Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I also know that when the two of my colleagues--when the chairman and Senator McCain, the ranking member-- come together on a prevision and are able to persuade their committee to go with it, that says something to the Senate itself, to have that before the Senate. I want to study it very carefully. I know Senator Graham was down here, who has been very active on this issue and has a tremendous amount of experience. I look forward to the continuing debate, and I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, President Obama recently announced that our long war and military involvement in Iraq would be coming to a close. For nearly a decade, our armed forces served honorably in Iraq and got the job done. While I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, my commitment to our troops and our veterans has been resolute. We must always remain mindful of the sacrifice and the obligations we hold to every veteran. It is because of those obligations that I rise today to speak about the hidden wounds facing the veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars. These wounds were not caused by insurgents or terrorists, but by exposure to environmental pollution caused by our own open air burn pits. Open air burn pits were widely used at forward operating bases, where disposing of trash and other debris was a major challenge, and the solution that was chosen had serious medical and environmental risks. Pits of waste were set on fire andthey would turn the sky black. At this and other bases, disposing of trash and other debris was a major challenge, a challenge which was solved using a method fraught with medical and environmental risks. Over 10 acres of land at Joint Base Balad in Iraq were used for burning toxic debris. This is a base, that at the height of its operations, hosted approximately 25,000 military, civilian and coalition personnel. Among the toxic soup released into the atmosphere from Balad were particulates from plastics and Styrofoam, metal, chemicals from paints and solvents, petroleum and lubricants, jet fuel and unexploded ordinance, medical and other dangerous waste--all in the air and being inhaled into the lungs of service members. Air samples at Joint Base Balad turned up some nasty stuff: Particulate matter--chemicals that form from the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances; volatile organic compounds such as acetone and benzene. Benzene is known to cause leukemia and dioxins which are associated with Agent Orange. Our veterans have slowly begun to raise the alarm as they learn why, after returning home, they are short of breath, or experiencing headaches or other symptoms, and in some cases developing cancer. Many other independent organizations have also urged action on this issue, including the American Lung Association which has stated: Emissions from burning waste contain fine particulate matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. The organizations have called on the VA and Defense Department to begin to monitor our troops and veterans who have been exposed. Last week I added my voice to that call. The Open Burn Pits Registry Act of 2011 will give the VA the tools to help our veterans who are suffering as a result of their exposure. Establishing an open burn pit registry for those who may have been exposed is just a preliminary step. A public information campaign, to help bring veterans forward, will also be required. Once veterans are identified in the registry, they will be able to receive information about significant developments associated with their exposure. Furthermore, the identification of affected veterans could help improve the VA's ability to treat and understand the causes of these veterans' ailments. As was noted this week, the Institute of Medicine released a report which concluded that while there was not conclusive evidence of a link between burn pits and medical ailments, that there was insufficient evidence to rule out a link as well. An online summary of the report stated a recommendation that: a study be conducted that would evaluate the health status of service members from their time of deployment to Joint Base Balad over many years to determine their incidence of chronic diseases, including cancers, that tend to not show up for decades. This registry will help our medical and scientific experts better analyze who was exposed and who is suffering. In New Mexico, veterans have begun to come forward about their medical conditions. Some, like MSG Jessey Baca, a member of the New Mexico Air National Guard who was stationed in Balad, Iraq, are facing serious ailments such as cancer and chronic bronchiolitis. It is stories like Master Sergeant Baca's which have motivated me to take action on this issue and I urge my colleagues to hear the stories of veterans like him in all 50 States. The Open Burn Pits Registry Act has bipartisan and bicameral support. In the House, Representative Akin, a Republican, is sponsoring this important piece of legislation with a strong bipartisan group. On the Senate side I would like to thank my colleagues who are also addressing this important issue facing our veterans. Senator Corker and I, who is the Republican lead, have been joined by Senators McCaskill, Bingaman, Schumer, Alexander, and Bill Nelson, who have all signed on to lead this charge as original cosponsors. In addition, Senator Wyden has also indicated that he will join as a cosponsor. I thank them for being champions for our veterans suffering from these hidden wounds, and I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the United States Constitution to address our country's broken campaign finance system. Joining me in this effort are my colleagues Senators Bennet, Harkin, Durbin, Schumer, Merkley, Whitehouse, Begich, and Shaheen. As we head into another election year, we are about to see unprecedented amounts of money spent on efforts to influence the outcome of our elections. With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, I believe the only way to address the root cause of this problem is by first amending the Constitution. Such an amendment is not a new idea. Constitutional amendments to grant Congress broad authority to regulate the campaign finance system have been introduced many times in the past, and most had bipartisan support. But last year's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC places a new emphasis on the need for Congress to act. Citizens United was a victory for special interests at the expense of the average American. It held that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans, enabling them to spend freely from their corporate treasuries on campaign advertising. It also gave rise to so-called Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds to campaign for or against candidates. We saw in the last election the initial impact of the Citizens United decision, but it is about to get much worse. A New York Times editorial on September 18 summed it up pretty well. That piece, entitled ``How the Big Money Finds a Way In,'' stated that: Companies, unions, and other interest groups poured about $300 million into campaign ads in the 2010 Congressional elections after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision open the sluices to unlimited spending by independent groups. That will look like a trickle compared with the gusher coming in 2012. While the Citizens United decision sparked a renewed focus on the need for campaign finance reform, the Court laid the groundwork for a broken system many years ago. In 1976, when the Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that restricting independent campaign expenditures violates the First Amendment right to free speech, it established the flawed precedent that money and speech are the same thing. Since then, our Nation's policymakers are all too often elected based on their ability to raise money or the size of their personal fortunes, rather than the quality of their ideas or dedication to public service. These decisions, among others, demonstrate the Court's willingness to rule broadly and ignore longstanding precedent to declare our campaign finance laws unconstitutional. Because of this, I believe that the only way to truly fix the problem is to first amend the Constitution to grant Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system. Our proposed amendment is similar to bipartisan proposals in previous Congresses. It would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns, including independent expenditures, and allow states to regulate such spending at their level. It would not dictate any specific policies or regulations. Instead, it would allow Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation that withstands constitutional challenges. I understand how difficult amending the constitution can be, but also believe that momentum is growing to reign in the out of control campaign spending. Just because getting a constitutional amendment through Congress and ratified by the States is extremely difficult, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We know our Founders did not intend for elections to be bought and paid for by undisclosed donors operating through secretive organizations--that is the antithesis of democracy and we must do everything possible to address the problem. The only way to restore the democratic nature of our election system is to fundamentally change it. That can only be done after the Constitution is amended to allow such changes. Many of my predecessors understood this and spent years championing the cause. Senator Fritz Hollings introduced bipartisan constitutional amendments similar to the one we introduce today in every Congress from the 99th to the 108th. Senators Schumer and Cochran introduced one in the 109th Congress. Those were all before the Citizens United decision, but Senator Hollings has continued to call for an amendment since his retirement. Just last October, he wrote a piece for The Huffington Post titled ``Money is a Cancer in Politics.'' In that article he wrote: Like a dog chasing its tail, Congress has tried for thirty- five years to control spending in federal elections, only to be thwarted by the Supreme Court intent on equating speech with money. To return to Madison's freedom of speech, Congress needs to pass a Joint Resolution amending the Constitution to authorize Congress to limit or control spending in federal elections. Our constituents' faith in the election system has been fundamentally corrupted by big money from outside interest groups. It is time for Congress to take back control of the campaign finance system by passing a constitutional amendment that will allow real reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution and an article be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the United States Constitution to address our country's broken campaign finance system. Joining me in this effort are my colleagues Senators Bennet, Harkin, Durbin, Schumer, Merkley, Whitehouse, Begich, and Shaheen. As we head into another election year, we are about to see unprecedented amounts of money spent on efforts to influence the outcome of our elections. With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, I believe the only way to address the root cause of this problem is by first amending the Constitution. Such an amendment is not a new idea. Constitutional amendments to grant Congress broad authority to regulate the campaign finance system have been introduced many times in the past, and most had bipartisan support. But last year's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC places a new emphasis on the need for Congress to act. Citizens United was a victory for special interests at the expense of the average American. It held that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans, enabling them to spend freely from their corporate treasuries on campaign advertising. It also gave rise to so-called Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds to campaign for or against candidates. We saw in the last election the initial impact of the Citizens United decision, but it is about to get much worse. A New York Times editorial on September 18 summed it up pretty well. That piece, entitled ``How the Big Money Finds a Way In,'' stated that: Companies, unions, and other interest groups poured about $300 million into campaign ads in the 2010 Congressional elections after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision open the sluices to unlimited spending by independent groups. That will look like a trickle compared with the gusher coming in 2012. While the Citizens United decision sparked a renewed focus on the need for campaign finance reform, the Court laid the groundwork for a broken system many years ago. In 1976, when the Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that restricting independent campaign expenditures violates the First Amendment right to free speech, it established the flawed precedent that money and speech are the same thing. Since then, our Nation's policymakers are all too often elected based on their ability to raise money or the size of their personal fortunes, rather than the quality of their ideas or dedication to public service. These decisions, among others, demonstrate the Court's willingness to rule broadly and ignore longstanding precedent to declare our campaign finance laws unconstitutional. Because of this, I believe that the only way to truly fix the problem is to first amend the Constitution to grant Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system. Our proposed amendment is similar to bipartisan proposals in previous Congresses. It would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns, including independent expenditures, and allow states to regulate such spending at their level. It would not dictate any specific policies or regulations. Instead, it would allow Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation that withstands constitutional challenges. I understand how difficult amending the constitution can be, but also believe that momentum is growing to reign in the out of control campaign spending. Just because getting a constitutional amendment through Congress and ratified by the States is extremely difficult, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We know our Founders did not intend for elections to be bought and paid for by undisclosed donors operating through secretive organizations--that is the antithesis of democracy and we must do everything possible to address the problem. The only way to restore the democratic nature of our election system is to fundamentally change it. That can only be done after the Constitution is amended to allow such changes. Many of my predecessors understood this and spent years championing the cause. Senator Fritz Hollings introduced bipartisan constitutional amendments similar to the one we introduce today in every Congress from the 99th to the 108th. Senators Schumer and Cochran introduced one in the 109th Congress. Those were all before the Citizens United decision, but Senator Hollings has continued to call for an amendment since his retirement. Just last October, he wrote a piece for The Huffington Post titled ``Money is a Cancer in Politics.'' In that article he wrote: Like a dog chasing its tail, Congress has tried for thirty- five years to control spending in federal elections, only to be thwarted by the Supreme Court intent on equating speech with money. To return to Madison's freedom of speech, Congress needs to pass a Joint Resolution amending the Constitution to authorize Congress to limit or control spending in federal elections. Our constituents' faith in the election system has been fundamentally corrupted by big money from outside interest groups. It is time for Congress to take back control of the campaign finance system by passing a constitutional amendment that will allow real reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution and an article be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, in 1992, Congress created the Udall Foundation, to honor the service of Mo Udall, my uncle, and father of the Senator from the great State of Colorado, Mark Udall. In 2009 that mandate was expanded to also honor the service of my dad, Stewart Udall, and a legacy of two brothers who fought to preserve and protect our environment and advocate on behalf of Native people. The Udall Foundation would not be what it is today without the tireless work of one man--Terrence L. Bracy. Terry's been there since the very beginning and has served as chairman of the foundation for 17 years, appointed by both President Clinton and President George W. Bush. At the end of this year, Terry will step down from the board, closing the first chapter of the Udall Foundation . . . and I rise today to express my deep gratitude to him for his service to the Foundation and honoring the Udall legacy. What started as only a vision is now an organization dedicated to educating a new generation of Americans to preserve and protect their national heritage through scholarship, fellowship, and internship programs that focus on environmental and Native American issues, as well as promoting environmental conflict resolution. I know Senator Mark Udall agrees with me when I say that Terry Bracy is the Udall Foundation. Over the past 17 years, he has continually pushed the Foundation to new heights--developing new programs, providing new opportunities for young people, and finding new ways to make a difference on issues relating to the environment and tribal communities. He created an organization to inspire young people to tackle the tough policy problems that confront our nation. And Terry deeply cares about the students that are touched by the foundation's various programs. After the Washington internship program, Terry and his lovely wife, Nancy, always got us all together. Early on, it was at their house in Virginia. The Senator from Colorado and I would answer questions and share our experiences with these exceptional young people, getting to know a new generation of leaders who, thanks to Terry, were inspired to carry on the torch of public service. Under his leadership, the foundation also created the Native Nations Institute, accepted stewardship of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution from Congress, and most recently, established the Stewart L. Udall Parks in Focus Program. And while he has always looked forward to what the foundation could become, he has also continually reinforced the legacy of the two Udall brothers. It was Terry who pursued changing the name of the organization to the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, after two brothers whose joint legacy as public servants and environmental visionaries will endure through the ages. The dedication ceremony in 2009 was the final public appearance of my father before his passing, and I know he was deeply honored and appreciative of the hard work of his friend Terry. I would like to extend my thanks to Terry for his service to this nation in preserving the legacy of two American brothers who fought to change the world, and for continuing to champion the causes to which they dedicated their lives.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of John Bryson to be Secretary of Commerce. The Department of Commerce includes a diverse collection of agencies that work on everything from predicting the weather to issuing patents. But the Department's over-arching mission is to promote job creation and economic growth. Today, that mission is more important than ever. With the national unemployment rate hovering around 9 percent, we should have a Secretary of Commerce in place who can lead the Department in meeting its important mission. After considering his nomination in the Senate Commerce Committee, I believe Mr. Bryson is well qualified to be Secretary of Commerce. Bryson knows something about job creation from his experience as a business leader in the energy sector. He also served on the boards of well-known companies such as Boeing and the Walt Disney Company. Those experiences will help Bryson meet the challenges of leading the Department of Commerce. I know firsthand some of the good work that the Department of Commerce has done to help businesses in my home State through the Economic Development Administration, EDA, manufacturing extension partnership, MEP, and trade adjustment for firms initiatives. I have visited small businesses that received assistance from these Department of Commerce agencies and know how vital such support can be for entrepreneurs who want to grow their business or maybe export for the first time. The Department of Commerce already faces enough challenges to meet its vital mission. Delaying Mr. Bryson's nomination any further would only add to those challenges at a time when we can ill afford it. I urge my Senate colleagues to support his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bingaman in introducing the Southern New Mexico Economic Development Act, legislation that will bring additional business from Mexico to cities and towns in southern New Mexico. Our bill would increase economic opportunities for southern New Mexico businesses by extending the distance that Mexicans who are issued Border Crossing Cards, BCC, by the U.S. State Department can travel in New Mexico without the need to obtain a Form I-94 and pay an additional fee. The BCC is a credit card-style document with many security features and 10-year validity. BCCs are only issued to applicants who are citizens and residents of Mexico. Applicants must meet the eligibility standards for B1/B2 visas and undergo fingerprinting and an interview at the U.S. Consulate and they must demonstrate that they have ties to Mexico that would compel them to return after a temporary stay in the United States. Currently, BCC holders who are authorized to enter into the United States can remain up to 30 days and travel no more than 25 miles beyond the border, except in Arizona where they can travel up to 75 miles. Those who wish to travel farther or remain longer must request an I-94 form, arrival/departure record, at the port of entry and pay a small fee. Our bill would extend the distance BCC holders who enter the United States from New Mexico ports of entry can travel within the State from 25 miles to 75 miles. Arizona provides a precedent for making this change. In 1999, the border zone in Arizona was extended from 25 miles to 75 miles because there were no large Arizona cities within 25 miles of the border. This was done through the Federal rulemaking process. The extension was designed to specifically include Tucson within the zone so that it could get the economic benefit of BCC holders entering Arizona. Tucson conducted a study indicating that, after implementation of this rule, the commercial gain from Mexican visitors was estimated to reach $56.3 million a year. However, in Texas, New Mexico, and California, the border zone limit remains 25 miles. This doesn't hurt Texas and California since El Paso, San Diego, and many smaller towns in those states are within the 25 mile zone. However, like Arizona, New Mexico does not have a city within 25 miles of the border. This means BCC holders cannot travel to southern New Mexico cities like Las Cruces, Deming, and Lordsburg without additional paperwork and paying a fee. Because of this, many visitors face the inconvenience of having to drive all the way to Juarez and enter the U.S. at an El Paso port of entry, despite living closer to a port of entry in New Mexico. Extending the zone can be done through rulemaking, as it was with Arizona, and I am happy to work with Secretary Napolitano and CBP Commissioner Bersin to make that happen. However, if we are unable to resolve this issue through rulemaking, I believe it will be necessary to push for passage of the legislation we are introducing today. There is strong support from elected officials and the business community in southern New Mexico for extending the border zone to 75 miles. Just recently, Luna County Commissioner Jay Spivey worked with State Senator John Arthur Smith and Representative Dona Irwin to introduce a Joint Memorial calling on DHS to extend the border zone to 75 miles. The Memorial unanimously passed both houses of the New Mexico state legislature in September. This is fundamentally an issue of fairness--New Mexico should have the same opportunities the other three Border States enjoy because of the economic benefits of BCC holders visiting their cities.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bingaman in introducing the Southern New Mexico Economic Development Act, legislation that will bring additional business from Mexico to cities and towns in southern New Mexico. Our bill would increase economic opportunities for southern New Mexico businesses by extending the distance that Mexicans who are issued Border Crossing Cards, BCC, by the U.S. State Department can travel in New Mexico without the need to obtain a Form I-94 and pay an additional fee. The BCC is a credit card-style document with many security features and 10-year validity. BCCs are only issued to applicants who are citizens and residents of Mexico. Applicants must meet the eligibility standards for B1/B2 visas and undergo fingerprinting and an interview at the U.S. Consulate and they must demonstrate that they have ties to Mexico that would compel them to return after a temporary stay in the United States. Currently, BCC holders who are authorized to enter into the United States can remain up to 30 days and travel no more than 25 miles beyond the border, except in Arizona where they can travel up to 75 miles. Those who wish to travel farther or remain longer must request an I-94 form, arrival/departure record, at the port of entry and pay a small fee. Our bill would extend the distance BCC holders who enter the United States from New Mexico ports of entry can travel within the State from 25 miles to 75 miles. Arizona provides a precedent for making this change. In 1999, the border zone in Arizona was extended from 25 miles to 75 miles because there were no large Arizona cities within 25 miles of the border. This was done through the Federal rulemaking process. The extension was designed to specifically include Tucson within the zone so that it could get the economic benefit of BCC holders entering Arizona. Tucson conducted a study indicating that, after implementation of this rule, the commercial gain from Mexican visitors was estimated to reach $56.3 million a year. However, in Texas, New Mexico, and California, the border zone limit remains 25 miles. This doesn't hurt Texas and California since El Paso, San Diego, and many smaller towns in those states are within the 25 mile zone. However, like Arizona, New Mexico does not have a city within 25 miles of the border. This means BCC holders cannot travel to southern New Mexico cities like Las Cruces, Deming, and Lordsburg without additional paperwork and paying a fee. Because of this, many visitors face the inconvenience of having to drive all the way to Juarez and enter the U.S. at an El Paso port of entry, despite living closer to a port of entry in New Mexico. Extending the zone can be done through rulemaking, as it was with Arizona, and I am happy to work with Secretary Napolitano and CBP Commissioner Bersin to make that happen. However, if we are unable to resolve this issue through rulemaking, I believe it will be necessary to push for passage of the legislation we are introducing today. There is strong support from elected officials and the business community in southern New Mexico for extending the border zone to 75 miles. Just recently, Luna County Commissioner Jay Spivey worked with State Senator John Arthur Smith and Representative Dona Irwin to introduce a Joint Memorial calling on DHS to extend the border zone to 75 miles. The Memorial unanimously passed both houses of the New Mexico state legislature in September. This is fundamentally an issue of fairness--New Mexico should have the same opportunities the other three Border States enjoy because of the economic benefits of BCC holders visiting their cities.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, today, I honor the life and legacy of the great Pueblo Indian Historian, Joe Simon Sando. Joe was one of New Mexico's leading historians and the preeminent expert on Pueblo History. He passed away at the age of 88 on September 13, 2011, after a lifetime of dedication to education, history, and cultural preservation. Joe Sando taught, published and lectured throughout the world about the history and culture of the Pueblo People. His numerous publications and educational efforts brought to life the vibrant history of the Pueblo People while also acknowledging the ever changing and current culture of the pueblos. Joe's own story started in Jemez Pueblo in northern New Mexico where he grew up speaking Towa. He later learned English, the language of his extensive publications, when he attended the Santa Fe Indian School. When World War II raged into the lives of Americans, Joe Sando bravely harkened to the call for service, joined the Navy, and served out the war on the decks of aircraft carriers. After his military service, Joe obtained an education degree from Eastern New Mexico University and taught at the Albuquerque Indian School. He later went on to attend graduate school at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee and become an instructor at the University of New Mexico. Teaching Pueblo history at UNM, and ethnohistory at the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, Joe Sando quickly became the dominant expert in pueblo history and culture. In 1986, he helped create the Institute for Pueblo Indian Studies at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center and did not retire until 2003 at the age of 80. Joe Sando said, ``As a Pueblo man of Jemez, I feel that the Indian people have a duty and a challenge to write their own history.'' Sando aggressively took up this challenge writing and contributing to numerous books about his culture and history from the distinct and not often published perspective of a tribal member. Joe felt that ``the traditional Pueblo history should be revealed, as the Pueblo Indians themselves know it,'' and that is exactly how he wrote it, from the pueblo perspective. Joe Sando's contribution to society was not limited to his extensive educational efforts. He was also a generous and dedicated public servant. He was the first chairman of the All Indian Pueblo Housing Authority and the first chairman of the State Judicial Council. He also served on the Statuary Hall Commission and on the board of Americans for Indian Opportunity. Joe was also widely honored. He was the 2005 recipient of the Southwestern Association for Indian Arts Lifetime Achievement Award. In 2007 he received an honorary Doctor of Letters from the University of New Mexico, and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the All Indian Pueblo Council. For his writing, he received the Bravo Award for Literary Excellence, Outstanding Alumnae of Eastern New Mexico University, State Heritage Preservation Award, Excellence in the Humanities Award, Lifetime Achievement Award of Indian Librarians and Indian History Teachers, and the Eugene Crawford Memorial Peace Pipe Award. Mr. Sando was a friend to every pueblo, and had an extensive knowledge of genealogies and individuals from each pueblo. He could form a personal connection with anyone as he also determined a familial connection, using his impressive memory of families and clans. But perhaps Joe Sando's story is better told through the history he taught and loved. The history of the Pueblo People is a vibrant part of our nation's story. For centuries immemorial, the Pueblo People occupied the Southwest. The ancestors of the Pueblo People were guided by deity from place to place and finally they were brought to a land where they would be safe from the catastrophes of natures. This vast area of the Southwest, much of which is still occupied by the 20 remaining pueblos, was given to the ancestors of the Pueblo People at the beginning of time. In their vast open lands of mesas, mountains, and plains, pueblo society developed around the systematic raising of food, especially corn, making hominy, succotash, cornbread, cornmeal mush, tortillas, and tamales. Also cultivated were chile, squash, pumpkins, beans, and a myriad of other products. Various dances were held according to the seasons, prayer dances and thanksgiving dances, and the ancient people were warned to respect and obey the laws of nature and the orders of their leaders who would guide them spiritually and socially. Guidelines for well-ordered living were established and lead to centuries of cultural development and continued community success. Through the centuries, several individual pueblos emerged and three distinct language groups developed, Zuni, Keresan, and Tanoan with dialects of Tiwa, Tewa, and Towa. These languages continue to be spoken in the remaining 21 pueblo tribes. In 1539 Europeans entered the Pueblo World and by the end of the century the Spanish were planning a permanent settlement in the pueblo region. The tentative interactions and exchange of knowledge and goods quickly turned to anger and distrust as taxes were leveed on the Pueblo People and the expressions of the pueblo culture were oppressed. In 1598 the All Indian Pueblo Council was organized to coordinate interactions between the pueblos and the Spanish Governor, Juan de Onate. This council of pueblo leaders continues today as a functional symbol of tribal sovereignty, pueblo unity, and government-to- government relations. But despite the council's formation and efforts, tensions escalated between the Spanish and Pueblo People. One distinctive event in 1680 lead to the first American Revolution. Religious and political pueblo leaders were accused of ``sorcery'', and were imprisoned, publicly humiliated, whipped, and some even hung. Po'pay, from the Pueblo of Ohkay Owingeh, was one of these leaders taken from his village, humiliated, and lashed. And as tradition has it, Po'pay rose from this oppression to unite the pueblos to drive the Spanish from Pueblo lands in 1680. We honor Po'pay's fight for justice and his mark on history today in our capitol, where a statue of Po'pay stands as one of the honored leaders in the National Statuary Hall Collection. In a matter of years after the Pueblo Revolution some pueblos welcomed the Spanish back, while others continued to wage conflict. Finally, in 1706, an alliance between the Pueblo People and the Spanish was established to help protect against raids from the outside. Since then, a culture of mutual respect and interdependence has emerged and continues today. More than a century after this alliance was established, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican American war and moved the US border south of the pueblos. Later, President Lincoln formally recognized the authority of the pueblo governors under the United States Government, and today pueblo leadership continues to conduct government-to-government interaction with the United States. In New Mexico we continue to learn about and appreciate the culture and history of the Pueblo People, and celebrate as new leaders, like Joe Sando, continue to emerge. Joe Sando recognized his call to share the history of the Pueblo People. He said that, ``Every now and then some readers tell me that I was mandated to tell the world about the Pueblo Indians. That may be true.'' Today we record Joe Sando's story in the United States Congressional Record to honor him for taking up the call to tell the world about the Pueblo People, a story integral to our national history and ever-changing culture.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about changing our Senate rules by a simple majority vote. That is what we did last week. Mr. President, as you know, the new classes that came in in your year and the year after have worked on these rule change issues, and the last 2 years, I have been working to find a way for the Senate to break through the gridlock and to function on behalf of the American people, to focus, as we are doing with this bill, on jobs for the American people. Last week, the Senate took the step of changing our rules with a simple majority vote. This was done in accordance with the Constitution, article I, section 5. The Senate has done this on many occasions in the past, and, like those previous rule changes, the action taken last week was not intended to destroy the uniqueness of the Senate but, instead, to restore the regular order of the body. I applaud the majority leader for getting us back on track. The Senate should be focused on the jobs agenda of the American people, and Majority Leader Reid has put us on the right path. He may be forced to do this again, but it is important that he stay focused on that agenda and all of us stay focused on the jobs agenda of the American people. At the beginning of this Congress, I, along with Senators Harkin and Merkley, tried to do that. Ultimately, our success was limited. We didn't achieve the broad reforms we wanted . . . but we did initiate a debate that highlighted some of the most egregious abuses of the rules, and resulted in a ``gentleman's agreement'' between Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell. There was some hope that the agreement would encourage both sides of the aisle to restore the respect and comity that is often lacking in today's Senate. Unfortunately however, that agreement rapidly deteriorated and the partisan rancor and political brinksmanship quickly returned. What unfolded last Thursday in this chamber is yet another example of what this body has become. The Senate had invoked cloture on the Chinese currency bill, thus limiting further debate on the measure to 30 hours. It was at this point Republicans moved to offer a potentially unlimited number of nongermane amendments to the bill. Each of these amendments would have required a suspension of the Senate rules, meaning the approval of 67 Senators rather than 60, in order to consider them. This was not an effort to improve the bill but simply a procedural strategy to score political points and force votes on unrelated legislation. Majority Leader Reid raised a point of order that motions to suspend the rules post-cloture were dilatory, which was rejected by the Chair. A majority of Senators then voted to overturn the decision of the Chair, thus changing the precedent and limiting how amendments can be considered once cloture is invoked. As expected, many of my Republican colleagues called last week's action by the majority a power grab and ``tyranny of the majority.'' They decried the lack of respect for minority rights. I agree: We must respect the minority in the Senate. But respect must go both ways. When the minority uses their rights to offer germane amendments, or to extend legitimate debate, we should always respect such efforts. But that is not what we have seen. Instead, the minority often uses its rights to score political points and obstruct almost all Senate action. Instead of offering amendments to improve legislation, we see amendments that have the sole purpose of becoming talking points in next year's election. It is hard to argue that the majority is not respecting the traditions of the Senate, when the minority is paralyzing this body purely for political gain. During the debate over rules reform we had in January, many of my colleagues argued that the only way to change the Senate rules was with a two-thirds supermajority. As we saw last week, that's simply not true. Some call what occurred last week the ``constitutional option,'' while others call it the ``nuclear option.'' I think the best name for it might be the ``majority option.'' As I studied this issue in great depth, one thing became very clear-- Senator Robert Byrd may have said it best during a debate on the floor in 1975 when he said, ``at any time that 51 Members of the Senate are determined to change the rule . . . and if the leadership of the Senate joins them . . . that rule will be changed.'' We keep hearing that any use of this option to change the rules is an abuse of power by the majority. However, a 2005 Policy Committee memo provides some excellent points to rebut this argument. And just to be clear, these citations are from a Republican Policy Committee memo. Let me read part of the Republican memo: This constitutional option is well grounded in the U.S. Constitution and in Senate history. The Senate has always had, and repeatedly has exercised, the constitutional power to change the Senate's procedures through a majority vote. Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd used the constitutional option in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to establish precedents changing Senate procedures during the middle of a Congress. And the Senate several times has changed its Standing Rules after the constitutional option had been threatened, beginning with the adoption of the first cloture rule in 1917. Simply put, the constitutional option itself is a longstanding feature of Senate practice. The Senate, therefore, has long accepted the legitimacy of the constitutional option. Through precedent, the option has been exercised and Senate procedures have been changed. At other times it has been merely threatened, and Senators negotiated textual rules changes through the regular order. But regardless of the outcome, the constitutional option has played an ongoing and important role. The memo goes on to address some ``Common Misunderstandings of the Constitutional Option.'' One misunderstanding addressed a claim we heard last week that, ``The essential character of the Senate will be destroyed if the constitutional option is exercised.'' The memo rebuts this by stating: When Majority Leader Byrd repeatedly exercised the constitutional option to correct abuses of Senate rules and precedents, those illustrative exercises of the option did little to upset the basic character of the Senate. Indeed, many observers argue that the Senate minority is stronger today in a body that still allows for extensive debate, full consideration, and careful deliberation of all matters with which it is presented. Changing the rules with a simple majority is not about exercising power but it is about restoring balance. There is a fine line between respecting minority rights and yielding to minority rule. When we cross that line, as I believe we have many times in recent years, the body is within its rights to restore the balance. This is not tyranny by the majority, but merely holding the minority accountable when it abuses the rules to the point of complete dysfunction. Neither party should stoop to that level. Many of my colleagues argue that the Senate's supermajority requirements are what make it unique from the House of Representatives, and other legislative body around the world. I disagree. If you talk to the veteran Senators, many of them will tell you that the need for 60 votes to pass anything is a recent phenomenon. Senator Harkin discussed this in great detail during our debate in January and I highly recommend reading his statement. Senator Leahy raised the issue on the floor last week when he said; I keep hearing this talk about 60 votes. Most votes you win by 51 votes, and this constant mantra of 60 votes, this is some new invention. I think this gets at the heart of the problem. We are a unique legislative body but not because of our rulebook. Complete gridlock and dysfunction can't be what our Founders intended. Rather than a body bound by mutual respect that moves by consent and allows majority votes on almost all matters, we have become a supermajoritarian institution that often doesn't move at all. With the tremendously difficult economic circumstances facing this country, the American people cannot afford a broken Senate. They are frustrated. And they have every right to be. This is not how to govern, and they deserve better. Both sides need to take a step back and understand that what we do on the Senate floor should not be about setting up the next Presidential election or winning the majority next November but about helping the country today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Executive Summary of The Constitutional Option.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I object.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I object.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 27 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 248 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the matter be placed in the Record as if read.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of H.R. 2646, which was received from the House and is at the desk.