>> you can wait around if you want to. the jump in from america somewhere. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to commend you and our ranking member for calling this hearing this afternoon. and especially i want to congratulate our colleague from new mexico, now that he is being selected or elected as our ranking member of this important subcommittee, the gentleman from new mexico. mr. chairman, thank you so much for calling this hearing. i ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be made part of the record. mr. chairman, this is not a new issue, as you know. we have been through this quite a number of years, when he was a member of this very committee before he went on to become united states senator. i think with an understanding of

the institutional history in terms of our treatment of native american peoples, mr. chairman, you probably more than anybody in this committee, in this congress understands and appreciates the problems that the native american communities have had to endure and to go through as part of the history of our country. it's interesting to know, mr. chairman, that our first national policy toward the native american in his was to kill the indians but the only good indian was a dead indian, is my understanding of our history. then the next phase of our history been with history was let's assimilate the indians, make them all like fellow americans. assimilation i think was our policy been. then another phase, change of our historical relationship with the native americans, and that is terminate the indian tribes. so in a period of 150 years, this is what we have had to do in dealing with native american community. so now the latest phase is to

recognize the indians as indians. and i can't think of a tribe that has had to endure this gruesome and awful experience, over 100 years now, the lumbee indians, the largest indian tribe east of the mississippi. recognized by the state of north carolina, 50,000 lumbee indians are not recognize, federally recognized, by the government because of bigotry, racism, and all the problems that these people had to endure. and by the way, they're still there in north carolina. over 50,000 lumbee indians are still not recognize. because the recognition process in my humble opinion, mr. chairman, is broken. i think we all understand historically the current system of recognizing, the process of recognizing native american tribes was never done by any statutory enactment of the congress. it was done administratively by the bureaucrats.

with all due respect, i got nothing against the bureaucracy. this was done since 1978, 34 years now. and i would number distinctly years ago, mr. chairman, the very person who wrote the regulations, and bring out these separate criteria that the poor tribes have had to go through in order to the so-called recognized, he came right before this committee, mr. chairman, and said the system is so bad even he would not have been able to go through the process of being recognized as an indian if the process was to be carried. this is exactly where we are right now. in terms of our treaty relationship, i want to always thank the chairman for michigan four remind the members of the committee that we do have a very special relationship with native american indians. it's in the constitution. we even had treaties with the native american tribes, i think

389 treaties we had with the indian tribes, and the federal government broke every one of them. now, that's pretty good. mr. chairman, i did interview is a build, h.r. 3103, to establish a commission statutorily by the will and mandate of the congress, and how to make the system better than what it is. we have had tribes of had to go through 15 years, have had to spend $300,000, some even in the millions, and still could not be recognized simply because the system simply is not workable and functional. so i cannot express my own sense of frustration, mr. chairman. and sincerely with your leadership and mr. lujan, that is subcommittee will seriously look at the possibility. let's mandate this by the congress. because here's the problem we have here. wind, and congress ultimately does have the authority under the constitution to recognize

indian tribe simply by introducing a bill. but here's the problem. when a bill is introduced to give recognition to a tribe, there is object and by some of our colleagues here that say well, they have to go through the recognition process. a process that is done administratively, not by the will of the congress but the way the bureaucrats have written these regulations for the past 34 years. so what do we do at the process is broken? it comes right back to the congress but what do we do from your? so i, be my humble recommendation, mr. chairman, that we need to put this in the form of statute. because here's the problem when you have a regulation, it can be done by this administration, the next administration will change the regulation. and the poor indian tribes don't know where to turn, who to turn to simply because of inconsistencies that we've had in getting with the recognition process. and i notice my time is up, mr. chairman. i didn't even have a chance to ask a question.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> great speech. the gentlelady from wyoming. south dakota, excuse me. >> that's fine. that's fine. >> two lovely ladies. >> that's right. and congratulations to ranking member lujan to your leadership on this committee is very important, and a very important issue that we're dealing with today are ms. tucker, i want to thank you for your testimony, because i come from south dakota and we have nine tribes that are already recognized by the federal government. they are treaty tribes and your story is not one i often get the chance to be. i want to thank you for that, and a testament today was not indian. it gave and education to somebody. and so i appreciate that. its tribes located in my state, it's important recognize that they're being recognized in a different matter and that longtime treaty tribes to have a different status than you do

today. and we need to make sure that in all of this process we have the discussion going forward, that whatever the decision is an action that congress takes we do it with integrity and that we recognize that our treaty rights, but we also recognize that it is our job to review the standards for which we recognize tribes into the future. and i find it very interesting as most everybody does you as well that the department of interior was invited but declined to attend. my hope is that everyone in the agency believes that this is an important issue and that they should have been here today to talk to our tribes, and to have a discussion on them and how they are recognized as they are located here in the training. the department of interior and secretary salazar should make this a priority. and i know that hearing from some of the tribes in south dakota that they feel the department of interior and the bureau of indian affairs are not making native americans a priority. and, unfortunately, their lack of attendance here today tells me that is yet another example of them not making this a priority. the federal government does need

to fulfill its promises. its obligations to tribes but too often they fall short, and that's not acceptable to me. and so, but i also wanted, supervisor dylan, at the bottom of your testimony on page five, i just had a question for you. one of the footnotes talks about you are not cognizant of the special relationship that happens between the tribes and the federal government, but that special relationship should not diminish the intensity with which the government dedicates tribal claims to join expand on that and what that means and your experience you have had with seeing they haven't litigated that with intensity? >> thank you. i would be happy to. what we found in the litigation that we have is that there were defenses, legal defenses that government put forth but then did not use. they haven't answered those defenses in a proactive way at all.

it's as if one might say that the bia is a bit conflicted, and another reason why we advocate that this process of recognition for a terminated tribe, tribe it was terminated by congress, should not occur in litigation with the bia. the bia is sympathetic to the tribe. they are not pursuing the remedies, such as latches, meaning they were 50 years ago that they were terminated and now they have come forward. the government has not asked for the kind of discovery that is required to establish that they are a try. and, in fact, when we, the counties, asked for that proof, the reaction from the tribes was to move the court to dismiss us from the case. and the government is silent on that request for dismissal but they have not taken position.

it's as if they think it's okay for the tribe to dismiss us from the case and for there not to be any proof put forward. so, spent so in your expense you've seen them bring this vote, the defense, to draw attention to them but yet you haven't seen them actually pursue them throughout the case as he is carried at? >> they put them on their initial response but they have done nothing spent our fair to finish the don't identify or you'd think they choose to ignore? >> yes, we believe that is the case. >> i would like to ask for your feedback, chairman gabaldon, as well as what your perspective would be as if you feel as though the government relationship with your tribe as they work through this process can if you feel as though there are defenses that they're working in cooperation with you on, or if you feel as though it's a clear separation? >> i'd almost have to defer to my attorney on this on the legal issues. this isn't really the place to discuss the case, but i can tell

you it's no cakewalk dealing with the government. >> okay. well, thank you but i appreciate you all being here today. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i think the lady. -- i think the lady. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and congratulations. i saw congressman lujan on the way to work this point but he was up early. let me first begin with ms. tucker. ms. tucker, i looked at your testimony, and it's not numbered but it's page, about page five i guess what you have your chronology, your timeline. and it says 1976-77 is when the initial petition was filed. and, of course, in 2011, you still basically --

>> we are still waiting. >> are you waiting from that initial petition? >> will know. the initial petition was returned in a cardboard box with i guess some of the data. most of the data, and a letter that we would start again. so now we have roughly 144 banker boxes, and after sitting and ready for active consideration for a number of years, we finally got moved in december at christmas. >> so what did they do for you in december at chris's? >> they moved us to active consideration. by that point in time we have probably in house written for petitions it anytime the finding comes out on a tribe, or anytime a court case is initiated by petitioner, it changes something. and we are required to respond to the change. because our petition will not be

judged on their current regulation. >> did you file any legal actions during 1976 and 2011? >> no. we haven't filed any court cases. it's very expensive to go to court, and we are a very poor drive stick is it is also very expensive? >> this was very expensive. i -- in the case of moving us to active consideration, we have been very fortunate that administrations for native americans had a funding that was available for tribes in status clarification. and our tribe was able to finally get funding that could help us defray some of this spent have you been giving any indication from the bia as to when they may make a final determination? >> my conversation, i testified on the process before in the senate, and my conversation at

christmas was they had a year to respond. i have heard from no one inside their organization assigned to us. i offered to come and meet with them, and they said that was not necessary, and that they would make a decision. i asked him at the time would they make an on site visit. because that's important that you come and see this community and how we live. and they said that they would determine on site if they thought it was merited from our data. >> you know, i of course read, the seven criteria is have portions of it which are timed in 10 said it would appear. for example, 50% requirement of marriages with in a geographical locations. now, have any of those criteria begin 10 now affect you or your eligibility? in other words, over this period of time i -- your population has

changed? >> yes, it has been our members are still located in a small area. as time has changed, if you look at the years between, let's say 1860, to 1940 before this defense installation got in our area, we are doing primarily second cousin exchange marriages. and it was holding us very tightly together in terms of one of those criteria they look for. at that point, as we are changing to time and becoming a more modern nation, people are coming and going and moving more, yes, it does affect, do you have 50% married to one another. >> i don't know if my colleagues feel like this is a criteria, you know, 50% of the marriages in the group are between marriages? so like you said, you are a second cousin -- >> exactly. we did second cousin exchange but another requirement.

when you're looking at it, every 10 years they would like an anthropologist report that someone came from where i live in the remote swamps of florida where wasn't allowed and we were probably have not been treated and come there anyway. it's hard to be tactful sometimes on how i see things. but, you know, when you're looking at a place that we could finally stand up and fight in 1940 and safety we are, you didn't get rid of all of us. and now they say that's great. and then in 1900, can you show me where the anthropologist said you are here? know i can't. so that's the kind of regulations you deal with. >> thank you. my time is up. thank you spent i apologize for taking too much time. >> no, that's fine. you clarified a lot. >> and we do have more time for you. mr. thompson, we don't have anybody else on our site. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for allowing me to sit in on today's hearing.

and mr. lujan, congratulations on your ascension to the ranking member position. i know you will do a fantastic job. thank you to all the witnesses who came today to testify on this very important issue. i want to begin by saying that i ally myself with the chairman, and i believe the other members who have gone on record stating that they believe in it is up to congress to make these determinations, not the courts, not the department. and also, i ally myself with mr. denham. i'm quite honestly a little flabbergasted that the interior is not here. most of my questions are for them, number one, but they have been absent on my side of the discussion in regard to this issue. and i really think that any to participate so we can figure out how to best make these determinations, they need to be a part of that process.

i just have a couple of questions. chairwoman tucker, are you suing or are you pursuing legislation speak with no, sir we been in the legislative process 34 years and now we've come to congress. >> in that case i also ally myself with chairwoman tucker as the chairmen of the committees in regard to the proper process for making these determinations. ms. dillon, what's the current status of the litigation? >> currently we're waiting for a determination from the court as to whether the tribal council's motion to have us dismissed from the case will be granted or not. >> and is there also some other information that you are waiting on as party to this is? >> well, we have never received any information from the tribe that we have asked for.

our discovery demands have been ignored. >> mr. gabaldon, is there a reason why you haven't been forthcoming with information regarding the folks who are enrolled in your tribe and status of? >> yes, there is a reason to we don't feel it's the county's business has to do the job of the department of the interior. no county has ever asked for records, social security numbers, address and names of tribal members. so i want to correct ms. dillon when she says it was after they asked for discovery we remove them. we removed them because they had their shot in court. they filed nine notions to remove us. the judge denied all those motions and we kept going. so then they appeal that and lost the appeal. so we felt, what are they here for? it would be up to the judge to determine if they have a right

to have standing. and we feel they don't have standing so we let a judge make that decision as if they have stancu if the judge says they have standing will give them the information they need. >> so are the membership roles available? have they been released to injury or, to court, to where -- >> we have released them to the into. i believe in 2010. they have all of our records, and there is speculation that we don't belong to the original group. i'd like to make it clear. there is only one wappo group. >> who determines that? i'm assuming the department has that information. they are able to run the traps and figure out if folks are who they say they are. if there's a continuity of

tribal organization, tribal governance, is that correct the? >> yeah. now, what was your question? >> who determines the outcome is at the department? >> the department of interior, yes. >> so they have everything they need? >> we gave it to them like i said in 2010 but if they need a fresher copy, we will give it to them. >> and the department of, if i should you should go to court to settle this? >> when we asked for administration restoration, we did ask larry echo hawk to do that, and he advised to go through the courts. or through congress. and we understand that the our political challenges in congress, and so we wanted a fair shot through the courts as recommended by mr. echo hawk. >> so he recommended that even though he has all the documentation that you believe we determine your tribal status of? >> i believe he has a.

i don't believe they went through it. >> i have no other questions. thank you. >> i don't want to question anybody here today. i just like what you said, in the sense that shows the system is broken. i have always said that congress should have the authority recognition, and not the bureau. and i think it shows when the bureau is not here that they still think they have a deal. that's the trouble with this congress and has occurred over the years. we have transferred power to the executive branch, and that's always changing. there's no real standard to death seven or nine standard you have to meet, but we've had cases where they accept one drive and they won't accept the other try. i'd like to see this congress, this committee work together and sit down with the people at the table and other tribes, that

wish to be recognized and said at a criteria that we make a judgment on. and it may be difficult but i'll tell you, it will be a lot stronger and a lot better. i don't like the interior recognizing tribes without any input at all. even when they want to recognize. didn't ask to be. i don't think that was the right thing to do. they overstepped their boundaries to do have a question or comment? >> could i ask in regard to the department of the interior, are you going, are they going to come to the committee to ask questions? and the questions that i had -- >> i said we will have another hearing, and i'm not saying, we've got people from virginia here in this room, but we're going to move that bill again, and we will see what happens. i suggest you talk to the senate side. because the state, i think state recognizes, your state, ms. tucker, do they recognize you? >> we have no recognition -- we were honored in 1984 and

recognize in 1986. i have language from the people sending it back and forth, and since we had no ink information they had nowhere to codify to put us. so we are a de facto state recognition. >> okay. and again, i believe, mr. weaver, you've been recognized by the state? >> yes, we had. >> and if you recognized by the state, and i know the virginia tribes were, mr. moran specifically show that to us, and i just think for some reason there's a shortage of wisdom and the interior department. at us to believe, my good colleagues, that although it would take some time and effort i think we have the responsibility trust was. we shouldn't transfer power to the executive branch but we are doing it. we have done it over and over with all kinds of different walks of our lives, and i think in this case because of the nation to nation trusted authority, we have to do a

better job. and we're going to try to do that. any other comments from any other members? mr. lujan? >> mr. chairman, two quick questions. >> go ahead. >> mr. gabaldon, one of the criteria, 25 cfr -- 83.7 g. it states that the district demonstrates neither petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation has expressly terminated or federal relationship. and i'm sorry, i didn't hear the question. >> section g. states that if you don't meet this criteria, there's no administrative relief, or no relief that you had the opportunity to pursue something administrative. what the states is the criteria is the petitioner demonstrates that neither petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation that has expressed passionate expressly relationship.

would your tribe fall into that? would you meet the criteria speak with we don't meet the criteria. that's why we weren't able to use the petition process. >> i just think that's important to note as we talk about this, some of the aspects associate with judicial i think recommendations from former assistant secretary ago hoc in your pacific that may be one of her areas but it's something that is important to note. because the tribe is in a situation where the land that is held, privately held, and is not public land in that area, has not been talked about by the tribe at all? >> i'll tell you know land has been talked about by the try. the only land that we possibly see from the federal government was yelling land that doesn't require dashing blm land because it's already in federal trust. so we weren't seeking land like the old reservation that is in

private hands know. i will tell you in the beginning we did seek that land, and it was to make a statement to the federal government saying we won it back immediately. if you look at our first amended complaint, we have changed that because we understood that it ruffled the feathers of the county saying you need to go through the process. we are not deny the fact we have to go through the process, and we surely will. but right now it's not about land. it's about restoration, and it's always been about restoration. >> i appreciate the. thank you for indulging, mr. chairman. appreciate the dedication spent any other questions? if not i want to -- >> yes, i would like to acknowledge what you said about congress' ability to empower afford to recognize it as of april 2011, according to this gao report, of the 564 tracks that have been recognize, 530 of them were through congress. so i trust the collective wisdom of the congress, and i

appreciate the fact that virginia tribes did gain recognition through the house. so again, i'm very optimistic that the right thing will happen spent and if i can be a little bit snide here, i prefer going through this way, and not through lawyers. and for those in the audience, if your hair is rising, good. i am being very forced on the money that is spent on legal advice when it should be directly, not money, but the petition to the congress. and i have a couple of lawyers sitting in so i would be careful. i just, i watch it every day, and it's a great industry that very frankly produces nothing. it absorbs money. and that's a terrible thing. a short, and i will adjourn mr. go ahead spent my short comment is a lawyer that we're using is very helpful and he did a lot of it pro bono.

so -- >> well, he must be an angel. there are damn few of them. [laughter] >> this meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate gavels in awaiting agreement on a number of programs that are set to expire at the end of next month, including transportation programs, student loan interest rates at the national flood insurance program. senate democratic whip dick

durbin announced yesterday that all three are likely to be combined into one bill by the end of today. transportation programs will continue under current levels for another two years, that measure would give the state more flexible spending their highway funds. federal student loans will will. continue at the current 3.4% for one more year. the original flood insurance legislation continues the program with some changes for another five years. and now to live debate in the u.s.ay senate. god of liberty, as our nation prepares to celebrate its independence, we thank you that the rights of its citizens come from you. we praise you not only for the unalienable rights in the declaration of independence and constitution, but for the liberty

we have in you: freedom from guilt, sin, addiction and fear. use our lawmakers to protect and defend the freedoms for which so many have given their lives. inspire our senators to keep your teachings in their hearts so that they may live for you. we commit this day to you and thank you in advance for your presence and power. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states

of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., june 28, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 341, s. 2237. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar numbered 341, s. 2237, a bill to provide a temporary income tax credit for increased payroll and extend bonus depreciation for an additional year, and for other purposes.

mr. reid: mr. president, the next hour will be divided between the republicans and democrats. the republicans will control the first half. the majority will control the final half. it was last night but just barely when we finally worked out some agreement on the piece of legislation we're dealing with. the house posted that last night just before midnight to meet their rules. it includes the transportation conference and flood insurance and student loans in one package. mr. president, i say to all my senators that we're going to finish this before we leave. i hope we can do it today. we certainly can if the will is there. otherwise, if it takes tomorrow or whatever, we have to finish the bill. i know everyone has lots of things to do, but we have to finish this legislation.

the student loan expires at the end of the month. the highway program has to be completed by the end of the month. the work that has been done has been hard. i met with the democratic chairs yesterday at noon. i explained to everyone we were trying to work our way through this. my veteran legislators, chairman of major -- of all the committees here in the senate. i explain to them we talk a lot about compromise being the -- what legislation is all about. legislation is the art of compromise, consensus building. but when it comes right down to doing that, it's hard for senators to give up things that they want. mr. president, this is a bill that affects almost three million people. that is, just the transportation part of it.

the flood part, seven million people. the student loan, seven million people. so, mr. president, everyone had to give a little bit or we couldn't have gotten this done. i'm terribly disappointed in part of what didn't get done. i have always been a big fan of the land and water conservation fund. i don't have a better friend in the world than ken salazar. this is something he wanted so very, very much, but we couldn't get it done. so there is a lot of disappointment in many different areas, but this is a -- this is legislation at its best, and i say that purposely. it's hard to get these pieces of legislation done, but we got it done, and as i said, we're going to work through the process. there can always be -- with the

senate being such as it is, people can hold things up but they can't hold things up forever, so we're going to work through this. i think it's for the betterment of our country if we complete this legislation as quickly as possible. mr. president, s. 3342, i'm told, is at the desk and due for its second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3342, a bill to improve information security, and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this matter at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, a lot of things are going on in washington today, and i so admire the supreme court's ability to keep everyone quiet. i mean, it's really incredible that this -- we have had two -- we were going to have two major decisions this week, one dealing with immigration, one dealing with health care, and there has

not been a single word come out of the supreme court. that's -- i'm so impressed, but that's the way it's always been and i hope it stays that way. today, the supreme court will rule on the constitutionality of the landmark health reform that made affordable quality care a right for every american. millions of americans are already seeing the benefits of this law. i repeat, millions of americans. and democrats are very proud that we stood up for the right of every man, woman and child for life-saving medical care instead of standing up for insurance companies that worry more about making money than making people better. the supreme court's decision, being a lawyer myself -- and i know the presiding officer was the chief legal officer for the state of new mexico, attorney general. when you have been in the area of law, a lawyer, whatever the court does, we accept that. that's our form of government. we're a nation of laws, not a

nation of men, and so whatever the court does, we will work through that. if they uphold it, that's great. if they don't uphold it, uphold parts of it, whatever it is, mr. president, we stand ready, willing and able to work to make sure that americans do have the ability to get health care when they're sick. i look forward to the opinion coming out in the next half-hour or so, and we'll see what that holds. i know that will cause a lot of interest here in the senate, but we cannot take our eyes off what we have to do today, and that is figure a way forward on these other matters we have to deal with -- flood insurance, student loans and the big transportation bill. woulthe chair announce the business of the day? provided under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the following hour will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the

final half. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor to talk about a bit of a crisis that the united states is in right now. we're out of money but we're not recognizing that we're out of money. we are going to have to do some things for this country to keep this country operating so that the next generation has the same hope as the present generation. i think the best example of where we are is probably this highway bill. highways are important to this country. we need them to get from one place to another. we need them to move the goods across this country to keep the economy going. extremely important. it has always been funded from a gas tax until now. and it's a prime example of what's about to happen in all of

the bills that we do because we've run out of money and we haven't taken the necessary steps to solve it. when the bill came to the finance committee, i suggested that we ought to change the gas tax so that there was an inflationary rate added each year for the following year. that was the least that i could think of to do for highways. it would have added a half a cent a gallon. the price flunk due eights at the pump more than half a cent a day. -- fluctuates at the pump more than half a cent a day. i have to tell you, i really thought there would be some strong support for doing something like that, taking a minimal step. i had the amendment revised so it could take into account that amount. the simpson-bowles submission said -- this was over a half year ago -- that for the next three years, we need to raise the gas tax five cents per year

for three years, so we really ought to be at 7.5 cents or 10 cents in increase already. now, if we did that, the highway bill could be funded from highway funds, and that's a user fee. if you drive, you buy gas. if you buy gas, you pay for the highways that you drive on. i have been talking about this ever since we started on the highway bill and i haven't had anybody say to me you're wrong. we shouldn't raise the gas tax. i was really surprised. i thought there would be a huge outcry and that i would be in a lot of trouble for suggesting a raise in the gas tax. but america understands better than congress understands. congress. now, i've got to tell you, both sides told me we would not vote on that amendment, and we didn't vote on that amendment in committee and we didn't vote on that amendment on the floor.

of course, by my count, i think i had two democrats supporting me and two republicans supporting me, but we didn't even really get to debate it. we should debate it. we should go to the logical spot for highway money, the spot that through the history of highways has been used to fund highways. so where are we getting the money? well, we did raise the tax on people that have pensions, and that's very important. there's a trust fund. the pension benefit guaranty corporation has a trust fund to see that if a company goes out of business and it had promised pensions, then the pension benefit guaranty corporation trust fund makes up part of that. they don't make up all of it but they make up part of it, so it's an insurance policy for people across america that have

pensions. and we said that needs a little bit more of a jolt. so we did a couple of things. one of the things was to do some smoothing so companies wouldn't have to put quite as much money into the fund, and therefore they would maybe have more profit, and on the profit they would pay taxes and we can steal those taxes to put in the highway trust fund so that we can build the highways. never done that before. never done it to the pension benefit guaranty trust before, but this bill does that. and then there is another little bit of money that comes right out of that trust fund that goes into the highway bill. that's the wrong way to do business. you cannot violate trust funds. wait until the seniors who say don't touch my social security realize that social security is a trust fund and that we're violating trust funds. i think we'll hear a furor

across this country that will be unmatched if that's touched. so we're not touching that one yet. that's -- we have maxed out our credit cards. the united states -- you know what a maxed out credit card is. that's when you buy something and the clerk says i'm sorry, but there is a hold on your card, and when you check on it, you find out that you have so much debt with that credit card company that they're not going to let you charge anymore. well, we have maxed out a lot of our credit cards. we're relying on foreign countries to help us out with our debt. and you recognize there is a little problem in europe right now. the euro is having a real tough strain. eight of the banks that have a lot of euros have invested that in united states bonds because we're the safest place in the world. but if those banks collapse, they need their money.

between those eight euro banks and the four japanese banks, that's 40% of the money, almost 40% of the money that we borrow in order to keep our government going. we're at $16 trillion worth of debt. and what's worse, we've quadrupled the bottom line on the federal reserve. we have made money. we have printed money to four times the amount of money that we had three years ago. so we're facing some really difficult times, and we're going to have to meet up to those. one of those ways would be to raise the gas tax and to do the highway bill wait the hoi bill ought -- the way the highway bill ought to be done. i mentioned these trust funds and i mentioned them for a very specific reason. and that's because they found a

trust fund they could violent on this. and they did it very clever and they didn't mention it to anybody that's going to be effected by the trust fund. fortunately there were some diligent people in the middle of the night that took a look at that highway trust fund bill and they said, wow, they're going after abandoned mine land money in this bill. now, that's an abandoned mine land money trust fund. the money comes from primarily coal that's mined, and the money, the tax on that coal, is supposed to go to fix abandoned mines across the country. now, they found $700 million in that trust fund. that trust fund hasn't maxed out its credit cards because so far we're still mining coal in this country and so far there's money going into it. but there are really two uses -- three uses for that money. one of them is fixing abandoned

mine lands. another one is taking care of orphan miners. i mentioned the pension folks before, when their company goes ought of business, they get a little help. well, under abandoned mine lands, if a coal company goes out of business and the miners don't have any health insuranc insurance -- we're talking health insurance here -- then part of this abandoned mine land money goes to make them whole in the health insurance area. this was part of a grand coalition that came together to solve some problems that are involved with mining in america. and the companies and the employees and the states that were involved said, this probably isn't the perfect solution but it really helps a lot of people so we're going to do it, and we did it. we were able to override a point of order on the budget in order to maintain that trust fund and move the money from the trust

fund to where it was supposed to be used. for about 11 years, the money wasn't even taken out of the trust fund. and you know why? any time i asked about it and said we needed some of the money, they said, oh, i'm sorry, you'll have to put some money in there so we can take the money out. i said, what kind of a trust fund do you have to put money in before you can get money out? the money already went in there. well, here's how it works. the money goes into bonds and the -- and the bonds go in the drawer and the money gets spent. think about that. seniors have been complaining about social security trust fund and how we've been spending money from the social security trust fund. now, they were -- they were more clever than most people that are involved in trust funds because they figured it out. the social security trust fund has a whole bunch of bonds in the drawer. it doesn't have money in the drawer. but don't worry, those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the united states of

america. and europe is about to have a huge problem. now, it's kind of interesting. in america, every single man, woman and child owes $49,000 in national debt. actually, it's above that and it's growing daily. in one meeting i was at, i mentioned that and somebody said, "can i pay my $49,000 and not be responsible for the rest of it?" i said, that's not the way it works. eastern if you could do that, that's not the way it works. $49,000 for every man, woman and child in the united states. if a child's born today, you can tag them with a $49,000 debt immediately. why is that significant? well, you've probably watched greece and italy. greece and italy had to do 19% cuts. i mean, they cut -- they cut pension plans 19%. they cut employees 19%. they cut the number of employees 19%. they cut the services that they provide by 19%. they cut everything by 19%.

you probably saw that there were some riots in their country. if we cut 19% here, there would be riots in this country. well, here's an interesting fa fact. in italy, they only owe $40,000 per person. and in dprees they only owe $-- and in greece they only owe $39,000 per person. we owe $49,000 per person. and yet we're considered to be the safest place to put your money in the world. and i think that's right. at the moment. but if we keep doing what we're doing in the highway trust fund -- and it shows better there than any other place i can think of -- the way that we're fiddling funds, shuffling credit cards so that we're not using the maxed-out ones but we're pulling the money from somewhere else, it's got to stop, my friends. now, in this abandoned mine la land, they did construct the

bill so that they could get quite a few votes on it. they put a limit that above which you can't get any of the money, and it doesn't discriminate against very many states. it does discriminate against wyoming and so i have to make a plea that they not do that. they not do that. trust fund money needs to go for what the trust fund said the money would go for. so even if they decide to steal from wyoming -- and i hope they don't -- but even if they, do the money ought to go into the other states that are a part of the trust fund who were evidently clever enough to be sure that they had theirs underneath the limit that this takes money from. but i think over the ten years of the bill, it takes about $715 million worth of money. ten years. i did mention ten years. there's a reason i mentioned ten years.

this highway bill that we're talking about doesn't get all of the money from all of the places that we're stealing the money from in a short enough period to pay for the highways we're going to build over the life of that bill. after the bill expires and all of those things have been built, we'll still be trying to collect the money from the sources that it's been stolen from in order to pay for what's already been built. okay. what happens when we get to the end of this highway bill and we're still waiting for all of the places that we stole the money from to get the money in? where do we steal the next money from? we better raise the gas tax. we better take a look at what we're doing, and if there's a user fee -- and that's what it is, it's a user fee. if you use the highways, you buy gas. if you buy gas, you pay into this trust fund. although that's probably diminishing because there are cars that run on electricity now and that will probably be increasing.

alternative fuels will be increasing. and that will affect how much money goes into the trust fund. but just to meet the immediate needs, there needs to be something done on it. and stealing from other trust funds is not the way to do it. and if we get in the habit of stealing from trust funds, social security will have to watch out. and, of course, that will be the end of the road for a lot of people in this body if they start stealing from social security. but it ought to be the end of the road for people if they're stealing from other trust funds because it starts the habit, and we can't afford that habit. i yield the floor and reserve the balance of the time and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the

senator from nevada. mr. reid: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, it is. mr. reid: i ask consent it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm happy, i'm pleased to see the supreme court put the rule of law ahead of partisanship and ruled that the affordable care act is constitutional. now, mr. president, this is a long opinion, and we know that when we come back here after the elections, there may be some things we need to do to improve the law and we'll do that working together, but today millions of americans are already seeing the benefits of the law that we passed. seniors are saving money on their prescriptions and checkups. children can no longer be denied insurance because they have a preexisting condition. protection that will soon extend to every american. no longer will american families be a car accident or a heart attack away from bankruptcy. mr. president, i just had -- every thursday, i have a welcome

to washington. today they had a group of people from nevada who have or have relatives that have cystic fibrosis. it's been so hard for these young people to get insurance. it's not going to be that way anymore, mr. president. no longer will americans live in fear of losing their health insurance because they lose a job. no longer will tens of millions of americans rely on emergency room care or go without care entirely because they have no insurance at all. soon virtually every man, woman and child in america will have access to health insurance they can afford and the vital care they need. passing the affordable care act was the greatest single step in generations toward ensuring access to affordable, quality health care for every person in america, regardless of where they live, how much money they make.

mr. president, unfortunately, republicans in congress continue to target the rights and benefits guaranteed under this law. i'd like to give the power back to the insurance companies, the power of life and death back to the insurance companies, but our supreme court has spoken. the matter is settled. no one thinks this law is perfect. the presiding officer doesn't, i don't, but democrats have proven we're willing to work with republicans to improve the problems that exist in this law or any other law. millions of americans are struggling to find work today and we know that. our first priority must be to improve the economy. it's time, though, for republicans to stop refighting yesterday's battles. now that this matter is settled, let's move on to other things, like jobs. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

123450 quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president, 2 1/2 years ago -- the presiding officer: the senate is currently in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, 2 1/2 years ago, a democratic president teamed up with a democrat-led congress to force a piece of legislation on the american people that they never asked for and that has turned out to be just as disastrous as many of us predicted. amid economic recession, a spiraling federal debt and accelerated increases in government health spending, they proposed a bill that made all of those problems worse. americans were promised lower health care costs. they're going up. americans were promised lower premiums. they're going up. most americans were promised their taxes wouldn't change, and

they're going up. seniors were promised medicare would be protected. it was raided to pay for a new entitlement instead. americans were promised it would create jobs. the c.b.o. predicts it will lead to nearly a million fewer jobs. americans were promised they could keep their health plans if they liked it, yet millions have learned they can't. and the president of the united states himself promised up and down that this bill was not a tax. this was one of the democrats' top selling points because they knew it would never have passed if they said it was a tax. well, the supreme court has spoken. this law is a tax.

the bill was sold to the american people on a deception. but it's not just that the promises about this law weren't kept. it's that it made the problems it was meant to solve even worse. the supposed cure has proven to be worse than the disease. so the pundits will talk a lot today about what they think today's ruling means and what it doesn't mean, but i can assure you of this: republicans won't let up whatsoever in our determination to repeal this terrible law and replace it with the kind of reforms that will truly address the problems it was meant to solve. now, look, we've passed plenty of terrible laws around here that the court finds constitutional. constitutionality was never an argument to keep this law in

place and it's certainly not one you'll hear from republicans in congress. there's only one way to truly fix obama-care, only one way, and that's a full repeal. a full repeal that clears the way for commonsense, step-by-step reforms that protect americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. and that's precisely what republicans are committed to doing. the american people weren't waiting on the supreme court to tell them whether they supported this law. that question was settled 2 1/2 years ago. the more the american people have learned about this law, the less they have liked it. so now the court has ruled. it's time to move beyond the constitutional debate and focus

on the primary reason this law should be fully repealed and replaced -- because of the colossal damage it has already done to our health care system, to the economy, and to the job market. the democrat health care law has made things worse. americans want it repealed and that's precisely what we intend to do. americans want us to start over, and today's decision does nothing to change that. the court's ruling doesn't mark the end of the debate. it marks a fresh start on the road to repeal. that's been our goal from the start. that's our goal now, and we plan to achieve it. the president has done nothing to address the problems of cost,

care, and access. we will. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. a senator: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, it is vitiated. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, just last month we commemorated memorial day. memorial day is a day of remembrance, a day of mourning, and a day of gratitude. when americans from all walks of life gather together to thank

and honor the people we've lost, to honor the men and women who gave their lives in the service of our country. to acknowledge a debt that can never truly be paid. i rise today to honor army staff sergeant israeli noanis. staff sergeant noanis died may 12 serving in kandahar province in afghanistan. he was fatally injured by the detonation of an improvised explosive device. he was 38 years old. in the decade that our nation has been at war in afghanistan, thousands of men and women have volunteered to serve our country. in order to protect others, they put their own lives at risk. they leave their homes, their loved ones, to defend the freedoms that we hold dear. and nearly 2,000 of them thus far will not come home.

staff sergeant noanis was from las cruces, new mexico. he lived most of his adult life as a soldier. he was assigned to the 741st ordinance -- ordnance company, 84th ordnance disposal battalion. he served two tours of duty in iraq and after returning from iraq in 2010 he enenlisted for six more years. his unit deployed to afghanistan earlier this year. time and again, he answered the call of his country. president kennedy said that stories of past courage can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration but they cannot supply courage itself, for this each man must look into his own soul. in iraq, in afghanistan, wherever this country needed

him, staff sergeant noanis had that courage. despite the danger, despite the risk, he went where his country sent him. with commitment, with determination, and with an unflinching sense of duty. he was awarded the bronze star and the purple heart. there is sorrow in his death, but also inspiration in his life. this courageous soldier loved his family. he loved his country, he made the ultimate sacrifice defending it. he leaves behind two children, israeli and lorisa. he has left them far too soon. abraham lincoln said it best almost 150 years ago. there is little our words can do to add or distract on these -- detract on these solemn occasions. but i offer my deepest sympathies to the family of staff sergeant israel noanis.

we honor his courage, we honor his sacrifice and we mourn your loss. mr. president, i would ask that the additional comments that i'm going to make on the health care be put -- ask county it be put in a different place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, it will be so. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. we have had this historic ruling today. i know the presiding officer has been following this closely. we all have been following this closely. and the supreme court has upheld the affordable care act. but what we hear the call on the republican side and the affordable care act has moved us forward but the call on the republican side is for full repeal of the law now. so their legislative objective, i guess, is going to be introduce a piece of legislation, we'll have a vote

here on the floor for full repeal. and i just wanted to remind new mexicans in particular what is at stake when we talk about full repeal. first of all, insurance companies today with the affordable care act in place cannot deny coverage if you have a preexisting condition. that's something that's tremendously important to new mexicans. if have you a young child that has cancer, and you have to get insurance, they can't deny it because of a preexisting condition. now, there's no doubt that we can improve upon the law, but new mexico has already received more than $200 million in grants and loans to establish insurance exchange, strengthen community health centers, train new health professionals, and so much more. and since passing the law, more

than 26,000 young adults under 26 years old have been allowed to stay on their parents' insurance plans. almost 20,000 new mexico seniors on medicare received a rebate to help cover prescription costs when they hit the doughnut hole in 2010. and 285,000 new mexicans with private health insurance no longer have to pay a deductible or co-payment for preventive health care like physicals, cancer screenings, and vaccinations and more is yet to come under the affordable care act. so this is the contrast we have. we have some calling for full repeal, we have others -- others of us who recognize that there are significant things that have been done, significant things that have been accomplished, and we want to work for -- work further with the other side in a

bipartisan way to put aside bipartisanship and move forward with improving our health care system. with that, i would note the absence of a quorum. i with withhold my request on the absence of a quorum. mr. president, i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: the requests are agreed to, without objection, and will be printed in the record. mr. udall: and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, it is rescinded.

mr. cornyn: mr. president, this morning's decision by the united states supreme court has clarified some things. it has made other things more mottled. it has clarified the upcoming election of 2012. the only way to stop the overreaching of the federal government, including the president's flawed health care bill is to elect a new president and a congress that will repeal and replace this fundamentally flawed law. before the health care bill became law, the president repeatedly assured the american people that he would not raise taxes on the middle class. he declared emphatically that the individual mandate was -- quote -- "absolutely not a tax increase" -- close quote. but the supreme court of the united states has made absolutely clear that the only way obamacare can be upheld as

within the constitutional power of congress is to be -- is for it to be considered a tax increase and a tax increase on every single american, regardless of income. the president also told us his health care law would reduce premiums by $2,500 for the average family. that was another broken promise. last year the average american family with employer-sponsored insurance saw their premiums rise by $1,200. the case against this health care legislation is very simple. it relies on massive tax increases, job-killing regulations, and government coercion. it will replace washington -- it will place washington bureaucrats between patients and their doctors, and it will cause millions of americans to lose

their current insurance covera coverage. so much for, if you like it, you can keep it. and, as we now know, obamacare has made the problem of rising health care costs worse, not better. so for these reasons and more, we need to repeal this entire piece of legislation and start over. we all share the goal of expan expanding health care coverage, but there are good ways and bad ways to do it. the authors of obamacare chose a fundamentally flawed way, yet another government takeover. one of the more compelling things government has done is pass a bill under medicare for prescription drug coverage for seniors. rather than a government-run program, we created a marketplace for competition

where prescription providers are compete for consumers' favor by improved cost -- or lowered cost and better service. and indeed by using the discipline, the cost discipline of a market, of a consumer-oriented approach to health care, that government program came in 40% under projected cost. now, that's the only time that i know of in the health care field where the government has actually created a program that people like that's come in significantly under cost. we cannot continue to cut health care payments to providers because fewer and fewer providers are simply going to provide that service. we know that's true in medicare, where many seniors can't find a doctor to take them as a patient because they won't accept medicare's low reimbursement rates. we know it's even worse for medicaid patients because medicaid -- that government program pays providers a

fraction of what they would be paid if they were simply covered by private insurance. all americans should have access to high-quality coverage and high-quality care. the best way to make quality coverage and care more accessible is to reduce the cost. obamacare increases the cost. we need to reduce the cost mandate it more affordable -- we need to reduce the cost and make it more affordable. the best way is through increasinincreasing transparencd boosting private competition. those are the reforms americans want and those are the reforms that they deserve. unfortunately, president obama has made clear that he views health care reform as a vehicle for expanding the size of government and obstacles intrusion into -- and obstacles intrusion into the decisions that should be reserved for

patients between them and their private doctor. the president has put ideology ahead of basic logic time and time again. therefore, to ensure that future health care reforms empower patients and reduce costs mandate it more affordable, we need to put a new president in the white house. i yield the floor. mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, as chair of the health, education, labor, and pensions committee in the senate, the committee that drafted large portions of the affordable care act, and looking back at all of the hearings we had, the long markup sessions, working across

the aisle with republicans, working with the administration, finally getting it passed, signed into law, this is a great day. there has been a cloud hanging over because of those who don't want to reform the health care system. they wanted to keep the insurance companies in charge. well, we said, no, we're going to change the system. we're going to reform the system and make it work for people, not just for insurance companies. well, there were those out there that didn't want to change, didn't want to reform the system. and so they brought cases in courts and, as we know, it wound obstacles way through the courts, some deciding yes, some deciding no. and it went to the supreme court. i remember being there this spring for the arguments on the -- on this law, and we have been

waiting since for the supreme court to make obstacles decision. well, this morning, the supreme court gave a resounding confirmation that the affordable care act is indeed constitutional. now, some have been saying that president obama wins, the democrats win or the republicans lose, that kind of thing. i don't see it that way. what i see it as is a great victory for the american people, for the businesses of america, for our economy. that's what this is all about. it moves us forward so that every american -- every single american -- will have quality, affordable health care coverage, something we've never done in this country. that's why this is such a landmark bill and such a landmark decision by the supreme court. the supreme court's decision

allows us to move ahead, replacing what i've often called a sick care system, a system that will maybe get you to if you're lucky in the emergency room if you're sick but not one that gets to you before to keep you healthy. that's what the affordable care act is moving towards, a system with more preventive health care, more promoting of wellness and keeping people healthy in the first place, by giving them the coverage that they can use to access preventable, affordable wellness and preventive health care. the supreme court has made it clear what we've known all along: that those who want to block this law and who are now clamoring to repeal it, they are on the wrong side of this one.

they are on the side of history that you could go all the way back -- that didn't want to have a social security system. there were those. they were on the wrong side of history. there were those who didn't want to have a medicare system. they were on the wrong side of history. those who want to repeal this law can stand with them. they can stand with them in history, but i think history has shown that every time we expand rights of people to certain basic things that people need in their lives that we become a stronger country, a more unified country, a better country, with more opportunity for all. for those of us -- for those of us who believe