in New Mexico. That is an average of 32 people killed every day by drunk driving. This unacceptable death toll is all the more shocking when you consider that each one of those deaths was preventable.

The United States has already made significant progress. 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. This is unacceptable. 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 that. That 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 with vehicles that could detect whether a driver is drunk when he or she gets behind the wheel--before he or she even starts their vehicle. That would be no drunk driving crashes if it were impossible for drunk drivers to drive. If such technology were widely deployed in cars, an estimated 8,000 lives could be saved every year.

I realize many may think this is a farfetched idea. Yet consider that 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 2006, Mothers Against Drunk Driving convened an international technology symposium in Albuquerque, NM. The goal of the meeting was to review efforts to develop advanced ignition interlocks technology.

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 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.

The aim is to stop drunk driving, not discourage responsible social drinking. 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.

What would the ROADS SAFE Act do? This legislation would authorize $12 million in annual funding for 5 years for the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety Program, also known as DADSS.

DADSS is a public-private partnership between NHTSA and the Automobile Coalition for Traffic Safety. The goal is to explore the feasibility, potential benefits, and public policy challenges associated with using in- vehicle technology to prevent drunk driving.

This increased Federal funding to combat drunk driving is a smart investment in public safety. Drunk driving has direct and indirect economic costs in terms of damaged property, medical bills, and lost productivity. In economic terms, drunk driving costs $129 billion 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 support the ROADS SAFE Act.

I urge my Senate colleagues to join me, Senator Corker, and these important organizations in the fight against drunk driving by supporting 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 rise to introduce the ROADS SAFE Act of 2010. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Bob Corker.

This legislation will encourage the development of new tools to fight drunk driving and has the potential to save 8,000 lives every year.

Tragic drunk driving crashes often prompt communities to do more to prevent drunk driving. This was the case in my home State of New Mexico back in 1992, 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. But it should not take a tragedy for us to do more to prevent drunk driving.

In 2008, drunk driving killed about 12,000 Americans, including 143 people in New Mexico. That is an average of 32 people killed every day by drunk driving. This unacceptable death toll is all the more shocking when you consider that each one of those deaths was preventable.

The United States has already made significant progress. 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. This is unacceptable. 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 that. That 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 with vehicles that could detect whether a driver is drunk when he or she gets behind the wheel--before he or she even starts their vehicle. That would be no drunk driving crashes if it were impossible for drunk drivers to drive. If such technology were widely deployed in cars, an estimated 8,000 lives could be saved every year.

I realize many may think this is a farfetched idea. Yet consider that 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 2006, Mothers Against Drunk Driving convened an international technology symposium in Albuquerque, NM. The goal of the meeting was to review efforts to develop advanced ignition interlocks technology.

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 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.

The aim is to stop drunk driving, not discourage responsible social drinking. 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.

What would the ROADS SAFE Act do? This legislation would authorize $12 million in annual funding for 5 years for the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety Program, also known as DADSS.

DADSS is a public-private partnership between NHTSA and the Automobile Coalition for Traffic Safety. The goal is to explore the feasibility, potential benefits, and public policy challenges associated with using in- vehicle technology to prevent drunk driving.

This increased Federal funding to combat drunk driving is a smart investment in public safety. Drunk driving has direct and indirect economic costs in terms of damaged property, medical bills, and lost productivity. In economic terms, drunk driving costs $129 billion 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 support the ROADS SAFE Act.

I urge my Senate colleagues to join me, Senator Corker, and these important organizations in the fight against drunk driving by supporting 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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for as much time as I may consume in morning business.

Mr. President, Chairman Schumer started hearings this morning in the Rules Committee on the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC. This Supreme Court decision completely changes the campaign finance landscape.

Fifty years ago when my father Stewart Udall and my Uncle Mo were in office, money had minimal impact on the electoral and political system. It was about connecting with people and the marketplace of ideas. Right now it is just as much about the biggest checkbooks, if not more so, than it is about the best ideas.

Unfortunately, we are about to see a lot more big checkbooks in the election process. Last month's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC was a victory for the special interests at the expense of the average American. We have seen firsthand the impact special interests such as big oil and big banks and health insurance companies have had on the legislative process. Now, with this decision, already powerful corporations and labor unions will be able to further open their bank accounts, further drowning out the voices of everyday Americans in the political process.

Members of both Chambers and the administration are working on legislation to address the Citizens United decision. I commend their efforts, but I

believe a comprehensive overhaul of the campaign finance system is necessary in order to restore public faith in our elections. What we are seeing here today is large special interests supplanting the voices of everyday Americans in the political process.

The Supreme Court has shown its willingness to rule broadly and ignore longstanding precedent when it is reviewing the constitutionality of campaign finance laws. The best long-term solution is a constitutional amendment that would prevent the Court from overturning sensible campaign finance regulations. I would welcome the opportunity to join my colleagues in introducing such an amendment.

While I believe a constitutional amendment is the ideal solution, I also think comprehensive reform legislation is a step in the right direction. As a Member of the House for 10 years, I joined Representative Dave Obey as an original cosponsor of the Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act, a bill that would fundamentally change how House elections are conducted. Mr. Obey reintroduced this bill in this Congress, and I intend to introduce a companion bill in the Senate in the coming weeks. The act does not attempt to fine-tune the existing congressional campaign finance system or tweak around the edges; rather, it makes fundamental, wholesale changes to fundraising by candidates, regulations of outside groups, and the role of political parties. It contains a finding that America's faith in the election system has been fundamentally corrupted by big money from outside interest groups. It establishes a system of voluntary contributions to provide public financing in campaigns for House candidates in general elections. It provides more funds than the current system for the vast majority of challengers to mount their campaigns. And it empowers voters with the knowledge that their vote affects the outcome of the current election and also affects the amount of funds distributed to nominees in future elections. It bans all independent expenditures so that only the candidate is responsible for his or her message. It provides for expedited consideration of a constitutional amendment allowing these changes if the Supreme Court rejects the plan, and it provides a process by which third-party candidates can also participate in the system.

Money can have a corrosive effect on the political process. We have seen evidence of that in campaigns at all levels of government. We have long needed substantive campaign finance reform, and it is my hope that the High Court's disappointing decision will provide the push we need to put elections back in the hands of average Americans and not the special interests who can use their unlimited bank accounts to railroad the process to their preferred conclusion.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.