Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to advise that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Thursday, July 14, 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 legislation. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler or Allison Seyferth.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border Health Security Act of 2011. This legislation is designed to make several important changes to current law to address pressing public health challenges along the U.S.-Mexico border. In 1993, along with Senators Hutchison and McCain, I introduced the original United States-Mexico Border Health Commission Act. With the support of Members from both chambers, and from both parties, we passed this landmark legislation, which was signed into law in 1994 by President Clinton. I was gratified when the bi-national agreement to establish the Commission was signed in 2000. And, I have monitored with interest the important work of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission in the years since. As the Commission enters its second decade, the problems it seeks to deal with are no less pressing than those we originally set out to tackle with the Border Health Commission Act. Health disparities and chronic diseases for the over 14 million people who live in the border region, comprised of two sovereign nations, 25 Native American tribes, and four states in the United States and six states in Mexico, remain at unacceptable levels, far outpacing rates in most of the United States. Far too many border residents remain uninsured. Texas and New Mexico, for instance, rank first and fifth, respectively, in the percentage of residents who are uninsured. Many who live in the region still do not have access to adequate primary, preventive, and specialty care. If the border region were considered a state, it would rank at or near the bottom on many key health indicators, such as rates of tuberculosis, hepatitis, diabetes, and access to health professionals. Compounding all these problems are high rates of poverty; three of the ten poorest counties in the United States are located in the border area. In addition, communicable diseases that can easily travel across borders, such as tuberculosis and H1N1, strain our border's public health systems. Amplifying our public health surveillance efforts at our border can help mitigate the impact of such diseases, as well as other bio-security threats, in the rest of the nation. I believe, just as I did when I introduced the original legislation, that the public health problems the border region faces are truly bi- national in nature. As such, they demand a truly bi-national public health architecture. Over the last 11 years, the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission has provided this structure as it worked to address these issues. It has had a number of successes, including notable conferences and reports on infectious disease surveillance, childhood obesity, and tuberculosis, developed jointly by both its U.S. and Mexican members. Its programs were particularly helpful as we coordinated our response to the H1N1 pandemic in 2009. Still, the public health challenges in the border remain great. As the Commission enters into its second decade, this bipartisan legislation will strengthen the capacity of the Commission and authorize appropriate federal resources for its important work. The legislation does this in several ways. First, through a new grant program, it authorizes additional funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health, health education, and research. Second, it authorizes new, funding for the successful Early Warning Infectious Disease Surveillance, EWIDS, program in the U.S.-Mexico border region. EWIDS is designed to bolster preparedness for bioterrorism and infectious disease. The legislation also establishes a health alert network to identify and communicate information quickly to health providers about emerging health care threats. It requires the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate this system. Third, it strengthens the capacity of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission by undertaking several key organizational reforms. Finally, the legislation encourages more coordination, recommendations, and study of these complex border health challenges. The bill affirms the need for integrated efforts across national, federal, state and local agencies to properly address border health issues. It specifies that recommendations and advice on how to improve border health will be communicated to Congress. Further, the legislation authorizes two key studies conducted by the Institute of Medicine: the first on bi-national health infrastructure and a second on health insurance coverage for border residents. A total of $31 million is authorized to carry out the act. Without the changes and resources this legislation envisions, border residents will continue to lag behind the United States in many key indicators of good public health. Without this bill, both of our countries will be less prepared when the next bi-national health security threat hits. I would like to thank Senator Hutchison, who was an original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation today. She has also been the lead Senator in getting funding for the U.S.- Mexico Border Health Commission since its inception. I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border Health Security Act of 2011. This legislation is designed to make several important changes to current law to address pressing public health challenges along the U.S.-Mexico border. In 1993, along with Senators Hutchison and McCain, I introduced the original United States-Mexico Border Health Commission Act. With the support of Members from both chambers, and from both parties, we passed this landmark legislation, which was signed into law in 1994 by President Clinton. I was gratified when the bi-national agreement to establish the Commission was signed in 2000. And, I have monitored with interest the important work of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission in the years since. As the Commission enters its second decade, the problems it seeks to deal with are no less pressing than those we originally set out to tackle with the Border Health Commission Act. Health disparities and chronic diseases for the over 14 million people who live in the border region, comprised of two sovereign nations, 25 Native American tribes, and four states in the United States and six states in Mexico, remain at unacceptable levels, far outpacing rates in most of the United States. Far too many border residents remain uninsured. Texas and New Mexico, for instance, rank first and fifth, respectively, in the percentage of residents who are uninsured. Many who live in the region still do not have access to adequate primary, preventive, and specialty care. If the border region were considered a state, it would rank at or near the bottom on many key health indicators, such as rates of tuberculosis, hepatitis, diabetes, and access to health professionals. Compounding all these problems are high rates of poverty; three of the ten poorest counties in the United States are located in the border area. In addition, communicable diseases that can easily travel across borders, such as tuberculosis and H1N1, strain our border's public health systems. Amplifying our public health surveillance efforts at our border can help mitigate the impact of such diseases, as well as other bio-security threats, in the rest of the nation. I believe, just as I did when I introduced the original legislation, that the public health problems the border region faces are truly bi- national in nature. As such, they demand a truly bi-national public health architecture. Over the last 11 years, the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission has provided this structure as it worked to address these issues. It has had a number of successes, including notable conferences and reports on infectious disease surveillance, childhood obesity, and tuberculosis, developed jointly by both its U.S. and Mexican members. Its programs were particularly helpful as we coordinated our response to the H1N1 pandemic in 2009. Still, the public health challenges in the border remain great. As the Commission enters into its second decade, this bipartisan legislation will strengthen the capacity of the Commission and authorize appropriate federal resources for its important work. The legislation does this in several ways. First, through a new grant program, it authorizes additional funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health, health education, and research. Second, it authorizes new, funding for the successful Early Warning Infectious Disease Surveillance, EWIDS, program in the U.S.-Mexico border region. EWIDS is designed to bolster preparedness for bioterrorism and infectious disease. The legislation also establishes a health alert network to identify and communicate information quickly to health providers about emerging health care threats. It requires the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate this system. Third, it strengthens the capacity of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission by undertaking several key organizational reforms. Finally, the legislation encourages more coordination, recommendations, and study of these complex border health challenges. The bill affirms the need for integrated efforts across national, federal, state and local agencies to properly address border health issues. It specifies that recommendations and advice on how to improve border health will be communicated to Congress. Further, the legislation authorizes two key studies conducted by the Institute of Medicine: the first on bi-national health infrastructure and a second on health insurance coverage for border residents. A total of $31 million is authorized to carry out the act. Without the changes and resources this legislation envisions, border residents will continue to lag behind the United States in many key indicators of good public health. Without this bill, both of our countries will be less prepared when the next bi-national health security threat hits. I would like to thank Senator Hutchison, who was an original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation today. She has also been the lead Senator in getting funding for the U.S.- Mexico Border Health Commission since its inception. I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress. 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 recognize Ms. Linda Rundell, the Bureau of Land Management's New Mexico State director, for her exemplary public service and to express my congratulations on her upcoming retirement after 32 years. Linda has held many titles during her time with BLM, including range conservationist, wildlife biologist, environmental impact statement team leader, program analyst, congressional fellow, and district manager. And her work has taken her to nearly as many parts of our country, including Alaska, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, DC. But the majority of her career has kept her in my home State of New Mexico where she will finish her tenure with BLM as State director for New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas. Since 2002, Linda has overseen an annual budget of $250 million and is responsible for 13.4 million acres of public lands in New Mexico and nearly 54 million acres of Federal and tribal subsurface minerals underlying non-BLM lands in the four States. With a mission of multiple-use management, the BLM is tasked with balancing competing uses of our public land--including oil and gas development, wildlife protection, recreation, grazing, landscape conservation, and cultural resource protection--to name just a few. Attempting to balance these activities can be a challenging task for any land manager. However, Linda's career demonstrates how well she has personified this mission by assisting groups with opposing viewpoints to find common ground through collaboration. Restore New Mexico, a program Linda established in 2005, demonstrates the benefits that can be achieved through collaboration. In only about 6 years the BLM--in partnership with environmental groups, ranchers, oil and gas companies, and sportsmen--has begun the restoration of 1.5 million acres of grasslands and woodlands in New Mexico. These efforts are reversing decades and even centuries of habitat fragmentation, encroachment by invasive species, and the legacy of orphaned oil and gas wells across the State. The results have been excellent, and the partnerships that have been built between long-time adversaries cannot be understated. With this collaboration as a framework, the long-term successful restoration of our public lands is more likely than ever. Linda's impressive record as State director is no doubt a product of what she learned in the years leading up to it. Her background as a wildlife biologist, for example, gave her the foresight to recognize that the BLM had a significant role to play if further population declines of the lesser prairie chicken were to be averted. Before this small grouse began gaining headlines in newspapers, Linda knew that a continued decline of this species would have far-reaching implications. For this reason, she has worked diligently to protect and expand lesser prairie chicken habitat in the State. Linda exemplifies the attributes found in effective leaders--honesty, a strong work ethic, and a willingness to make the right decision even when it may be difficult. She is highly respected within and outside the agency for her leadership skills and her staff in New Mexico mirror these traits. I appreciate how helpful she and her staff have been while working with my office in the development of various policy initiatives including conservation measures--many of which have been signed into law--like the Ojito Wilderness, Prehistoric Trackways National Monument, Fort Stanton-Snowy River Cave National Conservation Area, and Sabinoso Wilderness. Linda's tenure as BLM State director will leave a lasting legacy that has and will continue to benefit the health of our public land and wildlife as well as the economy of our State and Nation. Our Nation is grateful for her service, and I wish her the best on her future endeavors.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the USGS Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory, ASL, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. I would like to congratulate the ASL for 50 years of distinguished service to the State of New Mexico. From its quiet location just outside of Albuquerque on the Isleta Pueblo, ASL has become an indispensable hub for seismological research over the past 50 years. Today, it is at the center of several globe- spanning networks that facilitate the sharing and analysis of seismological data. ASL researchers help design and deploy the Global Seismograph Network, which now connects over 150 monitoring stations around the world. The authoritative research conducted there contributes immeasurably to the field of seismology. The real importance of ASL's research cannot be overstated. ASL's role in the emerging fields of earthquake and tsunami monitoring is invaluable for developing tools to save lives when natural disasters occur. Additionally, ASL provides vital data used to help monitor and detect nuclear tests by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, CTBTO. I thank the ASL for its important contributions to both the scientific community and the public good and wish it success in the next 50 years and more.

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, June 23, 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 seven items: S. 500, the South Utah Valley Electric Conveyance Act; S. 715, the Collinsville Renewable Energy Promotion Act; S. 802, the Lake Thunderbird Efficient Use Act of 2011; S. 997, the East Bench Irrigation District Water Contract Extension Act; S. 1033, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the city of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse project, and for other purposes; S. 1047, the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Act of 2011. S. _, the Bureau of Reclamation Fish Recovery Programs Reauthorization Act of 2011. S. _, the Fort Sumner Project Title Conveyance 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 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 Tanya Trujillo at (202) 224- 5479 or Meagan Gins at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of education bills S. 1177, S. 1178, and S. 1179, that reflect many of my legislative priorities in K-12 education policy and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and my Senate colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee continue negotiations on the reauthorization of ESEA, I feel that it is appropriate to introduce legislation that I have developed for inclusion in the reauthorized legislation. While the bills I have introduced today do not address all of the many changes that I feel are necessary to fix No Child Left Behind, they do emphasize areas of particular and longstanding concern to me and my constituents. I strongly believe that there must be a continued federal role in education in the United States. I have great respect for State and local school officials, and as such I believe that they continue to require Federal support to improve student achievement and improve graduation rates. Given the severe education funding challenges in my home State of New Mexico and across the country, Congress has a particular obligation to retain its focus on student achievement, especially among low-income and disadvantaged youth. Federal education policy should prioritize ending the nationwide high school dropout crisis; supporting the effective use of education technology, especially in high-poverty schools; ensuring that students benefit from high expectations, rigorous standards and curriculum; and extending the school day, week, and/or year to ensure that U.S. students do not continue to fall behind our global competitors. Each year in the United States, approximately 1.2 million students drop out of school without receiving a diploma, at an estimated annual cost to the country of over $300 billion. My home State of New Mexico has one of the lowest statewide graduation rates in the country. The Graduation Promise Act, which I am introducing today, authorizes a new Federal focus on helping underperforming high schools improve student achievement and increase graduation rates. The Federal Government should support teachers using the most up-to- date technology to prepare students for success in college and 21st century careers. Today, I reintroduced the Achievement Through Technology and Innovation Act of 2011. This bill would renew and strengthen the existing education technology program in ESEA. The ATTAIN Act recognizes that learning technologies are critical to preparing students for the 21st century workforce, ensuring high quality teaching, and improving the productivity of our Nation's educational system. The Act would provide Federal funds to states and local school districts to train teachers, purchase education technology hardware and software, and support innovative learning methods and student technological literacy. All students, regardless of their income levels, should be able to benefit from high expectations, high academic standards, and college- level academic opportunities. The Advanced Programs Act of 2011 would renew the current ESEA program, which provides Federal funding to pay low-income students' AP exam fees and incentive grants to expand student access to AP courses and exams. Finally, I wish to highlight my cosponsorship of the Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act, which Chairman Harkin introduced on April 14th of this year. The TIME Act authorizes Federal funding to support expanded learning time, ELT, initiatives in public schools. American students spend about 30 percent less time in school than students in other leading nations, which hinders our students' ability to succeed and compete. ELT programs typically provide extra time for academic student, enrichment activities, and teacher collaboration. Studies show that programs that significantly increase the total number of hours in a regular school schedule can lead to gains in academic achievement, particularly for students who are furthest behind. Taken together, these four bills present a coherent, consistent vision for the Federal role in education reform. We must turn around struggling high schools and improve our high school graduation rates. We must use the best technology available to provide solid instruction and develop the student technological literacy necessary for success in the digital age. We must provide all students with access to high standards and college-level academic opportunities. We must support schools adding the school time necessary to allow our students to keep pace with students in high-performing countries. Now is not the time for the Federal Government to back away from its commitment to helping disadvantaged students succeed in school and in life. While the Elementary and Secondary Education Act needs to be reconsidered and substantially reworked, we must not roll back Federal policy and ignore the persistent achievement gaps that limit our national competitiveness and deny millions of our children access to the American dream.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Department of Energy Administrative Improvement Act of 2011. The bill makes several improvements to the way the Department of Energy, DOE, conducts its business and in doing so is designed to give taxpayers a better return on their investments in DOE programs. Senator Murkowski, who is the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is a cosponsor of this bill. These provisions were taken from the energy bill, S. 1462, reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last Congress. The provisions in this bill were adopted unanimously in the last Congress by members of the Committee as part of our work on S. 1462. Let me briefly highlight the sections of this bill. Section 3 was taken from the recommendations of a 2009 report by the National Academy of Public Administration, which reviewed the business practices of the Department. Similar to the Department of Defense, it requires DOE to submit a 5-year budget profile for its programs with the DOE's annual budget submission to Congress. A 5-year estimate will encourage the Department to think about long-term budget implications of programs rather than on a year-to-year basis. Section 4 replaces a provision enacted into law in the section 1007 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 7256(g), relating to Other Transactions Authority. Section 1007 was based on the similar authority applying to the Department of Defense. Section 4 is a fresh re-write of the authority so it is organic within the Department of Energy Organization Act and not the Department of Defense's authorities. The language is largely the same in content as that in section 1007 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The DOE went through an extensive comment period in developing rules for the use of this authority after it was enacted into law in 2005 to ensure transparency in its development and use. This section still contains reporting requirements to Congress on the use of this authority to ensure effective oversight. The Advanced Research Projects Agency-- Energy has used this authority to initiate projects with energy companies that were not traditional government contractors and I believe this is a sound addition to the contracting authorities available to the Department. Section 5 permits the DOE to designate and protect proprietary data for a period of 5 years for transactions entered into by the Department. Section 3001 of Energy Policy Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. 13541, contained various provisions to protect results from industry partnerships with the Department of Energy. The 1992 data protection provision was carried forward implicitly in section 1005 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 16395. This section gives the Secretary of Energy explicit authority to protect proprietary data in order to promote commercialization of new technology arising from the public- private partnerships in such areas as energy storage, smart grid and advanced nuclear technologies. Section 6 gives the Department direct hire authority for a period of two years consistent with merit principles and public notice. Similar authority, known as excepted personnel authority, originally was available to the DOE's predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission. That authority transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, but not the DOE. Interestingly, the NRC with its large scientific and engineering workforce has been rated as one of the best places to work in the federal government. While flexible personnel authorities are not singularly determinative of agency performance, I believe this pilot program will be an important tool for the Department to attract the best and brightest engineers, scientists and specialized technical personnel to work on its wide array of missions. Section 7 gives the DOE critical pay authority to hire up to 40 highly skilled individuals for key or critical mission positions at the Department, for a period of up to 4 years. This will enable DOE to attract highly qualified individuals from industry and academia for positions within the Department typical of its complicated science and engineering missions. Section 8 gives the DOE the authority to rehire retired DOE employees for mission-critical positions without impacting their retirement annuity. Many Department employees served in excess of 20 or 30 years in programmatic positions managing large, technically complicated projects. This authority will enable continuity of knowledge transfer as newer employees are hired. Section 9 updates the list of DOE National Laboratories in section 2 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 15801(3) to reflect the name change of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center to ``SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory''. The Department of Energy has one of the most technical and complicated missions in the Federal Government, which includes managing our Nation's nuclear stockpile, basic and applied energy research, environmental cleanup of former cold war nuclear weapons production sites, and finally the management of large contracts spanning decades. I hope that these provisions will be helpful to the Department to efficiently conduct its missions. 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 am introducing the Department of Energy Administrative Improvement Act of 2011. The bill makes several improvements to the way the Department of Energy, DOE, conducts its business and in doing so is designed to give taxpayers a better return on their investments in DOE programs. Senator Murkowski, who is the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is a cosponsor of this bill. These provisions were taken from the energy bill, S. 1462, reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last Congress. The provisions in this bill were adopted unanimously in the last Congress by members of the Committee as part of our work on S. 1462. Let me briefly highlight the sections of this bill. Section 3 was taken from the recommendations of a 2009 report by the National Academy of Public Administration, which reviewed the business practices of the Department. Similar to the Department of Defense, it requires DOE to submit a 5-year budget profile for its programs with the DOE's annual budget submission to Congress. A 5-year estimate will encourage the Department to think about long-term budget implications of programs rather than on a year-to-year basis. Section 4 replaces a provision enacted into law in the section 1007 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 7256(g), relating to Other Transactions Authority. Section 1007 was based on the similar authority applying to the Department of Defense. Section 4 is a fresh re-write of the authority so it is organic within the Department of Energy Organization Act and not the Department of Defense's authorities. The language is largely the same in content as that in section 1007 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The DOE went through an extensive comment period in developing rules for the use of this authority after it was enacted into law in 2005 to ensure transparency in its development and use. This section still contains reporting requirements to Congress on the use of this authority to ensure effective oversight. The Advanced Research Projects Agency-- Energy has used this authority to initiate projects with energy companies that were not traditional government contractors and I believe this is a sound addition to the contracting authorities available to the Department. Section 5 permits the DOE to designate and protect proprietary data for a period of 5 years for transactions entered into by the Department. Section 3001 of Energy Policy Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. 13541, contained various provisions to protect results from industry partnerships with the Department of Energy. The 1992 data protection provision was carried forward implicitly in section 1005 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 16395. This section gives the Secretary of Energy explicit authority to protect proprietary data in order to promote commercialization of new technology arising from the public- private partnerships in such areas as energy storage, smart grid and advanced nuclear technologies. Section 6 gives the Department direct hire authority for a period of two years consistent with merit principles and public notice. Similar authority, known as excepted personnel authority, originally was available to the DOE's predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission. That authority transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, but not the DOE. Interestingly, the NRC with its large scientific and engineering workforce has been rated as one of the best places to work in the federal government. While flexible personnel authorities are not singularly determinative of agency performance, I believe this pilot program will be an important tool for the Department to attract the best and brightest engineers, scientists and specialized technical personnel to work on its wide array of missions. Section 7 gives the DOE critical pay authority to hire up to 40 highly skilled individuals for key or critical mission positions at the Department, for a period of up to 4 years. This will enable DOE to attract highly qualified individuals from industry and academia for positions within the Department typical of its complicated science and engineering missions. Section 8 gives the DOE the authority to rehire retired DOE employees for mission-critical positions without impacting their retirement annuity. Many Department employees served in excess of 20 or 30 years in programmatic positions managing large, technically complicated projects. This authority will enable continuity of knowledge transfer as newer employees are hired. Section 9 updates the list of DOE National Laboratories in section 2 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 15801(3) to reflect the name change of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center to ``SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory''. The Department of Energy has one of the most technical and complicated missions in the Federal Government, which includes managing our Nation's nuclear stockpile, basic and applied energy research, environmental cleanup of former cold war nuclear weapons production sites, and finally the management of large contracts spanning decades. I hope that these provisions will be helpful to the Department to efficiently conduct its missions. 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 531 of the Senate and the public of an addition to a previously announced hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. In addition to the other measures previously announced, the Committee will also consider S. 1067, a bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a research and development and demonstration program to reduce manufacturing and construction costs relating to nuclear reactors, 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, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Abigail_Campbell@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein or Abby Campbell.

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 Energy of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 9, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on critical minerals and materials legislation, including S. 383, S. 421, and S. 1113. 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 email to Abigail_Campbell @energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Allyson Anderson or Abigail Campbell.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Stimulus Contractors Who Cheat on Their Taxes: What Happened?''

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 May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Air Traffic Control Safety Oversight.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 24, 2011, at 9 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Responding to the Prescription Drug Epidemic: Strategies for Reducing Abuse, Misuse, Diversion, and Fraud.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2011, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Other Extremist Groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan.''

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, June 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 512, the Nuclear Power 2021 Act, and S. 937, the American Alternative Fuels 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, Washington, DC/ 20510-6150, or by email to Abigail_Campbell@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein or Abby Campbell.

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, June 9, 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 bills to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuel vehicles as described in S. 963, S. 1000, and S. 1001. 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 Abigail_Campbell @energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Deborah Estes at (202) 224- 5360 or Mike Carr at (202) 224-8164 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224- 1219.

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, May 26, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. If needed, the business meeting may reconvene Thursday afternoon. The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending energy legislation. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will vote on a motion to proceed to consideration of S. 940, the Close Big Oil Tax Loophole Act. I have not decided how I would vote on final passage of the act in its current form. In fact, earlier this year, I voted against an amendment offered by Senator Levin that contained many similar proposals, primarily because there were provisions in that amendment that I felt did not receive the full attention they deserved. Yet because I believe that the full Senate ought to debate the merits of existing tax preferences for our Nation's oil and gas industry, I will vote in favor of this motion to proceed. Additionally, beyond the Tax Code changes, I strongly support the act's provision repealing the Outer Continental Shelf deep water and deep gas royalty relief, and this repeal should also be debated by the full Senate. The act's underlying provisions closely follow provisions that the President has proposed in the three budget recommendations he has so far presented to the Congress--except that this bill would apply only to the so-called Big Five producers. As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and as chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources and Infrastructure, I have had the opportunity to study and receive testimony on the act's underlying provisions, and I believe there is merit in at least some of these provisions. To reach that conclusion, I have looked at the provisions through three lenses. First, will they increase gasoline prices at the pump? Second, will they increase dependence on imported oil? And third, will they cause job losses in local communities? With respect to the provisions at issue, I believe there are strong cases to be made that the answer to all three questions is no. In particular, I highlight the testimony of Dr. Stephen Brown, a nonresident fellow at Resources for the Future--who previously was chief energy economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas--at a hearing I convened in my Finance Subcommittee on September 10, 2009. Dr. Brown testified that removing these provisions from the Tax Code ``will have very small effects on U.S. oil and natural gas markets-- primarily because the increased tax revenue amounts to less than one percent of the total revenue the industry is projected to earn on its domestic production.'' In particular, his testimony noted that ``eliminating the tax preferences would boost the world oil price by an average of about 6 cents per barrel,'' that ``oil imports would rise by an estimated 0.1 percent of U.S. oil consumption,'' and finally that such changes are ``unlikely to have a significant effect on overall U.S. employment.'' But while there is a strong case that the answer to all three questions is no, I nevertheless have serious reservations about any tax policy change that focuses exclusively on one industry. Rather, we should consider the tax treatment accorded to all taxpayers engaged in extracting domestic natural resources and, in the case of the section 199 domestic production deduction, all U.S. businesses. I am also troubled that this bill singles out only five firms, merely because of their large size and integrated nature. To be sure, I do believe we must be most sensitive to the smallest producers--the Mom and Pop businesses that are common in many rural oil and gas producing communities, including ones in New Mexico's southwest and northeastern corners. But what about large producers who are not integrated? Historically, the Tax Code drew no distinction between independent and integrated producers. But over time, Congress has scaled back or eliminated incentives by distinguishing between independent and integrated firms, and, within the latter category, between major integrated and nonmajor integrated firms. This act would widen the disparate treatment. Yet it is a false distinction to claim that all independent producers are small. For instance, 10 independent firms that had revenues exceeding $7 billion in 2009, with the largest among them having revenues above $15 billion. Given the vast size and revenues of some ``independent'' producers, it is not clear that the appropriate dividing line should be found merely at the fact that a firm's revenues derive solely from production at the wellhead. Rather, I find it is difficult to justify excepting a firm under the rubric of being a ``small business'' when its revenues are high enough to qualify as a Fortune 500 company. And so if we proceed to debate this bill, I feel strongly that we should consider alternative means of distinguishing firms. For instance, we might do so based on revenue or thresholds based on average daily worldwide production above a determined level. I have long been deeply concerned about our Nation's gaping budget deficit. We should have a serious debate about which tax expenditures across the board we can continue to afford. But the fact that gasoline prices are high or that five companies have large profits is not the ideal basis for considering fundamental changes in tax policy. While I would strongly prefer to have this debate in the context of either a broader national energy policy or a broader effort at deficit reduction, and while I would prefer a measure that does not single out a small handful of companies, I will vote for the motion to proceed to consideration of the act. It is time to have a complete and serious debate over the merits of the provisions at issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2011. This bill is similar to ones that Senator Crapo and I introduced in the 110th and 111th Congresses. I am grateful for Senator Crapo's continued leadership on this issue, as well as the cosponsorship of our Finance Committee colleagues, Senators Kerry, Snowe, Cardin, and Grassley. Municipal bonds have long played an essential role in financing the construction, expansion, and repair of schools; highways, roads, and bridges; affordable housing; hospitals; public transit; water and sewage systems; and community-owned utilities. Since the enactment of the Federal income tax in 1913, Congress has supported the municipal bond market by exempting municipal bond interest from taxation. Tax exemption confers Federal assistance on State and local capital investments; it also recognizes that decisions about which projects to fund are most appropriately made at the State or local level. Historically, banks were significant purchasers of tax-exempt debt. But the Tax Reform Act of 1986 severely curtailed banks' participation by automatically disallowing deductions for interest expense whenever municipal bonds are purchased. The 1986 Act left an exception only for bonds purchased from smaller municipalities, those selling no more than $10 million of bonds each year. But because the $10 million level was not indexed to inflation, its purchasing power has eroded significantly since 1986, leaving many smaller governments and non-profit educational and health care facilities either to defer projects to comply with this low limit or find non-bank purchasers. I was very pleased that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act incorporated a bill that Senator Crapo and I introduced, the Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2009, raising the $10 million small issuer exception to $30 million. Additionally, the Recovery Act included a provision ensuring that the small issuer is made applicable at the ultimate borrower level, so that bonds benefiting non-profit universities and hospitals will not exceed the limitation merely because they issue bonds through statewide authorities. Taken together, those steps significantly enhanced demand for debt issued by small municipal governments, enabling municipalities across the Nation, and particularly those in small and rural communities, to finance the critical infrastructure projects that play an important role in growing our national economy. In 2009, the dollar amount of bank qualified issuances reached $32.7 billion, double the prior year's level, with more than 6,000 issuances. Beneficiaries included a broad range of counties, cities, and school districts in all corners of my home state of New Mexico. For instance, the proceeds of a $17 million bond issued by Santa Fe County financed roads, trails and parks for open space, a fire facility, a solid waste transfer station, water rights acquisition and water projects. The City of Artesia completed two bank-qualified transactions, to finance building a public safety complex and a new waste water treatment facility. The Bloomfield School District placed $19 million in bank- qualified debt to finance capital expenditures. Similarly, in 2010, issuances climbed even further, to $36.8 billion, with more than 6,700 issuances representing a similarly diverse array of counties, cities, school districts, infrastructure districts, and hospitals across my home state of New Mexico and the country. The ARRA-enacted provisions helped small communities across New Mexico and the country finance critical infrastructure needs and create jobs. The higher bank-qualified limit is a great success and deserves to be made permanent. The bill that Senators Crapo, Kerry, Snowe, Cardin, Grassley, and I are introducing today would do just that, ensuring that smaller governments and non-profit educational and health care facilities can finance their capital needs, particularly in periods of tight credit, and save taxpayer dollars. At least 14 national organizations representing issuers of tax-exempt bonds are supporting the Act. These include the American Hospital Association; American Public Power Association; Council of Development Finance Authorities; Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities; Government Finance Officers Association; International City/County Management Association; International Municipal Lawyers Association; National Association of College and University Business Officers; National Association of Counties; National Association of Health and Educational Facilities Finance Authorities; National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers; National Association of State Treasurers; National League of Cities; and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I urge my colleagues to join these organizations in supporting our bill, to ensure that small municipalities across the country are able to finance critical infrastructure projects at reduced costs to their residents. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2011. This bill is similar to ones that Senator Crapo and I introduced in the 110th and 111th Congresses. I am grateful for Senator Crapo's continued leadership on this issue, as well as the cosponsorship of our Finance Committee colleagues, Senators Kerry, Snowe, Cardin, and Grassley. Municipal bonds have long played an essential role in financing the construction, expansion, and repair of schools; highways, roads, and bridges; affordable housing; hospitals; public transit; water and sewage systems; and community-owned utilities. Since the enactment of the Federal income tax in 1913, Congress has supported the municipal bond market by exempting municipal bond interest from taxation. Tax exemption confers Federal assistance on State and local capital investments; it also recognizes that decisions about which projects to fund are most appropriately made at the State or local level. Historically, banks were significant purchasers of tax-exempt debt. But the Tax Reform Act of 1986 severely curtailed banks' participation by automatically disallowing deductions for interest expense whenever municipal bonds are purchased. The 1986 Act left an exception only for bonds purchased from smaller municipalities, those selling no more than $10 million of bonds each year. But because the $10 million level was not indexed to inflation, its purchasing power has eroded significantly since 1986, leaving many smaller governments and non-profit educational and health care facilities either to defer projects to comply with this low limit or find non-bank purchasers. I was very pleased that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act incorporated a bill that Senator Crapo and I introduced, the Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2009, raising the $10 million small issuer exception to $30 million. Additionally, the Recovery Act included a provision ensuring that the small issuer is made applicable at the ultimate borrower level, so that bonds benefiting non-profit universities and hospitals will not exceed the limitation merely because they issue bonds through statewide authorities. Taken together, those steps significantly enhanced demand for debt issued by small municipal governments, enabling municipalities across the Nation, and particularly those in small and rural communities, to finance the critical infrastructure projects that play an important role in growing our national economy. In 2009, the dollar amount of bank qualified issuances reached $32.7 billion, double the prior year's level, with more than 6,000 issuances. Beneficiaries included a broad range of counties, cities, and school districts in all corners of my home state of New Mexico. For instance, the proceeds of a $17 million bond issued by Santa Fe County financed roads, trails and parks for open space, a fire facility, a solid waste transfer station, water rights acquisition and water projects. The City of Artesia completed two bank-qualified transactions, to finance building a public safety complex and a new waste water treatment facility. The Bloomfield School District placed $19 million in bank- qualified debt to finance capital expenditures. Similarly, in 2010, issuances climbed even further, to $36.8 billion, with more than 6,700 issuances representing a similarly diverse array of counties, cities, school districts, infrastructure districts, and hospitals across my home state of New Mexico and the country. The ARRA-enacted provisions helped small communities across New Mexico and the country finance critical infrastructure needs and create jobs. The higher bank-qualified limit is a great success and deserves to be made permanent. The bill that Senators Crapo, Kerry, Snowe, Cardin, Grassley, and I are introducing today would do just that, ensuring that smaller governments and non-profit educational and health care facilities can finance their capital needs, particularly in periods of tight credit, and save taxpayer dollars. At least 14 national organizations representing issuers of tax-exempt bonds are supporting the Act. These include the American Hospital Association; American Public Power Association; Council of Development Finance Authorities; Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities; Government Finance Officers Association; International City/County Management Association; International Municipal Lawyers Association; National Association of College and University Business Officers; National Association of Counties; National Association of Health and Educational Facilities Finance Authorities; National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers; National Association of State Treasurers; National League of Cities; and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I urge my colleagues to join these organizations in supporting our bill, to ensure that small municipalities across the country are able to finance critical infrastructure projects at reduced costs to their residents. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.