Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to recognize the distinguished service of my friend Bruce Black, the Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. Bruce has chosen to leave the Federal bench at the end of this month. His decision to retire is a loss for our State and for the Nation. But he has served our Nation with great distinction and ability. Bruce was appointed to be a district court judge by President Clinton in 1995. During the 17 years of his service in that position he has exemplified the integrity and high standards of fairness and impartiality which we strive for in our Federal judiciary. Throughout his years as a Federal judge he has never lost sight of the real-life effects of the court's decisions on the lives of those who come before the court. Bruce and his wife Mary have exciting plans for the next chapter of their lives. They are close friends to my wife Anne, and me. We wish them the very best in future years.

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 of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 19, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing will be to hear testimony on four items: S. 3265, a bill to amend the Federal Power Act to remove the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to collect land use fees for land that has been sold, exchanged, or otherwise transferred from Federal ownership but that is subject to a power site reservation; H.R. 2842, Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2012; S. 3464, Mni Wiconi Project Act Amendments of 2012; and S. 3483, Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act. 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 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 an the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 12, 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 S. 3469, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 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 Abigail_Campbell@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill to implement the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. The Blue Ribbon Commission was appointed by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, at the request of President Obama, in March 2010. The purpose of the Commission was to examine the nation's nuclear waste management policy, consider alternatives, and recommend a new approach. The Commission was made up of 15 distinguished members, and co-chaired by Representative Lee Hamilton and General Brent Scowcroft. Two of our former colleagues, Senator Domenici and Senator Hagel, were also members. The Commission did an outstanding job. It met more than two dozen times over two years, conducted five public hearings across the country, heard testimony from countless experts and stakeholders, visited nuclear waste management facilities both here and abroad, and assembled a very thorough, thoughtful, and authoritative report. The Commission made eight clear, concise, and eminently sensible recommendations. Principally, it recommended that we adopt a new, consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste management facilities, and that we establish a new organization to manage the nuclear waste management program. It affirmed the need to build one or more geologic repositories in which nuclear waste can be permanently buried, and it endorsed the need to build one or more temporary storage facilities in which nuclear waste can be stored until it can be permanently disposed of in a repository. It emphasized the importance of giving the new organization access to the funds needed to implement the program. It also made useful recommendations on transportation, and on the importance of continued support for nuclear research and development and international nuclear non-proliferation programs. The Commission published its report at the end of January, and the two co-chairs, Representative Hamilton and General Scowcroft, testified to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on it in early February. Since then, I have been working with the Ranking Republican on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Murkowski, and the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, to try to put the commission's recommendations into legislative language. Much of our time and effort centered on the Commission's recommendation for ``a new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program.'' The Commission recommended that Congress establish a new ``single purpose organization,'' outside of the Department of Energy, but still within the Federal Government to manage the nation's nuclear wastes in place of the Department of Energy. More specifically, it proposed formation of a government corporation, and suggested that the Tennessee Valley Authority might provide a useful model. Our initial efforts focused on the government corporation approach, but we ultimately agreed to set that model aside in favor of a structure that we believe may be both more effective and more accountable. We chose to focus full responsibility and authority for the program in a single administrator, and to establish a separate board made up of senior Federal officials to oversee the administrator. Most of the rest of our discussions focused on the siting process for temporary storage facilities and permanent geologic repositories. We agreed with the commission's recommendation that the new organization employ a consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste facilities and with the need for to establish interim storage facilities pending completion of a repository. But we were unable to agree on the ``linkage'' between storage facilities and the repository. Under current law, the Department of Energy cannot begin constructing a storage facility until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues a license to construct the repository. The Commission found that this tight linkage has prevented a storage facility from being built and recommended that it be eliminated. But the commission also recognized the need for what it called ``positive linkages'' between storage and disposal to ensure that progress continues on both fronts and interim storage does not end up become permanent. Meanwhile, while our discussions were underway, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee reported legislation that authorizes the Secretary of Energy to begin storing nuclear waste at interim storage sites. My proposal for ``positive linkages'' was to allow the new agency to store up to 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel at a storage facility built under the authority in the appropriations bill, even if no agreement has been reached on a repository, but to require there to be an agreement for a repository before allowing the new agency to store nuclear waste at other storage facilities. Regrettably, we were not able to reach an agreement on this issue or on whether the siting process for storage facilities should be identical to the siting process for repositories wherever possible. Nonetheless, we agreed that I should introduce the bill with the linkages that I have proposed and that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources should hold a hearing on it in September. I recognize, of course, that the bill will not become law this year. But my hope is to obtain testimony on it and to build a legislative record that might serve as the foundation for further consideration and ultimate enactment in the next Congress. The Blue Ribbon Commission found that ``it is long past time for the government to make good on its commitments to the American people to provide for the safe disposal of nuclear waste.'' ``Put simply,'' the Commission said, ``this nation's failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. It will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it continues. . . . '' The commission has performed a very valuable service to the nation in showing us a way forward. Its recommendations merit our careful consideration and deserve our approval. I have attempted to put them into legislative form so that they can be enacted and implemented. I recognize that will not happen this year. It will take a great deal more time and work. But it must begin and I hope it will continue in the next Congress. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill to implement the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. The Blue Ribbon Commission was appointed by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, at the request of President Obama, in March 2010. The purpose of the Commission was to examine the nation's nuclear waste management policy, consider alternatives, and recommend a new approach. The Commission was made up of 15 distinguished members, and co-chaired by Representative Lee Hamilton and General Brent Scowcroft. Two of our former colleagues, Senator Domenici and Senator Hagel, were also members. The Commission did an outstanding job. It met more than two dozen times over two years, conducted five public hearings across the country, heard testimony from countless experts and stakeholders, visited nuclear waste management facilities both here and abroad, and assembled a very thorough, thoughtful, and authoritative report. The Commission made eight clear, concise, and eminently sensible recommendations. Principally, it recommended that we adopt a new, consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste management facilities, and that we establish a new organization to manage the nuclear waste management program. It affirmed the need to build one or more geologic repositories in which nuclear waste can be permanently buried, and it endorsed the need to build one or more temporary storage facilities in which nuclear waste can be stored until it can be permanently disposed of in a repository. It emphasized the importance of giving the new organization access to the funds needed to implement the program. It also made useful recommendations on transportation, and on the importance of continued support for nuclear research and development and international nuclear non-proliferation programs. The Commission published its report at the end of January, and the two co-chairs, Representative Hamilton and General Scowcroft, testified to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on it in early February. Since then, I have been working with the Ranking Republican on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Murkowski, and the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, to try to put the commission's recommendations into legislative language. Much of our time and effort centered on the Commission's recommendation for ``a new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program.'' The Commission recommended that Congress establish a new ``single purpose organization,'' outside of the Department of Energy, but still within the Federal Government to manage the nation's nuclear wastes in place of the Department of Energy. More specifically, it proposed formation of a government corporation, and suggested that the Tennessee Valley Authority might provide a useful model. Our initial efforts focused on the government corporation approach, but we ultimately agreed to set that model aside in favor of a structure that we believe may be both more effective and more accountable. We chose to focus full responsibility and authority for the program in a single administrator, and to establish a separate board made up of senior Federal officials to oversee the administrator. Most of the rest of our discussions focused on the siting process for temporary storage facilities and permanent geologic repositories. We agreed with the commission's recommendation that the new organization employ a consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste facilities and with the need for to establish interim storage facilities pending completion of a repository. But we were unable to agree on the ``linkage'' between storage facilities and the repository. Under current law, the Department of Energy cannot begin constructing a storage facility until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues a license to construct the repository. The Commission found that this tight linkage has prevented a storage facility from being built and recommended that it be eliminated. But the commission also recognized the need for what it called ``positive linkages'' between storage and disposal to ensure that progress continues on both fronts and interim storage does not end up become permanent. Meanwhile, while our discussions were underway, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee reported legislation that authorizes the Secretary of Energy to begin storing nuclear waste at interim storage sites. My proposal for ``positive linkages'' was to allow the new agency to store up to 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel at a storage facility built under the authority in the appropriations bill, even if no agreement has been reached on a repository, but to require there to be an agreement for a repository before allowing the new agency to store nuclear waste at other storage facilities. Regrettably, we were not able to reach an agreement on this issue or on whether the siting process for storage facilities should be identical to the siting process for repositories wherever possible. Nonetheless, we agreed that I should introduce the bill with the linkages that I have proposed and that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources should hold a hearing on it in September. I recognize, of course, that the bill will not become law this year. But my hope is to obtain testimony on it and to build a legislative record that might serve as the foundation for further consideration and ultimate enactment in the next Congress. The Blue Ribbon Commission found that ``it is long past time for the government to make good on its commitments to the American people to provide for the safe disposal of nuclear waste.'' ``Put simply,'' the Commission said, ``this nation's failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. It will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it continues. . . . '' The commission has performed a very valuable service to the nation in showing us a way forward. Its recommendations merit our careful consideration and deserve our approval. I have attempted to put them into legislative form so that they can be enacted and implemented. I recognize that will not happen this year. It will take a great deal more time and work. But it must begin and I hope it will continue in the next Congress. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

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 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 15, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., at the University of Colorado, Centennial Room 203, Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy, Colorado Springs, CO. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the recent Colorado wildfires, focusing on lessons learned that can be applied to future suppression, recovery, and mitigation efforts. The Fourmile Canyon fire report that was released on July 25 will be discussed, as will projections for future wildfire conditions and best practices that can improve forest health. 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, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Meagan__Gins@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Kevin Rennert (202) 224-7826, Meagan Gins at (202) 224-0883, or Jacqueline Emanuel at (202) 224-5512.

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 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Friday, August 17, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., at the Santa Fe Community College, 6401 Richards Avenue, Room 216 Lecture Hall, West Wing of the Main Building, Santa Fe, NM. The purpose of the hearing is to examine the current and future impacts of climate change on the Intermountain West, focusing on drought, wildfire frequency and severity, and ecosystems. 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, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Meagan__Gins@energy .senate.gov. For further information, please contact Kevin Rennert at (202) 224- 7826 or Meagan Gins at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Department of Energy High-End Computing Improvement Act of 2012, along with my co- sponsors, Senators Alexander and Durbin. This bipartisan bill addresses the need for ongoing high performance computing and the establishment of an exascale program within the Department of Energy, DOE. America's leadership in high performance computing, HPC, is essential to a vast range of national priorities in science, energy, environment, health, and national security. For decades the U.S. was the leader in HPC through collaborative efforts led by the DOE between national laboratories, academia, and industry. Investments in HPC have facilitated extraordinary scientific and technological advances that have enabled a wide range of simulation and analysis saving time, money, energy and fuel, which has strengthened the U.S. economy and contributed to national security. U.S. leadership in HPC has recently been challenged through significant governmental investment in HPC programs in Japan, China, South Korea, Russia, and the European Union, and the race to exascale computing is on. Exascale computers will be able to perform 10 to the 18th power floating point operations per second making them 1000 times more powerful than the most advanced computers today. These new computers will require the development of new software and computer architectures with improved power consumption, memory, and reliability. This bipartisan bill updates the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 to preserve DOE HPC and to distinguish the exascale initiative from other high-end computing efforts. Based on input from the DOE, appropriate funding levels are established through this bill to support the exascale initiative through fiscal year 2015. This bill will ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the race to exascale and as with previous generations of HPC systems, the resulting technological advances will further support Federal priorities like research and national security and will be integrated into electronics industries strengthening high-tech competitiveness and driving economic growth. I would like to conclude by taking a moment to acknowledge the exceptional efforts of a few staff members who have worked diligently to help craft this important piece of legislation. Jonathan Epstein, a former staff member on my Energy and Natural Resources Committee and current staff member on the Armed Services Committee and Jennifer Nekuda Malik, a AAAS Science Policy Fellow on my Energy and Natural Resources Committee worked with Neena Imam, a Legislative Fellow on Senator Alexander's staff and Tom Craig, a staff member on the Appropriations Committee, to update the DOE's high-end computing program to account for changes since the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 and establish the exascale computing program. I appreciate the efforts of these staff members and I thank them for their work. 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 Department of Energy High-End Computing Improvement Act of 2012, along with my co- sponsors, Senators Alexander and Durbin. This bipartisan bill addresses the need for ongoing high performance computing and the establishment of an exascale program within the Department of Energy, DOE. America's leadership in high performance computing, HPC, is essential to a vast range of national priorities in science, energy, environment, health, and national security. For decades the U.S. was the leader in HPC through collaborative efforts led by the DOE between national laboratories, academia, and industry. Investments in HPC have facilitated extraordinary scientific and technological advances that have enabled a wide range of simulation and analysis saving time, money, energy and fuel, which has strengthened the U.S. economy and contributed to national security. U.S. leadership in HPC has recently been challenged through significant governmental investment in HPC programs in Japan, China, South Korea, Russia, and the European Union, and the race to exascale computing is on. Exascale computers will be able to perform 10 to the 18th power floating point operations per second making them 1000 times more powerful than the most advanced computers today. These new computers will require the development of new software and computer architectures with improved power consumption, memory, and reliability. This bipartisan bill updates the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 to preserve DOE HPC and to distinguish the exascale initiative from other high-end computing efforts. Based on input from the DOE, appropriate funding levels are established through this bill to support the exascale initiative through fiscal year 2015. This bill will ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the race to exascale and as with previous generations of HPC systems, the resulting technological advances will further support Federal priorities like research and national security and will be integrated into electronics industries strengthening high-tech competitiveness and driving economic growth. I would like to conclude by taking a moment to acknowledge the exceptional efforts of a few staff members who have worked diligently to help craft this important piece of legislation. Jonathan Epstein, a former staff member on my Energy and Natural Resources Committee and current staff member on the Armed Services Committee and Jennifer Nekuda Malik, a AAAS Science Policy Fellow on my Energy and Natural Resources Committee worked with Neena Imam, a Legislative Fellow on Senator Alexander's staff and Tom Craig, a staff member on the Appropriations Committee, to update the DOE's high-end computing program to account for changes since the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 and establish the exascale computing program. I appreciate the efforts of these staff members and I thank them for their work. 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 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 Monday, August 6, 2012, at 2 p.m., in Contois Auditorium in the Burlington City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington, VT 05401. The purpose of the hearing is to examine gasoline price and margin dynamics within the State of Vermont. 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, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Symone_Green@energy. senate.gov. For further information, please contact Hannah Breul at (202) 224- 4756 or Symone Green at (202) 224-1219, or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

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, July 31, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 3385, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to use designated funding to pay for construction of authorized rural water projects, and for other purposes. 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 john_assini@Kenergy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Patricia Beneke (202) 224- 5451 or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last month the Department of the Interior transmitted two draft legislative proposals relating to the National Park Service. Both executive communications were referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The first legislative proposal, the National Park Service Critical Authorities Act of 2012, would address three National Park Service management concerns. The second proposal, the National Park Service Study Act of 2012, would authorize the Park Service to undertake or update fifteen special resource studies to determine the appropriateness of adding the study areas to the National Park System. I am pleased to introduce these bills, S. 3398 and S. 3399, by request as a courtesy to the Administration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the transmittal letters from the Secretary of the Interior, including a section-by-section analysis of each bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last month the Department of the Interior transmitted two draft legislative proposals relating to the National Park Service. Both executive communications were referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The first legislative proposal, the National Park Service Critical Authorities Act of 2012, would address three National Park Service management concerns. The second proposal, the National Park Service Study Act of 2012, would authorize the Park Service to undertake or update fifteen special resource studies to determine the appropriateness of adding the study areas to the National Park System. I am pleased to introduce these bills, S. 3398 and S. 3399, by request as a courtesy to the Administration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the transmittal letters from the Secretary of the Interior, including a section-by-section analysis of each bill, be printed in the Record.

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, July 24, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to assess the opportunities for, current level of investment in, and barriers to the expanded usage of natural gas as a fuel for transportation. 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, U.S. 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, or Kevin Rennert at 202-224-7826, or Meagan Gins at 202-224- 0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, be recognized.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I came to speak on the DISCLOSE Act. I would say parenthetically that I congratulate my colleague from Arizona for his statement earlier--a spirited defense of those U.S. business leaders who choose to shift jobs overseas. That is a subject for another day. I will not engage in that debate today, but I think it admirable that he feels compelled to make that case here on the Senate floor today. I want to speak in support of the DISCLOSE Act. If there is one thing that Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on, it is that our campaign finance system is broken. My colleague from Rhode Island made that point earlier, and I certainly agree with that. With the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, corporations, unions, and other groups are able to raise millions of dollars through secret contributions and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence Federal elections, as long as they do not directly coordinate with a candidate. According to the Federal Election Commission, it is expected that something over $11 billion will be spent over the course of the 2012 elections. That is about twice the 2008 level of spending. This is a staggering amount of money, and the source of much of that money will be completely in the dark. As a result, extraordinarily well-financed special interest groups dominate the airwaves, and it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to know who is behind campaign ads. In fact, it is nearly impossible for experts to know who is behind particular campaign ads. This is not good for public discourse, and it is not good for our democracy. In a healthy democracy, voters need to be able to make informed decisions about the information that is presented to them. The lack of transparency that currently exists in our political system makes that incredibly difficult. I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case, but the reality is that short of a constitutional amendment or a decision by the Court to reverse its opinion--both occurrences are unlikely anytime in the near future--the ability of Congress to restrict independent expenditures is very limited. There is something we can do now that would make a difference. We can enhance transparency with respect to the high-volume spending that is influencing our elections. We may not be able to stop the flood of unlimited spending, but we can shed some light on the process and enable the public to at least see where the money is coming from. The enactment of legislation requiring greater transparency about who is spending on campaigns was specifically called for by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision. The Republican leader in the Senate has argued against the DISCLOSE Act on the theory that it would squelch political speech. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks an opinion piece in Politico this morning entitled, ``Mitch McConnell dead wrong on DISCLOSE Act.'' It was written by Adam Skaggs, the senior counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

Mr. BINGAMAN. In that opinion piece Mr. Skaggs points out that there is no legal or logical basis to support the Republican leader's argument. The DISCLOSE Act is an important step in the direction of requiring transparency. The legislation would require certain organizations that make more than $10,000 in campaign-related expenditures to file a disclosure report with the Federal Election Commission and to report the names of any donors who contributed over $10,000. About 93 percent of the money raised by super PACs in 2010 through 2011 came from donors giving over $10,000, and this legislation would shed some light on where this money is coming from. The disclosure requirements apply to corporations, to labor unions, to 501(C)(3) nonprofit organizations, and to 527 election advocacy organizations, but they would not apply to 503(c)(3) charitable organizations. The legislation also includes mechanisms to protect legitimate nonpolitical donations from disclosure and prevents funding sources from being hidden by laundering funds through third-party groups. It is clear our campaign laws are outdated. They are in desperate need of revision. Frankly, I wish there was a consensus in Congress to make more fundamental reforms to our campaign finance system than we are considering today. Unfortunately, this is not presently the case, but I hope that we could build bipartisan support for some basic disclosure provisions and for this narrowly tailored bill that is pending in the Senate. A much more comprehensive version of the DISCLOSE law was filibustered by Republicans in 2010. The revised version we are currently debating has been narrowed significantly. The provisions banning campaign spending by foreign entities and government contractors were removed. Corporate campaign spending is no longer required to be reported to shareholders, and lobbyists will not have to report their campaign spending in their annual disclosure reports under the bill being considered in the Senate. The new bill also raises the disclosure trigger from $600 to $10,000 to focus only on large donations and to reduce the burden on organizations. The newest version dropped the ``stand-by-your ad'' provision that required the listing of donors in TV and radio ads. I am not unsympathetic to first amendment concerns regarding the rights of politically active groups that want to be engaged in the discussions regarding the future of our country, but enabling corporations and special interest groups to use what are essential shell organizations for the simple purpose of spending vast sums of money to influence elections, and to do so in secret, is incredibly harmful to our democracy. Requiring the disclosure of large donors is a reasonable mechanism to maintain the integrity of our electoral system without infringing on the ability of organizations to actively participate. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle to take this opportunity to support the modest but important reforms that are included in the DISCLOSE Act. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From Politico, July 15, 2012] Mitch McConnell Dead Wrong on DISCLOSE Act (By Adam Skaggs) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has launched a full-throated attack on the DISCLOSE Act, which Democrats are set to bring to the Senate floor on Monday. DISCLOSE supporters say it ensures transparency and accountability in U.S. elections. McConnell, however, contends it's a vehicle for intimidation that will squelch political speech and let the Obama administration compile an ``old-school enemies list'' to punish critics. Central to McConnell's strongest indictment is that the bill is a lawless end run to get around the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. McConnell seems to suggest the Democrats' actions are not only wrong--they're un-American. But McConnell's critique fundamentally mischaracterizes the relationship between the Supreme Court and other branches of our government. By intimating that it is illegitimate for the legislative and executive branches to develop policy in response to Supreme Court decisions, the Senate leader displays ignorance of the basic hydraulics in the founders' system of separated powers. Indeed, suggesting that enhanced disclosure undermines Citizens United takes what Justice Antonin Scalia might call ``a particularly high degree of chutzpah.'' The decision endorsed robust disclosure--by a near-unanimous, 8-1 vote. ``The First Amendment protects political speech,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, ``and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.'' McConnell, by arguing that disclosure undermines the First Amendment, is in fact turning Citizens United on its head. He also misrepresents the relationship between branches of government. To be sure, the role of the elected branches is distinct from that of the judiciary. It is emphatically the job of the courts to say what the law and Constitution mean, and the President and Congress may not trump the Supreme Court's interpretation. But once the high court announces its interpretation, it is appropriate, sometimes even expected, that elected officials develop new statutes and policies that fit the new parameters. That is exactly what Congress is seeking to do with DISCLOSE. Citizens United posited the benefits of a ``campaign-finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure,'' explaining that ``disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.'' But, because of numerous loopholes in current law, effective disclosure exists today only in theory--not reality. The proposed law would remedy that deficiency by requiring groups that run campaign ads to disclose their major contributors--while letting donors who earmark contributions for nonpolitical purposes remain anonymous. The bill represents a clear constitutional exercise of congressional power--consistent with the guidelines laid out by the court in Citizens United. This back-and-forth dialogue among the branches of government, driving the creation and development of law and public policy, is healthy, even essential, for democracy. This policymaking in response to Supreme Court decisions is also routine--contrary to McConnell's specious argument. After the court read the Civil Rights Act to limit certain gender discrimination claims, for example, Congress responded by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to extend the statute of limitations for such claims. In another case, soon after the court struck down the military commissions the Bush administration had set up to try Guantanamo detainees, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act to create new panels it hoped would pass muster before the high court. Policymaking in the states follows the same dynamic. After the Citizens United decision, more than 10 states responded by amending their laws--many to require disclosure of the new corporate political spending that the ruling enabled. There is nothing out of the ordinary--and certainly nothing untoward--about these or countless other examples of lawmakers responding to legal precedent. The only remarkable thing is McConnell's contention that this legislative action is somehow illicit. In fact, legislative responses to Supreme Court rulings can sometimes be necessary. When a court rests its decisions on a policy assumption that turns out to be wrong, elected officials have an obligation to address that discrepancy. Citizens United conditioned corporations' right to unlimited political speech on transparency--pairing corporate spending with ``effective disclosure''--so voters could better understand what groups are trying to influence their votes. By passing DISCLOSE, Congress can ensure that reality conforms to the idealized disclosure system that the Supreme Court assumed existed. While they're at it, Congress should address one more Citizens United problem. The ruling allows corporations to make independent expenditures because, it said, spending wholly independent of candidate campaigns could not lead to corruption. Unfortunately, much of the outside spending now dominating the 2012 election has come from candidate-specific super PACs, functioning like de facto arms of the candidate campaigns. About as far from ``wholly independent'' as can be imagined. Congress should adopt meaningful coordination rules to police the ties between campaigns and super PACs--and ensure that groups claiming to be ``independent'' really are. It is not an ``end run'' around a Supreme Court ruling that embraced transparency and independence for Congress to ensure transparency and independence. Despite McConnell's `Chicken Little' rhetoric, it's what democracy is about.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2012, at 4:45 p.m.

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 of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 25, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to examine the role of water use efficiency and its impact on energy use. 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 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, July 17, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to examine the status of action taken to ensure that the electric grid is protected from cyber attacks. 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 Leon Lowery at 202-224-2209, 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 an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 12, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to provide oversight on Remediation of Legacy Wells in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. 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.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act, introduced by my colleague, Senator Baucus. I am pleased to support this important legislation which would address the serious backlog in the construction of Bureau of Reclamation water projects that are intended to serve rural and tribal communities. All of these projects have already been studied and authorized by the Congress. However, the funding for constructing the projects has lagged, causing a delay in addressing the needs of rural and tribal communities to have potable water delivered for their use. In 1902, the Reclamation Fund was established by Congress, intended to be used as a funding source to construct water projects in the West. It is funded through a variety of receipts, including Federal mineral leasing receipts. However, the use of monies from the Reclamation Fund has been subject to appropriation, and therefore, large balances have remained in the Fund. The average annual surplus in the Reclamation Fund from FY 2005 through FY 2011 was $960 million. While these monies were intended to be used for water project construction, they have not always been appropriated when needed. The bill that is being introduced today would direct that every year $80 million that would otherwise be deposited in the Reclamation Fund be made available without further appropriation for the construction of the authorized rural water projects--projects that Congress has already determined are in the public interest and should be built. I would like my colleagues to note that according to Bureau of Reclamation analysis, an increase in funding for the construction of rural water projects to $80 million per year would reduce the total Federal appropriations needed to complete the projects by more than $1 billion, due to project costs and inflation. Therefore, this bill will have a positive fiscal impact. The bill also includes language that states that amounts may not be transferred for rural water projects pursuant to the legislation if to do so would raise the deficit. The legislation provides that the Secretary may not expend amounts under the bill until the Secretary develops programmatic goals that would: enable completion of rural water projects as quickly as possible; reflect the goals and priorities identified in the laws authorizing the rural water projects; and reflect the goals of the Reclamation Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. The bill does not direct that a particular project receive funding, but rather provides that the Secretary develop funding prioritization criteria to serve as a formula for distributing funds consistent with considerations set forth in the bill. This bill is important to our citizens in rural and tribal communities in the West. Adequate water supplies are fundamental to our way of life, and far too many Americans still live without safe drinking water. Congress has already determined that the rural water projects it has authorized are needed to provide water supplies to our rural and tribal communities and are in the best interests of public. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, so that the promise of these important water projects can become an on-the-ground reality.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 12, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to provide oversight on Remediation of Federal Legacy Wells in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. 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.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on June 20, I introduced a bill to authorize the FEMA administrator to waive the 30-day waiting period for flood insurance policies purchased for private properties affected by wildfire on Federal lands. Senators Tom Udall, Mark Udall, and Michael Bennet are cosponsors of this legislation. As we speak, wildfires are burning across the Western states and it is critical that we take immediate steps to protect communities against the tragic consequences of flooding. To this end, I am pleased that the Senate included this legislation in the National Flood Insurance Program reauthorization bill, which we will be voting on later today or tomorrow. Flooding is the most common and costly natural disaster in the United States. In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program to help provide a means for property owners to financially protect themselves. The Act, however, requires a 30-day waiting period before coverage under a new contract for flood insurance can take effect. This is to prevent individuals from delaying until the last minute to purchase insurance when the risk of flooding is high. Unfortunately, today's large catastrophic wildfires in the West can alter the watershed conditions on our forested Federal lands so rapidly that nearby communities find themselves in flood hazard areas that didn't exist the day before. The heat of the fires can make the ground impermeable to water, which significantly increases runoff when rainfall comes. In some cases, the U.S. Forest Service will advise a community to purchase flood insurance immediately after a wildfire is put out, only to see that community flooded by a few inches of rainfall weeks before the 30-day wait period has lapsed. When this happens, homeowners are tragically without any flood insurance coverage. Every year States throughout the U.S. deal with the devastating consequences of wildfires. Firefighters are currently battling several major fires in New Mexico, including the largest fire in the State's history. Over 340,000 acres in the Gila and Lincoln National Forest have been burned and over 100,000 acres have been burned in Colorado leaving thousands of residents struggling to cope with the aftermath and the risk that flooding presents. While our immediate concern is fighting these wildfires, we need to take steps to protect communities against the tragic consequences of flooding. In fact, in the area of the Whitewater-Baldy Fire, though the damage from the fire is extensive, the damage caused to property and risk to life is expected to be far greater from the associated flooding despite the mitigation and prevention efforts in progress. Recently, I joined Secretary Vilsack and Forest Service Chief Tidwell for a briefing on the Little Bear Fire, and although progress is being made in containing the fire, people are very concerned that the monsoons will soon drop rain on soil that can't absorb the moisture. It makes little sense to punish homeowners in communities who have not faced the kinds of flood risk they are currently presented due to the sudden devastation of nearby Federal forest land. I should also note that after consultation with the Congressional Budget Office, it is my understanding that this legislation does not score for budget purposes. I appreciate the Banking Committee's willingness to work with us on this issue. This legislation represents a critical step forward in providing access to Federal flood insurance. The fire-stricken communities need help, and they need it now. surface transportation

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak for a moment with regard to amendment No. 2364 that Senator Hutchison and I had intended to offer. We have been in consultation with the managers of the legislation. They have agreed to some changes in the report language that accommodate our concern. Our concern is about water conservation and ensuring that water conservation, particularly in the arid West but in any part of the country where there are underground aquifers and wherever there is depletion of water supplies that is going to make farming and agricultural activities impossible in the future. The managers have agreed to some changes in the report language that accommodate our concerns. They have agreed to a colloquy that accommodates our concerns. Accordingly, we will not proceed with the amendment. Before I withdraw the amendment, could I ask Senator Hutchison to make any comments she would like to make.