Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, obviously, I do not want a monument erected to me in Kentucky. But I do appreciate the Senator from Kentucky indicating his commitment to help get these nominees approved if some accommodation could be found for his concerns. As I say, I have no knowledge of this particular issue. I do not know whether the request the Senator from Kentucky is making is within the realm of possibility. We will certainly go as far as to investigate the issue and try to get a response back to the Senator as to the Department of Energy view on this issue. That much I can certainly commit to the Senator from Kentucky. But I appreciate his willingness to discuss this issue on the Senate floor. I also very much, as I said before, appreciate his commitment to help us get these nominees approved if some accommodation of his concerns can be agreed upon. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a field hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Monday, March 12, 2012, at 2 p.m., at the U.S. Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on specific energy and water policies and programs that the U.S. Department of Navy is implementing as it pertains to its operations and facilities. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Meagan_Gins@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Jonathan Black at (202) 224- 6722 or Meagan Gins at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 9, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on H.R. 1904, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011. The Committee will also receive testimony on the text of S. 409, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2009, as reported by the Committee during the 111th Congress. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Jake_McCook@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or Jake McCook (202) 224-9313.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this month marked the 100th anniversary of New Mexico's statehood. In recognition of this occasion, the Senate Historian, Donald Ritchie, wrote a wonderful piece highlighting the political and ethnic issues surrounding New Mexico's efforts to become a State. I thought it would be nice to share this historical note with the public by including it in the Congressional Record. Mr. President, I ask that Mr. Ritchie's Senate Historical Minute, titled ``New Mexico Enters the Union,'' be printed in the Record. The material follows. Senate Historical Minute--January 6, 1912 New Mexico Enters the Union A century ago, on January 6, 1912, New Mexico entered the Union as a State. This ended a 64-year effort to achieve statehood, stalled by a combination of political and ethnic prejudice. In 1848, the United States acquired vast territories in the Southwest under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican War. The problem was how to organize this territory without inflaming tensions between the North and South over the spread of slavery. The treaty had provided that inhabitants of the territories would become citizens and would be admitted into the Union as States ``at the proper time (to be judged by the Congress of the United States).'' President Zachary Taylor thought that sectional tensions might be eased if New Mexico and California immediately applied for statehood and avoided territorial status. The Compromise of 1850 admitted California but ignored New Mexico's application for statehood. Over the next six decades, other Western States were admitted ahead of New Mexico. Congress at that time was often divided between a Democratic majority in the House and a Republican majority in the Senate. Each party tried to block the admission of a new State that might give the other party two more Senators. Because New Mexico was viewed as a potentially Democratic state, the Republican Senate thwarted its admission. In 1888, Republican majorities in both houses passed an omnibus statehood bill that enabled North and South Dakota, Washington, and Montana to move towards statehood, but omitted New Mexico. Besides politics, New Mexico met resistance from Senators who questioned whether its largely Spanish-speaking, Catholic population was capable of self-government ``in the Anglo- Saxon sense.'' Senator Albert Beveridge, who chaired the Committee on Territories, traveled through New Mexico and Arizona in 1902 and came back convinced that neither was ready for statehood. President Theodore Roosevelt, however, was anxious to settle the issue, and to break the logjam he proposed combining the territories of New Mexico and Arizona into a single State. Its capital would be in Sante Fe, but it would take the name Arizona. When submitted to the voters, New Mexico passed the proposal, but Arizona soundly defeated it. In his last annual message to Congress, President Roosevelt abandoned the idea of a combined territory and proposed that each should gain statehood. Senator Beveridge continued to fight statehood, but in 1910 Congress adopted the Enabling Act to admit both New Mexico and Arizona. New Mexico immediately submitted an acceptable constitution, but objections were raised against Arizona's more progressive constitution. As a result, New Mexico's admission was blocked by a Senate filibuster until Arizona's constitution was also approved. New Mexico at last became a State on January 6, 1912, and Arizona followed a month later.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 16, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the U.S. Department of Energy's budget for fiscal year 2013. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Abigail_Campbell@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact Jennifer Nekuda Malik at 202- 224-5479 or Abigail Campbell at 202-224-1219. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 28, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the President's fiscal year 2013 proposed budget for the Department of the Interior. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Jake_McCook@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or Jake McCook (202) 224-9313.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 31, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the U.S. and global energy outlook for 2012. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Allison_Seyferth@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 2, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the final report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Allison_Seyferth@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Alaska, and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Lisa Murkowski, in urging passage of the Insular Areas Act of 2011. This legislation would enact three time- sensitive provisions needed to improve the operation of certain Federal programs in the U.S. territory of American Samoa and in the freely associated states of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. First, section 2 of the bill would amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 to direct the Secretary of Energy, as a part of the Department's Marshall Islands radiation monitoring program, to also periodically monitor the containment structure on Runit Island where nuclear cleanup wastes are buried. This new monitoring would include a visual inspection of the containment structure and a radiochemical analysis of groundwater surrounding and in the structure. This section of the bill further requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress with the results of the monitoring. Finally, the section requires that the Secretary of the Interior shall make available to DOE, from existing technical assistance funds, the funding needed to conduct the chemical analysis of groundwater. This section was requested by the Government of the Marshall Islands because of continuing concerns about radiation contamination among the people living and fishing near Runit Island. Officials from the Department of Energy regularly visit the islands near Runit as a part of DOE's ongoing Marshall Islands monitoring activities, and it is reasonable to direct that those officials periodically monitor the Runit Island containment structure to assure the community that the surrounding waters are not being contaminated and do not pose a health risk to persons living and fishing nearby. Second, section 3 of the bill would amend current law which authorizes U.S. judges to serve temporarily, on a reimbursable basis, on the courts of the freely associated states. These island nations were formerly administered by the United States under a U.N. trusteeship, and the practice of providing temporary judges on a reimbursable and time-available basis to assist local courts has existed for several decades. This section was requested by the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which has few judges of its own and seeks to have additional U.S. judges available to assist, particularly when multijudge panels are needed to hear appeals. This authority is used by the Ninth Circuit Court only a few days per year when such temporary assignments do not interfere with the caseload of the assigned judges. The section would expand the pool of eligible judges from circuit and district judges, to include magistrate and territorial judges. On March 31, 2011, I received a letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States stating its support for this provision. Finally, section 4 of this bill would amend the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 to delay the 50-cent increase in the minimum wage of American Samoa that is scheduled for September 30, 2011, until September 30, 2015. It would also delay future periodic minimum wage increases and the periodic GAO report on the impact of prior wage increases from a 2- year to a 3-year, cycle. American Samoa is a small, remote, unincorporated and unorganized U.S. territory--the only U.S. territory in the Southern Hemisphere. Its economy more closely resembles that of the nearby island-nation of Samoa than it does the U.S. economy. It has a large subsistence sector, as indicated by a 30 percent unemployment rate, and an average per capita income of about $7,000 year--less than a quarter of the poorest State. The wage economy is concentrated in the government sector and fish processing. In recent years, however, trade globalization and rising costs have contributed to a severe economic downturn. GAO recently reported--GAO-11-427--that one of two tuna canneries closed in 2009 and the other cannery significantly reduced operations. Employment in this key sector fell by 55 percent from 2009 to 2010. The U.S. minimum wage was extended to American Samoa in 2007, with annual increases of 50 cents starting in 2008. But, because of the severe downturn, Congress delayed the 2010 wage increase until 2012. The Government of American Samoa is requesting this further delay because of the unique and continuing challenges it faces along with other South Pacific island economies. Mr. President, there are no authorizations in the bill, and any additional costs associated with its enactment would be funded from existing sources. These are time-sensitive provisions of interest to these remote U.S.-affiliated island communities, and I urge the support of my colleagues in passing this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to several sections of the fiscal year 2012 Department of Defense authorization bill relating to detainees. I have serious concerns regarding the detention provisions included in the final conference report. When this legislation was being discussed in the Senate, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation clearly stated that these provisions would undermine the ability of the government to bring suspected terrorists to justice. The language in the bill also raises significant issues regarding civil liberties, including the applicability of the indefinite detention provision to American citizens. Section 1021 of the conference report provides the U.S. military with the authority to indefinitely detain, without trial, an individual suspected of involvement in hostilities against the United States. The ability to detain the person without charges could last until the ``end of hostilities''--a completely undefined period of time considering that we are confronting a long-term conflict with groups, such as al- Qaida, who will never sign a peace treaty ending the hostilities. The final language does include an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein that states that the provision should not be construed as affecting existing law with respect to the detention of U.S. citizens, but this language simply restates that the law is what the law is. The problem is that the law is unsettled. If Congress is going to enact provisions authorizing the indefinite detention of a person without a trial, frankly, I believe the sensible approach is to be very clear about whether or not it is the intent of Congress to include American citizens within this category. Another problematic provision is section 1022, which mandates that the military detain suspected members of al-Qaida, including those captured within the United States. As I previously mentioned, military and Federal law enforcement officials have argued that this provision will hamper their ability to bring suspected terrorists to justice by limiting the flexibility of civilian law enforcement and creating a completely new and untested framework for dealing with suspected terrorists. Proponents of this provision have argued that this section will not interfere with the ability of civilian law enforcement to do their job. They point to the fact that the President may waive the requirement and that the President must draft procedures within 60 days to mitigate any problems associated with implementing this section. First, with regard to the waiver, if civilian law enforcement agents capture a suspected terrorist, the need to obtain a Presidential waiver for continued civilian detention could disrupt interrogations and intelligence gathering. Second, if there is an acknowledgement that the statute could interfere with Federal law enforcement's ability to interrogate and prosecute a suspected terrorist, it would seem more appropriate to just address the underlying problems with the statute rather than task the administration with coming up with procedures to deal with these shortfalls. Just yesterday, the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that the revised language did not fully address his concerns about the negative impact the military detention provision would have in interfering with the work of investigators. The bottom line is that this section muddies the water and is completely unnecessary. The administration already has the discretion to prosecute foreign terrorists in civilian court or in military tribunals. We should maintain this flexibility to ensure the government is able to aggressively pursue terrorists in the forum that is the most effective in each specific case. Lastly, I would like to briefly comment on the various provisions in the conference report aimed at limiting the ability of the administration to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. It has been about 10 years since the Bush administration established the facility and its closure is long overdue. As a recent article by Scott Shane of the New York Times pointed out, the government spends around $800,000 a year to house each of the 171 remaining prisoners at the military facility at Guantanamo. This is despite the fact that our Federal prison system has a strong record of safely holding individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses-- there are currently 362 of these individuals within the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. It is unfortunate that Congress continues to put in place restrictions preventing the transfer of inmates and the closure of the facility. I believe our Nation's handling of detainees will not be viewed kindly by history, and I look forward to the day we are able to close this regrettable chapter. I supported an amendment offered by Senator Mark Udall to remove all of the detainee provisions from the Senate bill. Unfortunately, the measure was not adopted. It was my hope that these matters would be dealt with as the legislative process moved forward, and I am disappointed that efforts to adequately address these concerns were unsuccessful. I will continue to support efforts to revise these provisions as Congress discusses detainee matters in the future. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Dec. 10, 2011] Beyond Guantanamo, a Web of Prisons for Terrorism Inmates (By Scott Shane) Washington.--It is the other Guantanamo, an archipelago of federal prisons that stretches across the country, hidden away on back roads. Today, it houses far more men convicted in terrorism cases than the shrunken population of the prison in Cuba that has generated so much debate. An aggressive prosecution strategy, aimed at prevention as much as punishment, has sent away scores of people. They serve long sentences, often in restrictive, Muslim-majority units, under intensive monitoring by prison officers. Their world is spare. Among them is Ismail Royer, serving 20 years for helping friends go to an extremist training camp in Pakistan. In a letter from the highest-security prison in the United States, Mr. Royer describes his remarkable neighbors at twice-a-week outdoor exercise sessions, each prisoner alone in his own wire cage under the Colorado sky. ``That's really the only interaction I have with other inmates,'' he wrote from the federal Supermax, 100 miles south of Denver. There is Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, Mr. Royer wrote. Terry Nichols, who conspired to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building. Ahmed Ressam, the would-be ``millennium bomber,'' who plotted to attack Los Angeles International Airport. And Eric Rudolph, who bombed abortion clinics and the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. In recent weeks, Congress has reignited an old debate, with some arguing that only military justice is appropriate for terrorist suspects. But military tribunals have proved excruciatingly slow and imprisonment at Guantanamo hugely costly--$800,000 per inmate a year, compared with $25,000 in federal prison. The criminal justice system, meanwhile, has absorbed the surge of terrorism cases since 2001 without calamity, and without the international criticism that Guantanamo has attracted for holding prisoners without trial. A decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, an examination of how the prisons have handled the challenge of extremist violence reveals some striking facts: --Big numbers. Today, 171 prisoners remain at Guantanamo. As of Oct. 1, the federal Bureau of Prisons reported that it was holding 362 people convicted in terrorism-related cases, 269 with what the bureau calls a connection to international terrorism--up from just 50 in 2000. An additional 93 inmates have a connection to domestic terrorism. --Lengthy sentences. Terrorists who plotted to massacre Americans are likely to die in prison. Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in 2010, is serving a sentence of life without parole at the Supermax, as are Zacarias Moussaoui, a Qaeda operative arrested in 2001, and Mr. Reid, the shoe bomber, among others. But many inmates whose conduct fell far short of outright terrorism are serving sentences of a decade or more, the result of a calculated prevention strategy to sideline radicals well before they could initiate deadly plots. --Special units. Since 2006, the Bureau of Prisons has moved many of those convicted in terrorism cases to two special units that severely restrict visits and phone calls. But in creating what are Muslim-dominated units, prison officials have inadvertently fostered a sense of solidarity and defiance, and set off a long-running legal dispute over limits on group prayer. Officials have warned in court filings about the danger of radicalization, but the Bureau of Prisons has nothing comparable to the deradicalization programs instituted in many countries. --Quiet releases. More than 300 prisoners have completed their sentences and been freed since 2001. Their convictions involved not outright violence but ``material support'' for a terrorist group; financial or document fraud; weapons violations; and a range of other crimes. About half are foreign citizens and were deported; the Americans have blended into communities around the country, refusing news media interviews and avoiding attention. --Rare recidivism. By contrast with the record at Guantanamo, where the Defense Department says that about 25 percent of those released are known or suspected of subsequently joining militant groups, it appears extraordinarily rare for the federal prison inmates with past terrorist ties to plot violence after their release. The government keeps a close eye on them: prison intelligence officers report regularly to the Justice Department on visitors, letters and phone calls of inmates linked to terrorism. Before the prisoners are freed, F.B.I. agents typically interview them, and probation officers track them for years. Both the Obama administration and Republicans in Congress often cite the threat of homegrown terrorism. But the Bureau of Prisons has proven remarkably resistant to outside scrutiny of the inmates it houses, who might offer a unique window on the problem. In 2009, a group of scholars proposed interviewing people imprisoned in terrorism cases about how they took that path. The Department of Homeland Security approved the proposal and offered financing. But the Bureau of Prisons refused to grant access, saying the project would require too much staff time. ``There's a huge national debate about how dangerous these people are,'' said Gary LaFree, director of a national terrorism study center at the University of Maryland, who was lead author of the proposal. ``I just think, as a citizen, somebody ought to be studying this.'' The Bureau of Prisons would not make any officials available for an interview with The New York Times, and wardens at three prisons refused to permit a reporter to visit inmates. But e-mails and letters from inmates give a rare, if narrow, look at their hidden world. Paying the Price Consider the case of Randall Todd Royer, 38, a Missouri- born Muslim convert who goes by Ismail. Before 9/11, he was a young Islamic activist with the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society, meeting with members of Congress and visiting the Clinton White House. Today he is nearly eight years into a 20-year prison sentence. He pleaded guilty in 2004 to helping several American friends go to a training camp for Lashkar-e-Taiba, an extremist group fighting Indian rule in Kashmir. The organization was later designated a terrorist group by the United States--and is blamed for the Mumbai massacre in 2008--but prosecutors maintained in 2004 that the friends intended to go on to Afghanistan and fight American troops alongside the Taliban. Mr. Royer had fought briefly with the Bosnian Muslims against their Serbian neighbors in the mid-1990s, when NATO, too, backed the Bosnians. He trained at a Lashkar-e-Taiba camp himself. And in 2001, he was stopped by Virginia police with an AK-47 and ammunition in his car. But he adamantly denies that he would ever scheme to kill Americans, and there is no evidence that he did so. Before sentencing, he wrote the judge a 30-page letter admitting, ``I crossed the line and, in my ignorance and phenomenally poor judgment, broke the law.'' In grand jury testimony, he expressed regret about not objecting during a meeting, just after the Sept. 11 attacks, in which his friends discussed joining the Taliban. ``Unfortunately, I didn't come out and clearly say that's not what any of us should be about,'' he said. Prosecutors call Mr. Royer ``an inveterate liar'' in court papers in another case, asserting that he has given contradictory accounts of the meeting after Sept. 11. Mr. Royer says he has been truthful. Whatever the facts, he is paying the price. His 20-year sentence was the statutory minimum under a 2004 plea deal he reluctantly took, fearing that a trial might end in a life term. His wife divorced him and remarried; he has seen his four young children only through glass since 2006, when the Bureau of Prisons moved him to a restrictive new unit in Indiana for inmates with the terrorism label. After an altercation with another inmate who he said was bullying others, he was moved in 2010 to the Supermax in Colorado. He is barred from using e-mail and permitted only three 15- minute phone calls a month--recently increased from two, a move that Mr. Royer hopes may portend his being moved to a prison closer to his children. His letters are reflective, sometimes self-critical, frequently dropping allusions to his omnivorous reading. His flirtation with violent Islam and his incarceration, he says, have not poisoned him against his own country. ``You asked what I think of the U.S.; that is an extraordinarily complex question,'' Mr. Royer wrote in one letter consisting of 27 pages of neat handwriting. ``I can say I was born in Missouri, I love that land and its people, I love the Mississippi, I love my family and my cousins, I love my Germanic ethnic heritage and people, I love the English language, I love the American people--my people. He said he believed some American foreign policy positions had been ``needlessly antagonistic'' but added, ``Nothing the U.S. did justified the 9/11 attacks.'' Mr. Royer rejected the notion that the United States was at war with Islam. ``Conflict between the U.S. and Muslims is neither inevitable nor beneficial or in anyone's interest,'' he wrote. ``Actually, I suppose it is in the interest of fanatics on both sides, but their interests run counter to everyone else's.'' He added an erudite footnote: `` `Les extremites se touchent' (the extremes meet)--Blaise Pascal.'' He expressed frustration that the Bureau of Prisons appears to view him as an extremist, despite what he describes as his campaign against extremism in discussions with other inmates and prison sermons at Friday Prayer, ``which they surely have recordings of.'' ``I have gotten into vehement debates, not to mention civil conversations, with other inmates from the day I was arrested until today, about the dangers and evils of extremism and terrorism,'' Mr. Royer wrote in a yearlong correspondence with a reporter. ``Can they not figure out who I am?'' A Scorched-Earth Approach In 2004, prosecutors believed they knew who Mr. Royer was: one of a group of young Virginians under the influence of a radical cleric, Ali al-Timimi, whose members played paintball to practice for jihad and were on a path toward extremist violence. After Sept. 11, federal prosecutors took a scorched-earth approach to any crime with even a hint of a terrorism connection, and judges and juries went along. In the Virginia jihad case, for instance, prosecutors used the Neutrality Act, a little-used law dating to 1794 that prohibits Americans from fighting against a nation at peace with the United States. Prosecutors combined that law with weapons statutes that impose a mandatory minimum sentence in a strategy to get the longest prison terms, with breaks for some defendants who cooperated, said Paul J. McNulty, then the United States attorney overseeing the case. ``We were doing all we could to prevent the next attack,'' Mr. McNulty said. ``It was a deterrence strategy and a show of strength,'' said Karen J. Greenberg, a law professor at Fordham University who has overseen the most thorough independent analysis of terrorism prosecutions. ``The attitude of the government was: Every step you take toward terrorism, no matter how small, will be punished severely.'' About 40 percent of terrorism cases since the Sept. 11 attacks have relied on informants, by the count of the Center on Law and Security at New York University, which Ms. Greenberg headed until earlier this year. In such cases, the F.B.I. has trolled for radicals and then tested whether they were willing to plot mayhem--again, a preemptive strategy intended to ferret out potential terrorists. But in some cases prosecutors have been accused of overreaching. Yassin M. Aref, for instance, was a Kurdish immigrant from Iraq and the imam of an Albany mosque when he agreed to serve as witness to a loan between an acquaintance and another man, actually an informant posing as a supporter of a Pakistani terrorist group, Jaish-e-Muhammad. The ostensible purpose of the loan was to buy a missile to kill the Pakistani ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Aref's involvement was peripheral--but he was convicted of conspiring to aid a terrorist group and got a 15-year sentence. That was a typical punishment, according to the Center on Law and Security, which has studied the issue. Of 204 people charged with what it calls serious jihadist crimes since the Sept. 11 attacks, 87 percent were convicted and got an average sentence of 14 years, according to a September report from the center. Federal officials say the government's zero-tolerance approach to any conduct touching on terrorism is an important reason there has been no repeat of Sept. 11. Lengthy sentences for marginal offenders have been criticized by some rights advocates as deeply unfair--but they have sent an unmistakable message to young men drawn to the rhetoric of violent jihad. The strategy has also sent scores of Muslim men to federal prisons. Special Units After news reports in 2006 that three men imprisoned in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had sent letters to a Spanish terrorist cell, the Bureau of Prisons created two special wards, called Communication Management Units, or C.M.U.'s. The units, which opened at federal prisons in Terre Haute, Ind., in 2006 and Marion, Ill., in 2008, have set off litigation and controversy, chiefly because critics say they impose especially restrictive rules on Muslim inmates, who are in the majority. The C.M.U.'s? You mean the Muslim Management Units?'' said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American- Islamic Relations. The units currently hold about 80 inmates. The rules for visitors--who are allowed no physical contact with inmates-- and the strict monitoring of mail, e-mail and phone calls are intended both to prevent inmates from radicalizing others and to rule out plotting from behind bars. A Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman, Traci L. Billingsley, said in an e-mail that the units were not created for any religious group but were ``necessary to ensure the safety, security and orderly operation of correctional facilities, and protection of the public.'' An unintended consequence of creating the C.M.U.'s is a continuing conflict between Muslim inmates and guards, mainly over the inmates' demand for collective prayer beyond the authorized hourlong group prayer on Fridays. The clash is described in hundreds of pages of court filings in a lawsuit. In one affidavit, a prison official in Terre Haute describes ``signs of radicalization'' in the unit, saying one inmate's language showed ``defiance to authority, and a sense of being incarcerated because of Islam.'' One 2010 written protest obtained by The New York Times, listing grievances ranging from the no-contact visiting rules to guards ``mocking, disrespecting and disrupting'' Friday Prayer, was signed by 17 Muslim prisoners in the Terre Haute Communication Management Unit. They included members of the so-called Virginia jihad case of which Mr. Royer was part; the Lackawanna Six, Buffalo-area Yemeni Americans who traveled to a Qaeda camp in Afghanistan; Kevin James, who formed a radical Muslim group in prison and plotted to attack military facilities in Los Angeles; and John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban. An affidavit signed by Mr. Lindh, who is serving 20 years after admitting to fighting for the Taliban, complained that a correctional officer greeted male Muslim inmates with ``Good morning, ladies.'' (``No ladies were in the area,'' Mr. Lindh writes.) Prison officials say in court papers that Mr. Lindh has repeatedly challenged guards and violated rules. Unlike those at the Supermax, inmates in the segregated units have access to e-mail, and some were willing to answer questions. Mr. Lindh, whose father, Frank Lindh, said his son believed the news media falsely labeled him a terrorist, was not. In reply to a reporter's letter requesting an interview, he sent only a photocopy of the sole of a tennis shoe. Since shoe bottoms are considered offensive in many cultures, his answer appeared to be an emphatic no. There is some evidence that the Bureau of Prisons has assigned Muslims with no clear terrorist connection to the C.M.U.'s. Avon Twitty, a Muslim who spent 27 years in prison for a 1982 street murder, was sent to the Terre Haute unit in 2007. When he challenged the assignment, he was told in writing that he was a ``member of an international terrorist organization,'' though no organization was named and there appears to be no public evidence for the assertion. Mr. Twitty, working for a home improvement company and teaching at a Washington mosque since his release in January, said he believed the real reason was to quash his complaints about what he believed were miscalculations of time off for good behavior for numerous inmates. ``They had to shut me up,'' he said. Another former inmate at the Marion C.M.U., Andy Stepanian, an animal rights activist, said a guard once told him he was ``a balancer''--a non-Muslim placed in the unit to rebut claims of religious bias. Mr. Stepanian said the creation of the predominantly Muslim units could backfire, adding to the feeling that Islam is under attack. ``I think it's a fair assessment that these men will leave with a more intensified belief that the U.S. is at war with Islam,'' said Mr. Stepanian, 33, who now works for a Princeton publisher. ``The place reeked of it,'' he said, describing clashes over restrictions on prayer and some guards' hostility to Islam. Yet Mr. Stepanian also said he found the ``family atmosphere'' and camaraderie of inmates at the unit a welcome change from the threatening tone of his previous medium- security prison, where he said prisoners without a gang to protect them were ``food for the sharks.'' When he arrived at the C.M.U., he said, he found on his bed a pair of shower slippers and a bag of non-animal-based food that Muslim inmates had collected after hearing a vegan was joining the unit. He was wary. ``I thought they were trying to indoctrinate me,'' he said. ``They never tried.'' The consensus of the inmates, he said, ``was that 9/11 was not Islam.'' ``These guys were not lunatics,'' he said. ``They wanted to be back with their families.'' Reflection It may be too early to judge recidivism for those imprisoned in terrorism cases after Sept. 11; those who are already out are mostly defendants whose crimes were less serious or who cooperated with the authorities. Justice Department officials and outside experts could identify only a handful of cases in which released inmates had been rearrested, a rate of relapse far below that for most federal inmates or for Guantanamo releases. For example, Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, a Kuwaiti Canadian who plotted with Al Qaeda to attack American embassies in Singapore and Manila, pleaded guilty in 2002 and began to work as an F.B.I. informant. But F.B.I. agents soon discovered he was secretly plotting to kill them--and he was sentenced to life in prison. Nearly all of these ex-convicts, however, lie low and steer clear of militancy, often under the watchful eye of family, mosque and community, lawyers and advocates say. A dozen former inmates declined to be interviewed, saying that to be associated publicly with a terrorism case could derail new jobs and lives. As for Mr. Royer, he is approaching only the midpoint of his 20-year sentence. Did he get what he deserved? Chris Heffelfinger, a terrorism analyst and author of ``Radical Islam in America,'' did a detailed study of the Virginia jihad case, and concluded that Mr. Royer's sentence was perhaps double what his crime merited. But he said the prosecution was warranted and probably prevented at least some of the men Mr. Royer assisted from joining the Taliban. ``I think a strong law enforcement response to cases like this is appropriate nine times out of 10,'' Mr. Heffelfinger said. Mr. Royer himself, in his long presentencing letter to Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, said he understood why he had been arrested. ``I realize that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from terrorism,'' he wrote, ``and that in this post-9/11 environment, it must take all reasonable precautions.'' Today, Mr. Royer's only battle is to serve out his sentence in a less restrictive prison nearer his children. In what he called in a letter ``a heroic sacrifice,'' his parents, Ray and Nancy Royer, moved from Missouri to Virginia to be close to their son's children, now aged 8 to 12. ``I found it necessary to be a surrogate father,'' said Ray Royer, 70, a commercial photographer by trade, in an interview at the retirement community outside Washington where he and his wife now live. When his son, who still goes by Randy in the family, converted to Islam at the age of 18, his parents did not object. Later, when he headed to Bosnia, they chalked it up to his active social conscience. ``Religion is a personal thing,'' the elder Mr. Royer said. ``He'd never been in trouble.'' Ray Royer was at his son's Virginia apartment in 2003 when the F.B.I. knocked at 5 a.m., put him in handcuffs and took him away. Now, years later, he alternates between defending his son and expressing dismay at what Randy got himself into. ``He did help his buddies get to L.E.T.,'' or Lashkar-e- Taiba, the Pakistani militant group later designated as a terrorist organization. ``He admitted to it. He should pay the price.'' Still, he added, ``maybe he deserved five years or so. Not 20.'' Ray Royer sat at his home computer one recent evening, looking through a folder called ``Randy Pics''--photographs tracing his son's life from childhood, to fatherhood, to prison. ``He loved his family,'' the father said of his son. ``Why would he put this cause ahead of his family? I still don't really know what happened. I'm still trying to figure it out.''

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Thursday, December 15, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending calendar business. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to commend Dr. Donald Berwick for his service as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and also to express my deep disappointment that his nomination was blocked by a minority of Senators. CMS, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has benefitted greatly from Dr. Berwick's innovation and leadership, and the refusal of some Members to support confirming him for this position is difficult to understand. Dr. Berwick is widely recognized as a highly qualified leader in the realm of health care quality. But, unfortunately, many of my colleagues across the aisle adamantly opposed Dr. Berwick's tenure, beginning when he was first nominated by President Obama for this position in April of last year. Many of these objections are based on inaccurate accusations and sound bites that have been completely taken out of context. Dr. Berwick has the qualifications, expertise, and demonstrated leadership ability that CMS needs at this critical time. He is a pediatrician by training, Harvard professor, health care analyst, elected member of the Institute of Medicine, a leading advocate on health care quality and patient safety, and a cofounder of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, which is a respected think tank that trains hospitals on how to increase patient safety and improve operations. Don Berwick has also written extensively, with there being more than 120 scholarly articles he has authored or coauthored, along with several books, on the quality and efficiency of health care. Dr. Berwick is a true visionary. He has been an advocate for transparency and accountability within our health care system, and his distinguished career has made him the ideal candidate to lead the CMS at this critical time. It was due to Dr. Berwick's deep knowledge of health care, his vast experience, and his passion for this issue that his nomination originally won praise from across the political and professional spectrum. This includes Tom Scully and Mark McClellan, both former Administrators of CMS under President George W. Bush. They strongly endorsed his nomination. His nomination also had the support of Dr. Nancy Nielsen, who is the past president of the American Medical Association; John Rother, who is the former executive vice president of the AARP; and former Republican Senator from Minnesota, our former colleague, Dave Durenberger. In fact, Newt Gingrich even saluted Dr. Berwick for seeking a ``dramatically safer, less expensive, and more effective system of health care.'' During his tenure as CMS Administrator--the few months he has been in that position--Dr. Berwick has been able to implement impressive reforms, including launching the new CMS Innovation Center, which will test new health care delivery models that emphasize primary care and innovative ways to finance health care. He has also instituted a financial incentives program for physicians who use electronic health records. And generally, he has set the tone for health reform to take root and to provide Americans with affordable, high-quality health care in a cost-efficient manner. To be perfectly clear, I am not in any way suggesting that I do not continue to have enthusiasm for the President's recent nominee to replace Dr. Berwick. From all I know of this nominee, she will do an excellent job. But I am frustrated that an eminently qualified public servant is being denied the opportunity to continue serving the American people in this important position. There is no valid justification for denying him that opportunity.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. BINGAMAN. John McDonough of the Boston Globe, in his commentary on the response to Don Berwick's nomination, wrote: One of [health care's] most distinguished leaders and voices got mugged by partisan Republicans who know better and who got away with it. I am truly disappointed that certain Senators have pledged to block his nomination and that he has chosen to resign his position effective tomorrow. Our task now is to assess the new nominee the President has sent us. I hope Members can come together to do what is right in this circumstance; that is, to quickly confirm an Administrator for this very important position. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, December 8, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Arunava Majumdar, to be Under Secretary of Energy. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to allison_seyferth @energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly about an amendment Senator Murkowski and I have filed. There is a provision in the Energy and Water appropriations bill, which we are considering in the Senate, that we would like to see stricken or deleted from the bill. It is a provision in the legislation that mandates the sale of $500 million worth of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, as it is called. The bill also ends the Royalty-in-Kind Program. That part I am not disputing at this point. The language in the bill that we are concerned about is on page 41. It says in that part of the bill: Notwithstanding various other provisions, the Secretary of Energy shall sell $500 million in petroleum product from the reserve not later than March 1 of 2012, and shall deposit any proceeds from such sales in the general fund of the Treasury. In the words of the Department of Energy: The Strategic Petroleum Reserve exists, first and foremost, as an emergency response tool the President can use should the United States be confronted with an economically threatening disruption in oil supplies. The SPR is our Nation's insurance policy against oil supply disruptions, and keeping it well stocked and operational is important to our energy security. I believe that is a view shared by Democrats and Republicans. The SPR became filled to its maximum capacity of roughly 727 million barrels for the first time in its history in the year 2009. The President, in the budget he submitted--the 2012 budget--proposed a sale of oil from the SPR that would generate $500 million in revenue for the Federal Treasury. The administration explained that because the SPR was at maximum capacity, it needed to sell off some oil for operational purposes. They needed extra space in the SPR in order to move oil around within the system and to refurbish some of the underground salt caverns in which the oil is stored. However, this past June, there was an emergency drawdown, and there was a sale of 30 million barrels of SPR oil. I understand that the emergency sale generated more than $3 billion. This indicates to me that more than six times the amount of oil that the President thought was necessary to be sold for operational reasons has now been sold. Clearly, the President's proposal from February to create a little free space in the SPR is no longer necessary. The concern we have is that the SPR sale provision in this legislation remains part of an appropriations bill, and the sale is no longer necessary for operational purposes; it is simply a way of generating revenue. I hope my colleagues will consider the long-term implications of using our strategic oil stocks just to generate revenue for the operation of government on a weekly and monthly basis. I believe this is a bad precedent. I believe we should reject this part of the legislation, and if the opportunity presents itself to offer the amendment, I will urge our colleagues to join us in deleting this provision and ensuring that future revenue-generating sales of SPR oil not be accomplished or proposed simply to pay the ordinary operating bills of the various agencies covered by the legislation. I know my colleague from Alaska is expected to come to the floor in the next few minutes and give her views on this same legislation that she and I are cosponsoring, the amendment I have just spoken about. Until then, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Vitter, Merkley, and Brown of Ohio to introduce the Fair and Immediate Release of Generic Drugs Act of 2011. The FAIR GENERxICS Act is an important step in addressing the root cause of the growing cost of healthcare-- the delay of generic drugs entering the market. This legislation has broad support from consumer advocates, the generics industry, and experts including: AARP, Apotex generics manufacturer, Families USA, U.S. PIRG, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Center for Medicare Advocacy, the National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices, Alliance for Retired Americans, and Community Catalyst. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, prices for brand-name prescription drugs have continued to outpace inflation. Overall spending on prescription drugs also has increased sharply. In 2008 spending in the U.S. for prescription drugs was $234.1 billion, nearly 6 times the $40.3 billion spent in 1990. Generic drugs can be an important source of affordable prescription drugs for many Americans. On average, generic drugs are four times less expensive than name brand drugs. Pay-for-delay patent settlements brand and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, however, are delaying timely public access to generic drugs, which costs consumers and taxpayers billions of dollars annually. In 2010 the Federal Trade Commission reported 31 such settlements, a 60 percent increase since 2009, and in 2011 FTC reported 28 such settlements. Many experts and consumer advocates have called for legislation to address this problem and ensure access to affordable medicines for all Americans. The FAIR GENERxICS Act of 2011 addresses the root cause of anti- competitive pay-for-delay settlements between brand and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers--the unintended, structural flaw in the Hatch-Waxman Act that allows ``parked'' exclusivities to block generic competition. By doing so, the legislation ensures consumers will benefit from full and fair generic competition at the earliest, most appropriate time. The legislation would prevent ``parked exclusivities'' from delaying full, fair, and early generic competition by modifying three key elements of existing law. First, the legislation would grant the right to share exclusivity to any generic filer who wins a patent challenge in the district court or is not sued for patent infringement by the brand company. The legislation also maximizes the incentive for all generic challengers to fight to bring products to market at the earliest possible time by holding generic settlers to the deferred entry date agreed to in their settlements. Finally, in order to create more clarity regarding litigation risk for pioneer drug companies and generic companies, the legislation requires pioneer companies to make a litigation decision within the 45 day window provided for in the Hatch- Waxman Act. As a result of these changes, companies who prevail in their patent challenges and immediately come to market may be the sole beneficiary of the 180 day exclusivity period. In addition, companies will understand litigation risk before launching generic products. Taken in concert these changes will ensure that generic markets are opened as they were originally envisioned under the Hatch-Waxman exclusivity periods; and will generate significant savings for the U.S. consumers, the Federal Government, and the American health care system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 70th anniversary of Goodwill Industries of New Mexico. Working in New Mexico communities since 1941, the organization has helped find work and provided training and development for countless needy New Mexicans. The nonprofit organization provides essential skill development, career-building services, and work opportunities to residents facing serious employment barriers. This is an especially important service they provide considering the continuing difficulties facing many applicants in today's job market. Despite high unemployment and a struggling economy, Goodwill Industries of New Mexico placed nearly 850 clients in public and private sector jobs last year. Many of these clients face challenges with various disabilities, homelessness, drug addiction, and traumatic brain injuries, among other barriers. And the impact of the organization's activities has been felt throughout the entire State. In 2010, Goodwill Industries served nearly 10,000 residents through 8 programs reaching all 33 counties. That is a tenfold increase from a decade ago. Much of its funding is derived through its retail stores, with 87 cents of every dollar spent on programs and services. But last year alone, in addition to its retail sales, Goodwill Industries of New Mexico salvaged nearly 1,700 tons of textiles, 188 tons of shoes, recycled 536 tons of cardboard and paper, and kept nearly 35 tons of used electronics out of New Mexico landfills. The environmental impact of Goodwill's initiatives is making a positive difference as well. The education and training programs provide intensified training to those in need at six training centers across the State. Their programs also help low-income seniors to market themselves and acquire skills to compete in today's job market and place individuals in subsidized jobs with a host agency with the goal of moving that employee into a permanent position within the community. Its Pathways programs assist the near homeless and chronically homeless in obtaining access to housing and the opportunity to begin a new life through the power of work. Goodwill Industries' GoodGuides Mentoring Program pairs adults with at risk teens. Mentors provide structure and a supportive relationship with middle and high school- aged students. Goodwill volunteers work with teens to establish goals, build career plans, and work toward high school graduation to prepare for postsecondary training or college. Traumatic brain injuries often leave patients confused and bewildered, struggling with simple day-to-day tasks. The caring staff in the TBI case management program assisted over 500 clients in crisis last year from imminent risk to their safety and health. I was also pleased to announce in July that this highly respected organization received over a $\1/2\ million grant from the VA to prevent homelessness among New Mexican veterans and their families. Mr. President, I join Goodwill Industries of New Mexico in celebrating its 70th anniversary, and I congratulate them on being one of my State's premier service providers advocating for the disabled, homeless, and unemployed.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will be held on Thursday, December 8, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing will be to hear testimony on opportunities and challenges to address domestic and global water supply issues. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Meagan Gins@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224-6224 or Meagan Gins at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 15, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the Department of Energy's Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR) and two bills pending before the Committee: S. 1703--Quadrennial Energy Review Act of 2011, and S. 1807--Energy Research and Development Coordination Act of 2011 Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Meagan_Gins@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Jennifer Nekuda Malik at 202- 224-5479, Linda Lance at 202-224-7556, or Meagan Gins at 202-224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Energy Research and Development Coordination Act of 2011. This bill updates one of the basic statutes governing energy research and development, the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, to improve the planning and coordination of energy research and development government-wide. It also puts in place a mechanism to allow Congress to see a consolidated annual budget for all energy research, development, and demonstration activities across the Federal agencies, and to provide an opportunity to better coordinate and reduce unnecessary duplication in these activities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Energy Research and Development Coordination Act of 2011. This bill updates one of the basic statutes governing energy research and development, the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, to improve the planning and coordination of energy research and development government-wide. It also puts in place a mechanism to allow Congress to see a consolidated annual budget for all energy research, development, and demonstration activities across the Federal agencies, and to provide an opportunity to better coordinate and reduce unnecessary duplication in these activities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending calendar business. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the Secretary of the Interior's Order No. 3315 to Consolidate and Establish the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement within the Bureau of Land Management. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Jake_McCook@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Patricia Beneke (202) 224- 5451 or Jake McCook (202) 224-9313.