Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 438, S. 2244, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:45 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of S. 2363, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act, and the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the bill; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, following the cloture vote, the Senate proceed to executive session, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, there will be a period of morning business until 11:45 a.m. today, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each during that time, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. At 11:45 a.m. there will be a cloture vote on the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act, as we just had approved by the Chair. The filing deadline for all first-degree amendments to S. 2363 is 10:30 a.m. this morning and the deadline for second-degree amendments is 11:30 a.m. this morning.

Following the vote, the Senate will turn to executive session to consider the nominations of Shaun Donovan to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Douglas Silliman to be Ambassador to the State of Kuwait, and Dana Smith to be Ambassador to the State of Qatar. At 2 p.m. the Senate will proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed. I expect a rollcall vote on the Donovan nomination and voice votes on the Silliman and Smith nominations.

Nominations

Mr. President, I was late coming in here today because I just completed a conversation with John Kerry, the Secretary of State of our country. Because of his travel schedule and my schedule and the time difference, it has been difficult for us to talk the last 24 hours, but we were able to speak as he was rushing to an airplane, going from China to Afghanistan. He called me to lament what is going on in the U.S. Senate about these nominations. He has 53 State Department nominations pending--53.

We have problems all over the world. We have the Afghan war. We have the problems with Pakistan. We have the Middle East, which every country there is in some form of difficulty. We have a problem in the Far East--all kinds of problems there. It is all over the news today. We have the situation in Israel. The Palestinians--rocket fire coming from Palestine; nondirected missiles, similar to the Fourth of July. They set them off. They don't know or care where they go. And we are being held up here as a country from doing the

country's work as a result of this stalling, this obstruction, the constant filibusters we have in the Senate.

We have these Ambassadors who have worked their entire lives. They are brilliant. It is hard to be a Foreign Service officer, but these men and women work very hard all over the world. They dignify our country. Then they work their way up to make it to this ``Super Bowl.'' They are selected to be an ambassador, and do you know what happens? They get stalled here--stalled. Who are the Republicans hurting? They are not hurting me. Is this some payback for me? What about the President? He has a country to run, a world to take care of, and we are being held up here. I truly appreciate today. We get two ambassadors. We only have 27 more to go, plus all the other State Department people.

The Secretary of State is a very busy man. He has been trying for 24 hours to tell me how bad the situation is around the world. He does not have people to do this country's work. Twenty-five percent of the Ambassadors in Africa are not there.

So I do not understand this. They want to hold up some of the President's nominations to be Assistant Secretary of this or Deputy Secretary of that. It is unfair. But that is fine. What they are doing to these Ambassadors is outrageous.

Measures Placed On The Calendar--S. 2578 and S. 2579

Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. President, what is the name of the legislation S. 2578?

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to both of these bills.

Madam President, for those students who are out there trying to learn what goes on in the Senate and for those professors who teach what goes on in the Senate, this is not totally new, but this is in the category of being fairly new.

This is an example of the Republicans filibustering not one of our bills but their own bill. How about that? There are 26 Republican cosponsors, and they filibustered their own bill.

We have asked on a number of occasions for what we have done around this body for decades: You come up with a list of amendments, you come up with a list of amendments, and we will work through those amendments.

Do you know why we don't do that anymore? The Republicans cannot agree among themselves what they want as amendments. They cannot come up with a list. They are so tangled up with the tea party here, the tea party there, people running for President, they cannot decide on a list of amendments to bring before the body. So what do they do? They block everything.

I was hoping that with the majority of the Republicans sponsoring a bill, we could at least move forward on it. People who sponsored this bill voted against it. They are bringing to this body a new definition of what it means to sponsor legislation. I mean, who, of the people who have come before us in this body, ever voted to filibuster their own bill? That is what they have done. But it is nothing new.

I see on the floor the senior Senator from New Hampshire. She worked for more than a year with some Republican colleagues to do something that is so badly needed in this country now; that is, energy efficiency. Energy is wasted every day in this country. She and some Republican colleagues worked on a measure to reduce the waste of energy. It is called the energy efficiency bill. Guess what. The Republicans voted to kill their own bill.

I was originally told by Republicans: Go ahead and let's just vote on it as it is.

I thought that was great because they had been working on it in committee. They had a significant number of amendments that had been dealt with before on the floor, and they put them in the bill and they brought it to the floor. But then I am told--and I have said this before, and I will say it again because we need to repeat something that needs repeating--give us a vote on the Keystone Pipeline. All we want is a sense of the Senate.

I didn't like that because we already had an agreement. I came back and said: OK, do it.

Then we came back after a recess of a few days, and they said: Well, we have a new deal now.

What is that?

We want an up-or-down vote on Keystone.

We cannot do that. We already have an agreement to get this moving.

I go back and mostly talk to myself, quite frankly, because it is not very logical what I am being asked to do, but I talk to myself for a while, and I come back and say: OK, on Keystone, an up-or-down vote right here on the Senate floor.

They couldn't take yes for an answer even on that.

And then--the audacity--Republican Senators have come to the floor since then and said: They won't give us a vote on Keystone.

They did it on Shaheen-Portman. We had an economic development revitalization act. One of the Republican cosponsors there voted to block that. Small business innovation--three Republican cosponsors voted to block that.

This is a new phenomenon for the professors and the students to figure out. You sponsor a bill and then you vote to kill it before you even bring it to the floor. So I guess sponsorship doesn't mean what it used to mean anymore. It means ``I am sponsoring this bill, but watch out because I may vote against myself.''

So we are going to continue to work on this side of the aisle to try to get work done, but observers need to look no further than Republican sponsors voting against their own bills to see where the problem lies.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me, after consultation with Senator McConnell, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 438, S. 2244; that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered original text for the purposes of further amendment; that the only amendments in order to the bill be the following: Coburn No. 3549, Vitter No. 3550, Flake No. 3551, and Tester No. 3552; that each amendment have 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the proponents and opponents; that there be 1 hour of general debate on the bill, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the amendments in the order listed; that there be no second-degree amendments in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes; that upon disposition of the Tester amendment, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

So, Mr. President, we understand that in getting this agreement, Senators should expect a rollcall vote in relation to the Coburn amendment and another rollcall vote on passage of the bill, as amended. The other amendments in this agreement are expected to be subject to voice votes.

Mr. President, we have whipped right through this very quickly, but it is an extremely important piece of work that was done on a bipartisan basis on a very, very important piece of legislation. We have to do this, this terrorism insurance. With all the things going on in the world, if we do not finish this, there will be no construction in America. We went through this a number of years ago. Construction came to a screeching halt. It was bad enough, but with this not being able to be done, it made it even worse. So we are very fortunate we will complete it next week--with this UC agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, this week the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing to address five important pieces of legislation. Two of these bills, the Moapa Band of Paiutes Land Conveyance Act--S. 2479--and the Nevada Native Nations Land Act--S. 2480--will transfer land into trust for a total of eight Indian tribes in Nevada for heritage preservation and economic development.

Nevada's Great Basin has always been home to the Washoe, Paiute and Western Shoshone Peoples. The First Nevadans have long been a voice for protecting our wild landscapes and enriching our State through their language and cultural heritage. I take the many obligations that the United States has to tribal nations seriously. Land is lifeblood to Native Americans and these bills provide space for housing, economic development, traditional uses and cultural protection. I would like to commend the tribes, whose immense work and collaboration made these bills possible, and I look forward to continuing to work with our First Nevadans on protecting homelands.

The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians have been in Nevada and the West since time immemorial and suffered great land losses through Federal Indian policy. When the Moapa River Reservation was established in the late 1800s, it consisted of over 2 million acres. In its lust to settle the West, Congress drastically reduced the reservation to just 1,000 acres in 1875. It wasn't until 1980 that Congress restored 70,500 acres to the reservation. Today the reservation is approximately 71,954 acres.

The Moapa Band of Paiutes Land Conveyance Act, S. 2479, would direct the Secretary of the Interior to take more than 26,000 acres of land currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management--BLM--and the Bureau of Reclamation into trust for the Moapa People who live outside of Las Vegas, NV. This legislation would provide much needed land for the tribe's housing, economic development and cultural preservation.

Located on I-15, the tribe runs the Moapa Paiute Travel Plaza. The tribe is the first in Indian Country to develop utility-scale solar projects on tribal lands. Since southern Nevada has critical habitat for the desert tortoise, a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, the tribe works closely with Federal, State, and local partners, members of the conservation community and interested stakeholders to develop their community in an environmentally responsible manner.

The Nevada Native Nations Land Act, S. 2480, would transfer land into trust for seven northern Nevada tribes--the Elko Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians, the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe, the Duck Valley Shoshone Paiute Tribes, the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and the South Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians. As does S. 2479, the Nevada Native Nations Land Act would allow these seven tribes to build housing for their members, preserve their cultural heritage and traditions, and provide opportunities for economic development.

Since time immemorial, the Western Shoshone have been living in what is now known as southern Idaho, central Nevada, northwestern Utah, and the Death Valley region of southern California. The Elko and South Fork Bands are two of four bands that comprise the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians.

The Elko Band's reservation, or colony, is landlocked by the growing City of Elko, where band members have been coming for mining and railroad jobs for decades. The colony needs additional lands for housing and economic development. My legislation would expand the Elko Band's reservation by transferring 373 acres of BLM-managed land into trust for the tribe.

S. 2480 would also convey 275 acres, just west of the City of Elko, to Elko County to provide space for a BMX, motocross, off-highway vehicle, and stock car racing area.

The South Fork Reservation, home to the South Fork Band, is comprised of 13,050 acres. The Band was one of the groups of Western Shoshone that refused to move to the Duck Valley Reservation and stayed at the headwaters of the Reese River, near the present Battle Mountain Colony. Established by Executive order in 1941, the colony was originally 9,500 acres of land purchased under the Indian Reorganization Act. In addition to rugged high desert terrain near the foothills of the Ruby Mountains, the reservation has open range which is used for open cattle grazing and agricultural uses. The Nevada Native Nations Land Act would place 28,162 acres of BLM land into trust for the tribes and release the Red Spring Wilderness Study Area--WSA--from further study.

The Northern Paiutes made their homes throughout what is now known as Idaho, California, Utah and Nevada. Due to westward expansion, our government pushed some Western Shoshones and Northern Paiutes into the same tribe and onto the same reservation where their descendants remain.

The Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe now make their home along the Nevada-Oregon border. Starting as a military fort in 1865, the military reservation was turned into an Indian Agency in 1889 then established as an Indian reservation in 1936. The reservation is currently made up of 16,354

acres in Nevada and 19,000 acres in Oregon. The Nevada Native Nations Land Act would add 19,094 acres now managed by the BLM in Nevada to the lands already held in trust for the tribe.

The Duck Valley Indian Reservation is the home of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes who live along the State line between Nevada and Idaho. The reservation is 289,819 acres, including 22,231 acres of wetlands. The tribes have limited economic opportunities and tribal members have made their way farming and ranching. This bill would place 82 acres of U.S. Forest Service land into trust for the tribes. The tribes plan to rehabilitate structures that were used by Forest Service employees into much-needed housing on the parcel.

The Summit Lake Reservation is one of the most rural and remote reservations in Nevada along the Oregon and California borders. Established in 1913 for the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, the reservation today is 12,573 acres. The tribe seeks land to maintain the integrity of its reservation, protect Summit Lake and restore the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. S. 2480 would transfer 941 acres of BLM-managed land into trust for the tribe.

The Reno-Sparks Indian Colony has a very small 28-acre reservation in Reno, NV. The colony has 1,100 Paiute, Shoshone and Washoe members some of whom live on a 1,920 acre reservation in Hungry Valley, which is 19 miles north of Reno. The Hungry Valley Reservation is surrounded by shooting and ATV activities and tribal members have requested a buffer zone to ensure the safety of their community. The legislation would transfer 13,434 acres of BLM land into trust for the tribe.

The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe have made their homelands around Pyramid Lake, a unique desert terminal lake. Pyramid Lake is one of the most valuable assets of the tribe and is entirely enclosed within the boundaries of the reservation. S. 2480 would expand the reservation with an additional 30,669 acres of BLM-managed land.

This legislation is so important to me and the Indian tribes in Nevada. Throughout the history of our country, Native Americans have been removed and disenfranchised from their homelands. They have been treated so poorly. One of the first pieces of legislation I worked on when I came to Congress was the historic Pyramid Lake/Truckee-Carson Water Rights Settlement. This involved two States, several cities, a lake, a river, endangered species, and two Indian tribes. These Indian water rights needed to be protected, just as tribal lands need to be restored especially in Nevada where tribal landbases are smaller and more rural and remote than any other parts of Indian Country. During my time in the Senate, I will continue to do what I can to right some of the many wrongs and help tribes restore their homelands.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 447.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to.

I do not know of any further debate on this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 268.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Blunt amendment at the desk be agreed to.

I personally do not know of any more debate on this matter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar Nos. 454 through 457, which are all post office naming bills.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 380, S. Res. 412.

I further ask that the committee-reported amendments to the resolution be agreed to; the Menendez amendment to the resolution, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the Paul amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; further, that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the Menendez amendment to the preamble, which is

at the desk, be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and finally, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I want to take just a little bit of time to say a few things about the health care bill. The shrill cries from the other side have lessened in recent weeks, and obviously for good reason. The New York Times reports today--I won't read the whole column but I will read quite a bit.

It says less than ``15 percent of adults younger than 65 now lack health insurance, down from 20 percent before the Affordable Care Act rolled out in January.''

In fact, we have information from the Gallup organization today that came out after this New York Times article that the rate is down to 13.4 percent. It is the lowest quarterly average recorded since Gallup began tracking the percentage of uninsured Americans. That is pretty good.

The Gallup poll says:

The uninsured rate has decreased sharply since the

Affordable Care Act's requirement for most Americans to have

health insurance went into effect beginning 2014.

So in the fourth quarter of 2013 the average was 17.1 percent, and now it is down to 13.4. This is remarkable.

Carrying on with the information from the New York Times, people who got new coverage--we heard all the cries about how upset people were with the new health insurance, but they are very happy with the new product; 73 percent of the people who bought health care plans and 80 percent of those who signed up for Medicaid said they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied. That is 73 percent with their new health insurance; 74 percent of newly insured Republicans like their plans; 77 percent of people who had insurance before, including members of the much-publicized group whose plans got cancelled last year, were happy with their new coverage.

A survey also said that a majority of people are using their new insurance. They like it. They are glad they have it.

People who have the insurance are going to a doctor, they are going to the hospital, and most people seeking new primary care doctors found the process easy and had to wait less than 2 weeks for an appointment. Sixty percent said they wouldn't have been able to afford the care without the new coverage.

These statistics are really staggering.

The article closes by saying:

There is a reason to think that the good feelings may

linger. . . . An Associated Press poll in January found that

73 percent of all Americans with insurance before the rollout

of the law were satisfied.

So we are doing overall very well. My Republican colleagues come to the floor and say: Oh, this is just awful, people are so upset.

It simply is not true.

This is not my opinion. It is statistics and facts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, July 14, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 6 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

There will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session of the Senate. The next rollcall vote will begin at 12 noon on Tuesday, July 15, 2014. Those will be cloture votes on the Bay and LaFleur nominations to be members of the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12 noon today. During that period of time Senators will be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees.

At noon the Senate will turn to executive session and proceed on votes on the confirmation of three nominations: Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio, TX, to be the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Darci Vetter to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the United States Trade Representative; and William Adams to be Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Humanities. There will be a rollcall vote on the confirmation of the Castro nomination, and we expect only voice votes on the confirmation of Vetter and Adams.

Upon disposition of the Adams nomination, there will be a vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2363, the bipartisan Hagan sportsmen's act. We expect that vote to be by voice also.

Senators should expect one rollcall vote then today at noon.

Mr. President, S. 2569 is due for a second reading, I am told.

Mr. President, this is legislation sponsored by Senator Walsh of Montana. I object to any further proceedings at this time, and I look forward to working with him in the future on this legislation.