Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to mark a solemn moment for the Navajo Nation and for our country.

In the past month, three of America's veterans passed away: Willie Begay, Thomas Claw, and John Brown, Jr. These men were members of the small group of marines known as the Navajo Code Talkers. Their story is one of the most compelling in American military history.

In May of 1942, 29 Navajo Indians arrived at Camp Pendleton in California. They were there to develop a code that could be deployed easily and would not be cracked by Japanese cryptographers.

Over the course of the war, the original 29 became a team of roughly 400 Navajos responsible for building and using their code. Their success in that mission helped the Marines capture Iwo Jima. It contributed to the American victory, and it saved untold numbers of allied soldiers.

As most World War II veterans were returning home with stories of courage and victory, the Navajo Code Talkers were ordered to keep their story secret. Their mission was classified. Only in 1968 was it revealed to the world. And only in 2001 did these men finally receive the recognition they deserved when they were presented with Congressional Medals.

It is often said that America's diversity makes her strong. During World War II, this country's cultural diversity contributed to America's military strength in a very real and concrete way. Because the Navajo language had survived and it had been passed down, Americans had a code that the Japanese were never able to crack--a weapon they could not counter.

America is unique among the countries of the world. Almost every other country on Earth finds its sense of solidarity in a common race and a common culture. Even countries as diverse as our own trace their heritage to some imagined community older than their political institutions. Our Nation has always defined itself by its ideals, not by race or culture. Although we have not always lived up to this vision of a truly multicultural democracy, it has guided our development and spurred our progress.

When the Navajo Code Talkers first arrived at Camp Pendleton, there were those who considered them less than fully equal. U.S. law had only acknowledged Native Americans as citizens for 17 years when our country entered World War II. Many of the code talkers were born as noncitizens in a land that had belonged to their people before the Europeans knew it existed. Yet 45,000 of 350,000 Native Americans in this country served in the Armed Forces during that conflict, including 400 Navajo Code Talkers.

The Native Americans who signed up to serve this country in the Armed Forces were sending a message that they, just as much as anyone else, were citizens of the United States of America, their people were just as much a part of this country's cultural tapestry as any other.

In the Navajo code, the word for America was ``our mother.'' As one code talker has explained:

``Our Mother'' stood for freedom--our religion--our ways of

life. And that's why we went in.

The Navajo marines identified their culture with their country. When they fought, they fought for both. In fact, values integral to the Navajo experience spurred them to fight in America's war against tyranny. As Americans who faced bigotry and injustice, they eagerly signed on to free others from oppression. As individuals who had lived with the legacy of aggression against their people, they felt keenly the need to prevent other acts of aggression, even if these acts were being perpetrated on the other side of the world.

The passing of the three code talkers--thousands of miles and dozens of years from the events that made them heroes--should make us all remember the great patriotism and honor all the code talkers displayed. It should make

us appreciate their work and honor their memory, and it should make us proud to live in a country where such things are possible.

As time does the work Japanese guns could never do, the code talkers are slowly leaving us. Only 80 of the original 400 remain with us. Too soon, these men will live only in our memories. Let's keep those memories strong, lest we lose the inspiration they can offer.

To Willie Begay, Thomas Claw, and John Brown, Jr., we honor your lives and mourn your passing. To all of the code talkers, alive and beyond, we celebrate your service. Whenever stories of courage and patriotism are told, we will think of you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise to support the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, and I wish to start by thanking Senator Kennedy and all those who have fought for this legislation over the years.

Watching this debate, I can't help but think of the movie ``Groundhog Day.'' In that movie, Bill Murray has to live the same day over and over. Like him, I have been here before. We have all been here before.

The FDA first attempted to regulate tobacco products in August 1996, almost 13 years ago. In 2000, a narrow majority on the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress had not given the FDA authority to regulate tobacco. But even as the Court struck down the FDA rules, it noted that tobacco poses ``one of the most troubling public health problems facing our Nation today.''

Immediately after that decision, this body considered legislation to provide the needed authority. That legislation was introduced by the Senator from Rhode Island and our senior Senator from New Mexico. They argued that the FDA regulation of tobacco was ``long overdue.'' They pointed out that every day we delayed, more kids would start smoking and more citizens would face disease and death. That was almost a decade ago.

Since the FDA first tried to regulate tobacco, more than 20.6 million American kids smoked their first cigarette, and more than 2.6 million of those kids will die because they did. Almost $1 trillion has been spent on health care costs associated with smoking, and 4.6 million Americans have lost their lives to cigarettes.

We do not know how many young people would not be addicted today if these companies had been prevented from advertising their products to our children. We do not know how many cases of lung cancer and heart disease could have been prevented if tobacco companies had not boosted nicotine levels and marketed light cigarettes as if these cigarettes weren't killers. We don't know how many lives were lost while Congress failed to act. But we do know that number is too high--much too high.

I first became involved with this issue when I was New Mexico's attorney general. In May of 1997, we joined a lawsuit that would eventually involve 46 States and 6 territories. In some ways, this lawsuit was like any other. My client, the State of New Mexico, had lost thousands of lives and billions of dollars because of the defendant. Our suit simply demanded restitution and damages.

But on a broader level, the tobacco cases were unprecedented. We were responding to a threat that impacts every American. The suit began in Mississippi and it spread to almost every State, regardless of politics or geography. We were addressing a national problem because the Congress had failed to act.

In 1998, we negotiated a Master Settlement Agreement that was an important step forward. But we knew there was more to be done. Some have claimed the settlement makes FDA regulation of the tobacco industry unnecessary. As somebody who helped negotiate that agreement, let me tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.

The settlement was not intended as a substitute for adequate Federal regulation. In fact, the agreement originally called for FDA regulation as an integral part of efforts to protect the public. The National Association of Attorneys General recently filed an amicus brief saying the settlement has not stopped tobacco companies from marketing to kids.

In fact, tobacco company memos demonstrate that their business depends on recruiting what they call ``replacement smokers.'' Companies used to strategize about how to attract customers as young as 13, and evidence suggests this strategy has not changed. Even after the 1998 settlement agreement, one tobacco company noted, ``market renewal is almost entirely from 18-year-old smokers.'' They do not say they are targeting minors. That would be illegal. But somebody is going to have to explain to me how you can focus your business model on 18-year-olds without marketing to 17-year-olds.

When I came to Congress after my service as an AG, I strongly supported FDA regulation of tobacco. I knew then the settlement did not provide the kind of flexibility needed to effectively control tobacco industry actions. Since the settlement was signed, the tobacco companies have shown us they will evade it at every opportunity. On May 22, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 2006 ruling that found tobacco companies guilty of racketeering and fraud. The original ruling contained 1,300 pages describing tobacco company efforts to endanger the public health and to cover up their activities. Many of these actions were taken after the settlement agreement.

The court found the tobacco companies ``began to evade and at times even violate the settlement agreement's prohibitions almost immediately after signing the agreement.'' After disbanding a research program, according to the terms of the agreement, the companies initiated a new research program with the same office, the same board, and even the same phone numbers.

Given the obvious dangers of tobacco products and the behavior of the tobacco company executives over the years, why isn't this product already regulated by the FDA? This question was answered implicitly by the Supreme Court in 2000, and the answer is instructive. The Court found that tobacco, unlike other FDA-regulated drugs, has no health benefits. In other words, tobacco is too unhealthy to be regulated.

Whatever you think of that ruling, it poses a serious question. Should an agency that regulates Tylenol be unable to regulate a substance that kills 440,000 Americans every year--more than--and think about this for a minute--more than alcohol, AIDs, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined? Tobacco kills more than all those combined. Is it possible that one of the world's most deadly addictive substances should be immune from the rules that govern almost every other addictive substance that can be legally sold in this country?

Some of those who have spoken on this bill have pointed out the FDA cannot solve the most significant problem with tobacco--that when used as directed, it kills the user. But the FDA can stop tobacco companies from adding ingredients that make their products more addictive and more deadly. It can stop them from lying to consumers about the health impact of their products, and it can stop them from marketing to our children. In

fact, the FDA is particularly qualified to do these things.

As I was preparing to come to the floor today, I got an e-mail from one of my constituents in Hobbs, NM, and she reminded me why this bill is so important. She had received an e-mail from a tobacco company. The company thought she was one of their customers, and they asked her to send me a form e-mail opposing this legislation. She forwarded their e- mail, and at the beginning of the e-mail she wrote:

They strongly urged me to copy the following message to you

and to vote against it. What they don't know is I don't

smoke. But my 12 and 7-year-olds do because they have to go

visit their dad, who smokes around them. Not only do they get

a lot of secondhand smoke, but my oldest one idolizes her dad

and will probably end up smoking because of him. So by all

means, pass the bill.

Congress has waited too long to protect this woman and her children. It is time to get this done.

In ``Groundhog Day,'' Bill Murray wakes up to a different day when he finally does the right thing. I am hoping we will all wake up after this vote to a new day--a day when our citizens have the health protections they should expect from their government. I would ask you to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation.

I yield the floor.

I rise today to support the nomination of a man I am proud to call my friend--Larry Echo Hawk. He is President Obama's nominee to be Assistance Secretary of Indian Affairs. He was approved unanimously by this body last night. And he is a wonderful choice.

Before I talk about why Larry is so qualified for this position, I want to say a few quick words about how committed he is to this job.

Larry was a law professor. And as many of you know, that is a pretty nice job.

More importantly, as a former BYU quarterback, Larry was named to be the faculty member who oversees the BYU Athletics Department.

What I am saying is, rather than spending his days being worshipped by law students, publishing ground- breaking articles, and watching college football games from the 50-yard line, Larry has chosen to serve his country in the Interior Department. If that is not commitment, I don't know what is.

We are very lucky that Larry is so committed to this position because I can think of nobody who is better suited for it.

Larry's resume speaks for itself. He has the kind of depth and breadth of experience that would make him equal to any job. Over the course of his career, he has been an advocate and an academic--an elected official, a private attorney and a marine. He has worked to put criminals behind bars and to keep children in school. He has fought drug use, domestic violence, and bigotry. And throughout this broad and varied career, he has retained a passionate commitment to his people-- the first Americans. As he moved from job to job and even State to State, he never stopped working to improve the lives of our country's Native Americans.

Larry's work has won him awards and acclaim from around the country and across the political spectrum. Just recently, a respected law professor suggested that Larry replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. This is a man who really could do anything.

And Larry is more than a very accomplished lawyer and public servant. He is a deep and innovative thinker.

Larry grew up in Farmington, NM, but I first got to know him when we were both elected state attorneys general in 1990. At the time, Larry was the first Native American to be elected to a statewide constitutional office anywhere in the United States.

And Larry's path breaking did not stop there. Shortly after his election, he began to spread what, at the time, was a very new idea-- conflicts with tribes should not be settled in court.

Back then, state AGs were in court with the tribes all the time. Nobody won those cases because the bad blood on both sides turned any outcome into a defeat.

Larry was the first to say, ``We can do better.'' And he was right.

I followed Larry's advice, and as a result New Mexico's relationship with our tribes was more productive for everybody involved.

The author Dov Seidman has written that, ``Laws tell you what you can do. Values inspire in you what you should do.''

Larry knows the law well enough to understand what is possible. But, more importantly, he has the values to know when it is time to expand the realm of the possible--to break old habits and try new ideas. He is a leader who can bring change to a Bureau that desperately needs it.

At BIA, we need somebody who can work with tribal governments and tribal members with an attitude of respect. We need somebody who combines a deep knowledge of Indian issues with the compassion that comes from common experience and common culture. We need a great mind connected to a great heart.

In short, we need Larry Echo Hawk. I thank you all for supporting his nomination.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Bingaman in introducing a bill to complete the Aamodt water settlement in northern New Mexico. Introduction of this bill represents a major milestone in the resolution of water rights claims for four tribes along the Rio Grande in northern New Mexico. Decades of work and negotiation have gone into the settlement, and I am pleased that the tribes, city, county, and community groups involved were able to come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial to all water users in the Pojoaque valley.

The Aamodt settlement resolves the water claims of the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque, and addresses the needs of the surrounding communities in Santa Fe County for water and sanitation systems. The settlement is a result of long negotiations between the county and pueblos, and will result in the development of a mutually beneficial water infrastructure system. This system will ensure that the pueblos have access to clean running water into the future, and will allow the surrounding communities to work with the county and state to connect in to the water system. I applaud the efforts and success of these groups in coming to an agreement that both settles disputes and benefits each community.

New Mexico is a State rich with tradition and culture, where water resources are scarce and precious. Diverse communities have depended on the on ground and surface water along the Rio Grande for centuries. As our population grows and communities expand to welcome newcomers, the impact on water resources in New Mexico is vivid. With such stress on this vital but limited commodity, conflict easily develops between communities and individuals, and in a State where the history is long and complex, disputes over water are uniquely complicated. But, ay. despite the potential for disagreement over water tenure, New Mexicans are united in a common respect for this resource. From the pueblos and tribes of New Mexico, to the historic acequias and growing communities, water is fundamental to both survival and cultural traditions, and is respected as such. The Aamodt settlement is an example of communities and tribes coming together to foster compromise rather than conflict. The parties involved have worked tirelessly to ensure that everyone has access to this precious and respected resource.

It has been said that the wars of the future will be fought over access to water. In New Mexico, we are setting a different precedent--a precedent of respect and compromise, one that will help us move into the future with well-established partnerships and a commitment to conserve and manage this vital resource to the benefit of all. I am honored to join Senator Bingaman today in introducing this legislation that will bring the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque and the surrounding communities one step closer to establishing a secure water future.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Bingaman in introducing a bill to complete the Aamodt water settlement in northern New Mexico. Introduction of this bill represents a major milestone in the resolution of water rights claims for four tribes along the Rio Grande in northern New Mexico. Decades of work and negotiation have gone into the settlement, and I am pleased that the tribes, city, county, and community groups involved were able to come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial to all water users in the Pojoaque valley.

The Aamodt settlement resolves the water claims of the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque, and addresses the needs of the surrounding communities in Santa Fe County for water and sanitation systems. The settlement is a result of long negotiations between the county and pueblos, and will result in the development of a mutually beneficial water infrastructure system. This system will ensure that the pueblos have access to clean running water into the future, and will allow the surrounding communities to work with the county and state to connect in to the water system. I applaud the efforts and success of these groups in coming to an agreement that both settles disputes and benefits each community.

New Mexico is a State rich with tradition and culture, where water resources are scarce and precious. Diverse communities have depended on the on ground and surface water along the Rio Grande for centuries. As our population grows and communities expand to welcome newcomers, the impact on water resources in New Mexico is vivid. With such stress on this vital but limited commodity, conflict easily develops between communities and individuals, and in a State where the history is long and complex, disputes over water are uniquely complicated. But, ay. despite the potential for disagreement over water tenure, New Mexicans are united in a common respect for this resource. From the pueblos and tribes of New Mexico, to the historic acequias and growing communities, water is fundamental to both survival and cultural traditions, and is respected as such. The Aamodt settlement is an example of communities and tribes coming together to foster compromise rather than conflict. The parties involved have worked tirelessly to ensure that everyone has access to this precious and respected resource.

It has been said that the wars of the future will be fought over access to water. In New Mexico, we are setting a different precedent--a precedent of respect and compromise, one that will help us move into the future with well-established partnerships and a commitment to conserve and manage this vital resource to the benefit of all. I am honored to join Senator Bingaman today in introducing this legislation that will bring the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque and the surrounding communities one step closer to establishing a secure water future.

Madam President, I thank Chairman Dodd for his hard work on this legislation. He deserves a great deal of applause and congratulations for putting the issue on Congress' agenda and for producing a very strong bill.

Nobody in this body or in this country needs to be told about the effect of subprime mortgages on America's families. We have seen the impact that unsustainable mortgage debt has had on our economy, and we know the pain it has caused. But while mortgage debt grew by 200 percent over a quarter century, credit card debt grew by more than 350 percent. Studies suggest that credit card debt plays an even larger role than mortgages in causing personal bankruptcies.

Even the explosion in mortgage debt has a lot to do with credit cards. Many Americans took predatory mortgages because they needed a way out of the massive credit card debt. A mortgage might have done them in, but their story started with a credit card.

Credit card debt is more than an economic issue, it is a families issue and a children issue. The explosion in credit card debt has taken a toll on all Americans, but children have been hit the hardest. In 2004, families with minor children were more than three times as likely to file for bankruptcy as their childless friends, and more children lived through their parents' bankruptcy than their parents' divorce.

We know bankruptcy has a devastating impact on families. Children in bankrupt families lose the comfort of a stable home. They can lose their ability to go to college. They might even lose more. Credit counselors report that families struggling with excessive debt are more likely to experience domestic abuse.

The explosion in credit card debt in this country was not the result of reckless spending by American families. Family spending on luxuries is roughly what it was 30 years ago. The face of debt in this country is not an irresponsible teenager but is a mother in over her head. Nor is our debt problem simply a matter of supply and demand. American consumers have not suddenly decided they liked high fees, harsh penalties, and skyrocketing interest rates. These expensive provisions are hidden in the fine print of card applications mailed to vulnerable communities.

Card companies call this outreach. I call it deception.

The reforms we are considering will not disrupt the system. They cannot stop credit card companies from providing credit. Any company that wants to help consumers live within their means has nothing to fear from this legislation. Any company that wants to offer a service to American consumers has nothing to fear. But if you are planning to mislead consumers, this bill will stop you. If you are planning to offer low rates and charge high ones, we will stop you. If you are planning to trick customers into paying fees and penalties, we will stop you. If you are planning to profit from the misery of American families, we will stop you. Frankly, it is about time.

Before I close I wish to quickly address an amendment offered by the senior Senator from Colorado. The amendment requires that Americans requesting their credit report also receive their credit score. For 6 years, credit agencies have violated the intent of Congress by failing to provide this information. Legislation passed 6 years ago required them to provide one credit report each year for free, but these credit reports do not have to include the one piece of information that is crucial and easiest to understand--the customer's credit score. The Mark Udall amendment will help Americans manage their credit without burdening credit agencies or anybody else. It is a good idea. I support it. I encourage all my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Joyce Gonzales had been suffering for 15 years when she was diagnosed. A cluster of blood vessels in her cervical spinal cord were giving her discomfort and pain, but for years her doctors could not understand why. When they were finally able to diagnose her, a quick operation relieved her pain and gave her her life back.

Joyce's second cousin was not so lucky. Her experience with the same mysterious illness ended in a fatal cerebral hemorrhage. She was nine years old.

Medical science has made great strides in unlocking the mystery of illnesses that have plagued humanity for centuries. Scientific breakthroughs have helped control and eliminate diseases that once threatened the life and health of millions. Yet for all our progress, we still face threats that we do not understand and therefore cannot stop.

One of these threats is cerebral cavernous malformation, also known as CCM, or cavernous angiomas. CCMs are caused by abnormal blood vessels that form clusters, known as angiomas, in the brain or spinal cord. If these lesions bleed or press up against structures in the central nervous system, they can cause seizures, neurological deficits, hemorrhages, or severe headaches. CCM took 15 years of Joyce Gonzales's wellbeing, and it took the life of her nine-year-old cousin. With more knowledge of this mysterious killer, both tragedies might have been avoided. With today's resolution, I hope we can move one step towards that knowledge.

In the overall population, about 1 in 200 people has a cavernous angioma, and about one-third of these affected individuals become symptomatic at some point in their lives. In some Hispanic families, however, the rate of prevalence is significantly higher. CCM is what is known as an autosomal dominant disease, which means that each child of an affected parent has a 50-percent chance of inheriting it.

In New Mexico, this genetic mutation has been traced back to the original Spanish settlers of the 1580s. It has now spread down and across at least 17 generations, resulting in what could be tens of thousands of cases of the illness in our State. New Mexico has the highest population density of this illness in the world. The States of Arizona, Texas, and Colorado may not be far behind.

Unfortunately, and in some cases tragically, many of those who suffer from this disease do not know it. Even worse, New Mexico and the Nation face a shortage of physicians who are familiar with the illness. This makes it dangerously difficult to receive a timely diagnosis and appropriate care. It puts potentially thousands of individuals at risk of a stroke, a seizure, or even sudden death.

This dangerous ignorance of a potential killer results in part from a lack of research on the disease. NIH funds only eight projects on CCM. This, despite indications from staff at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke that CCM may be a ``paradigm illness,'' meaning research findings on CCM could shed light on other illnesses with similar characteristics.

To fight this ignorance and save lives, I am introducing this resolution today to express the sense of the Senate that there is a critical need to expand education, awareness and research on CCM. I thank my colleagues, Senators McCain, Bingaman, Levin, Kerry, and Vitter for joining me to urge for increased resources.

This is only a preliminary step in the fight against this disease, but it is an important one. A Senate resolution would send the message that we take this disease seriously. It would encourage ongoing research efforts targeted at the disease and increase public knowledge that could lead to accurate diagnoses and saved lives.

In the long run, I believe a Center of Excellence is needed to advance research and provide cutting edge treatments for families with CCM. This Center would also advance science, health care, and medical education in the Southwest, while providing jobs for New Mexicans who want to serve their fellow citizens. An expansion of the existing DNA/ tissue and clinical database is also needed. The current database is underfunded, which means that it cannot accept all the samples that are offered. I will be working on both of these issues.

Before I close, I want to thank three people who have been at the forefront of efforts to understand and fight CCM--Joyce Gonzales, Dr. Leslie Morrison of the University of New Mexico, and Connie Lee, president of the Angioma Alliance. It is my honor to once again join them in this fight by introducing this resolution in the Senate today.

When it comes to diseases like CCM, knowledge can save lives. We can raise the public's and the medical community's understanding of this devastating disease with this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Bingaman in introducing a bill to complete the Abeyta water settlement in northern New Mexico. Introduction of this bill represents a major milestone in the resolution of Taos Pueblo's water rights claims in the Rio Pueblo de Taos. Years of work and negotiation have gone into the settlement, and I am pleased that the tribes, village, city, county, acequias, and community groups involved were able to come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial to all the users of this tributary to the Rio Grande.

New Mexico is a State rich with tradition and culture, where the water resources are scarce and precious. As is common in most of the arid West, this vital but limited commodity can foster conflict between communities and individuals, and in a State where the history is long and complex, disputes over water are uniquely complicated. But, despite the complications surrounding water tenure, New Mexicans are united in a common respect for this resource. From the pueblos and tribes of New Mexico, to the historic acequias and growing communities, water is fundamental to both survival and cultural traditions, and is respected as such. The Abeyta settlement is an example of communities and the tribe coming together to resolve their differences and find a way to ensure that everyone has access to this precious and respected resource.

The Abeyta settlement establishes the water claims of the Pueblo of Taos, the Taos Valley Acequia Association, the Village of El Prado, and the Town of Taos. These communities depend heavily on agriculture and irrigation for both traditional practices and subsistence. The settlement ensures water for both agricultural and domestic use, and facilitates the rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure. Additionally, the settlement helps to protect the quality of water in the watershed by protecting and recharging the wetlands areas of the Taos Pueblo's buffalo pasture. After years of negotiation, the parties involved in this important settlement have come to an agreement based on respect for cultural practices and a commitment to live as good neighbors sharing a common resource. I invite my colleagues to take note of the unprecedented level of cooperation, negotiation, and mutual support manifest in this settlement.

It has been said that the wars of the future will be fought over access to water. In New Mexico, we are setting a different precedent--a precedent of respect and compromise. One that will help us move into the future with well-established partnerships and a commitment to conserve and manage this vital resource to the benefit of all. I am honored to join Senator Bingaman today in introducing this legislation that will bring the Pueblo of Taos and the surrounding community one step closer to establishing a secure water future.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Bingaman in introducing a bill to complete the Abeyta water settlement in northern New Mexico. Introduction of this bill represents a major milestone in the resolution of Taos Pueblo's water rights claims in the Rio Pueblo de Taos. Years of work and negotiation have gone into the settlement, and I am pleased that the tribes, village, city, county, acequias, and community groups involved were able to come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial to all the users of this tributary to the Rio Grande.

New Mexico is a State rich with tradition and culture, where the water resources are scarce and precious. As is common in most of the arid West, this vital but limited commodity can foster conflict between communities and individuals, and in a State where the history is long and complex, disputes over water are uniquely complicated. But, despite the complications surrounding water tenure, New Mexicans are united in a common respect for this resource. From the pueblos and tribes of New Mexico, to the historic acequias and growing communities, water is fundamental to both survival and cultural traditions, and is respected as such. The Abeyta settlement is an example of communities and the tribe coming together to resolve their differences and find a way to ensure that everyone has access to this precious and respected resource.

The Abeyta settlement establishes the water claims of the Pueblo of Taos, the Taos Valley Acequia Association, the Village of El Prado, and the Town of Taos. These communities depend heavily on agriculture and irrigation for both traditional practices and subsistence. The settlement ensures water for both agricultural and domestic use, and facilitates the rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure. Additionally, the settlement helps to protect the quality of water in the watershed by protecting and recharging the wetlands areas of the Taos Pueblo's buffalo pasture. After years of negotiation, the parties involved in this important settlement have come to an agreement based on respect for cultural practices and a commitment to live as good neighbors sharing a common resource. I invite my colleagues to take note of the unprecedented level of cooperation, negotiation, and mutual support manifest in this settlement.

It has been said that the wars of the future will be fought over access to water. In New Mexico, we are setting a different precedent--a precedent of respect and compromise. One that will help us move into the future with well-established partnerships and a commitment to conserve and manage this vital resource to the benefit of all. I am honored to join Senator Bingaman today in introducing this legislation that will bring the Pueblo of Taos and the surrounding community one step closer to establishing a secure water future.

Madam President, I rise today because I believe the Durbin amendment we are considering today is more than a tool for solving America's current economic problems, it is the right thing to do for millions of American homeowners.

Like many of you, I had the opportunity recently to spend 2 weeks with my constituents talking with people at townhalls and community get-togethers around New Mexico. I heard one message over and over. My constituents feel that too often America has one set of rules for the rich and powerful and a different set for working families.

Wall Street can fail and still make millions. On Main Street, even people who work hard get dragged down. Irresponsible lenders thrive while credulous borrowers lose their homes. Everywhere you look, you see middle-class Americans paying for other people's mistakes. It does not seem fair.

Of course, the law rarely contains an explicit double standard. But today we are dealing with a situation in which it does.

If a real estate speculator borrows millions to buy a city block and then finds himself unable to pay, he can walk into court and ask the judge to reduce the principal on his loan.

If a working mother borrows $30,000 to buy that first home for her children, she is stuck with that loan. If she has lost her job, she is stuck with that loan. If the value of her house has plummeted, she is stuck with that loan. If she was the victim of predatory lending, she is stuck with that loan.

I have yet to hear a good reason why that working American should not have the same rights as every real estate speculator and vacation homeowner in this country. My constituents do not think that is fair. And you know they are right.

Sometimes you hear people defend unfair rules because they are good for the overall economy. They say that efficiency should be prized over equity. But that argument does not work here. By limiting judges' ability to reduce the principal on home loans, we are delaying the resolution of this country's mortgage crisis. Homeowners continue to struggle with loans they cannot pay, and the toxic assets based on those loans remain on the balance sheets of America's financial institutions.

Elizabeth Warren, the head of TARP'S Congressional Oversight Panel, has made the point very clearly. She says:

The law recognizes everywhere the importance, in a

financial crisis, of recognizing losses, taking the hit and

moving on.

That is why she supports the mortgage modification provision we are considering today. When judges have the power to provide a fair resolution for banks and borrowers, we will be one step closer to recognizing those losses in our housing sector, taking the hit, and moving on. In other words, the Durbin amendment puts us one step closer to fixing the financial system. For this proposal's benefits will not be felt primarily on Wall Street. Credit Suisse estimates that as many as one in six mortgages in America will be lost to foreclosure in the next 4 years. Homeowners know what happens when a neighbor goes into foreclosure. The whole neighborhood takes a hit. Property values drop. Local governments face another drain on their resources. In some cases, the foreclosed property becomes a magnet for crime and an embarrassment to the community.

For most Americans, their home is their largest investment. The best way to protect this investment is to stop unnecessary foreclosures. In my home State of New Mexico, the Durbin amendment would protect an estimated 6,665 homes and almost $376 million in equity. Without spending a dime in Federal money, this Congress can make a significant contribution to stabilizing my State's housing market and keeping thousands of families in their homes. This is not a tough choice.

Opponents of this provision make two related arguments. First, they claim a mortgage modification provision will raise the cost of home loans. Congress has heard testimony about this issue, and the evidence suggests otherwise. I will not go too deeply into this right now, but I encourage you to look at the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee of Adam Levitin of Georgetown University Law Center. Professor Levitin is one of a chorus of academics who has poked holes in the arguments against mortgage modification.

Opponents of mortgage modification also argue that loan restructuring should be handled by bankers and borrowers--not judges. I could not agree more. Unfortunately, banks have so far been very reluctant to voluntarily restructure home loans despite a host of Federal incentives. A considerable body of evidence suggests that banks would actually do better if they were more willing to restructure loans. Foreclosure is bad for everybody, and bankruptcy is even worse.

Congress and the President have worked hard to encourage banks to modify home loans. We have handed out carrots like a farmer's market, and yet we still have a foreclosure crisis. It is time to give the homeowners a stick.

The Durbin amendment does not let every homeowner march into court and demand a principal reduction. Banks have the opportunity to work with homeowners on a reasonable compromise. As long as banks are willing to negotiate, they will not face a court-ordered principal reduction.

All this legislation says is that banks cannot ignore their borrowers. They cannot stand around while working families struggle with unpayable loans. That sounds fair to me.

The debate on this issue can get extremely complicated. But the final analysis is simple: The current system is unfair. It is bad for working families, and it is devastating for the American economy. The Durbin amendment is a step in the right direction. I hope you will join me in supporting it today.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I also had the opportunity to be here presiding in the chair to hear the Senator from Colorado in his maiden speech. I want to congratulate him and tell him he has done an excellent job in the Senate, as I have observed him over the last 100 days.

I think Senator Bennet has hit on an issue that is important to all of us. If we are going to move forward as a nation, we are going to have to do it by focusing on education. It is heartening to see that we have a President, President Barack Obama, who cares about education with the same passion, I believe, the Senator from Colorado has.

One of the things the Senator from Colorado noted is that we have to focus on teachers. He talked about a comprehensive approach, an approach to education that is going to move us forward in the 21st century. Teachers have to be a big part of it. Parents have to be a big part of it. As the Senator from Colorado noted, based on his work in Denver and in chairing the Denver education effort, if parents aren't involved, we are not going to be able to move forward.

In addition, one of the big things Senator Bennet knows is, this No Child Left Behind law needs to be revamped. It is not doing right by our children. We have to take a look at that piece of legislation with the ideas that he mentioned and make sure we put into place a piece of legislation and a reauthorization that is going to empower our teachers and our parents and move us forward on the education front.

Again, I just wanted to congratulate Senator Bennet. It was a great start with that maiden speech. I thought the exchange the Senator had with Senator Alexander was a good one. It shows that we can work together.

Senator Bennet from Colorado has shown a bipartisanship in his first 100 days. I very much want to congratulate him and tell him I have enjoyed serving with him and look forward to serving with him for a very long time.

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

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

Madam President, we yield back all remaining time.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Hostelling International USA for 75 years of service to intercultural understanding and youth travel.

Since 1934, Hostelling International USA has hosted 22 million visitors in its 70 hostels across the country. These visitors came from across the country and around the world. Hostels made their trips affordable and gave them the opportunity to see more of our country. My State of New Mexico is the proud home of 10 hostels that give visitors the opportunity to see our beautiful landscape and experience our unique culture.

HI-USA works because of the many volunteers who help educate travelers, find sites for new hostels, and promote youth travel.

Please join me in celebrating 75 years of Hostelling International

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to some of the bravest soldiers ever to wear this country's uniform--the prisoners of war from the Bataan Death March.

For the thousands of soldiers who were surrendered to enemy forces on April 9, 1942, the years that have passed since have been filled with memories of what occurred that day and in the hundreds of days that followed: starvation, torture, forced work, captivity and death.

But in the 66 years since, the events at Bataan have conjured other ideas for the rest of us: bravery, sacrifice, and an unbreakable demonstration of courage.

``The Battling Bastards of Bataan,'' they were christened by Frank Hewlett, one of the last journalists to report on the troops before they were surrendered. For 4 months they fought, battling daily against the enemy, against illness, and against time. And when there was no fight left, when the time for surrender was upon them, they were alone. Neither planes in the skies nor boats in the sea appeared, ready to give the boost of firepower that would turn the tides. Instead, the men at Bataan laid down their weapons and walked into a hell that would last over 3 years.

Many survivors never recovered from their experience. Half died within a few years of returning home. Others lived on in physical and mental pain for the rest of their lives--a daily reminder of the experience they had endured.

But the story of Bataan is not just about surrender or the suffering that followed. By holding off enemy fighters longer than expected, the Bataan forces gave the Allies time to regroup after Pearl Harbor. Their sacrifice allowed Allied commanders to take the fight to the enemy. And they made a future victory possible.

The soldiers of Bataan also gave America something we needed as much as guns or tanks. They gave us an example. Their story inspired American soldiers to fight and committed American commanders to retaking the Pacific. Just as an earlier generation of Americans had remembered the Alamo, our soldiers in World War II remembered Bataan. We should remember it today as a place where America's fighting spirit showed itself to the world.

For those of us from New Mexico, the events at Bataan strike home particularly hard. Eighteen hundred men from New Mexico's 200th and 515th regiments left their homes to fight; half returned. These soldiers earned the honor of being the ``first to fire'' on the enemy on December 8, 1941--the day after Pearl Harbor. They and their families have spread the story of Bataan to their New Mexico neighbors. We feel the suffering they saw. And we take pride in their heroism.

For six decades, the Western world has enjoyed the freedom that the Bataan veterans helped to win. For six decades, our world has been more peaceful because of the sacrifices they made. And for six decades, those men have not received the honor that is their due.

This failure of memory hits particularly hard because so many of the men who suffered at Bataan were Hispanic. They fought and died in the uniform of a nation that treated them as second class citizens. While in uniform, many faced discrimination if they had Hispanic surnames or were caught speaking Spanish. This legislation will honor American heroes, including those who were asked to sacrifice and then forgotten when the fighting was over.

We must always remember the sacrifice of our soldiers, particularly during times of war. The men and women who risk their lives today must know that America never forgets those who sacrifice in her name. By recognizing the heroes of Bataan, we show our commitment to the heroes of Kabul and Baghdad--and to the heroes of the future.

I thank Senator Bond for joining me as the lead cosponsor of this legislation. His home State of Missouri had hundreds of soldiers at Bataan, including one, John Playter, who passed away recently this year but never stopped telling his story. I also want to thank Senators Bingaman, Inouye, Landrieu, Levin, Kerry, and Udall for being original cosponsors. I also thank the VFW and AMVETS for their support of this legislation.

I hope you will join them--and so many others--in supporting this legislation.