Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the Senator from Colorado--my cousin, but he is more like a brother--to highlight the importance of clean energy, renewable energy. The Senator just spoke a little bit earlier about renewable energy, clean energy, and wind energy. I wish to express my support for the extension of the wind production tax credit.

Mark Udall, he knows well--as do I--how important this is. I wish to commend him for his efforts on the floor--and his persistent efforts-- to try to get this done. I came to the Chamber to discuss wind incentives earlier this year. I urged then and I urge now an immediate extension. We need this before the end of the year. We need to provide certainty for wind projects and employees.

But here we are again. We have not gotten it done yet. We are going to have to keep working. As the Presiding Officer and the Senator from California know, we work on the floor, we work off the floor, we are working behind the scenes to try to get this done. We need to get this extension.

This vital tax credit for wind is set to expire in 18 short days. That would be a huge mistake to let it expire. Many projects would be delayed, thousands of jobs would be lost. Clean energy jobs have been a bright spot in our economy. We have seen wind energy capacity in America grow to the equivalent of 75 large powerplants. It is still growing. We added the equivalent of 106 large powerplants' worth of wind power in 2011. We see this on this chart. We are going to add even more this year.

This chart shows some interesting facts about wind power in New Mexico. We already have enough wind power installed in New Mexico to power 200,000 homes. We have 20 times more capacity in the planning stages. Then look at this projection: New Mexico has wind potential power 75 times more than the State's electricity need, with the right transmission lines--and I think this is something we also want to work on together--getting a good grid in place, a smart grid, and getting the areas of the country hooked up that have wind energy to be able to move it around. With the right transmission lines, New Mexico is set to become a major wind power exporter.

Wind power already supports 500 jobs in New Mexico. Wind farms mean payments for farmers and ranchers in New Mexico during times of drought. They mean a local tax base support for rural schools. They mean a brighter future for our economy. We are seeing real growth, real potential. But progress depends, in part, on us continuing the support for this tax credit. The tax credit has been extended seven times by Presidents and Congresses of both parties. It was enacted under a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. It was extended in 1999 by a Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton. In 2005, it was extended under President George W. Bush as a part of the bipartisan energy legislation drafted by Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici of New Mexico.

I do wish to say we are going to miss Senator Jeff Bingaman, our chairman on the Energy Committee. He has done a remarkable job of putting clean energy at the front and center of our

agenda. Then this tax credit was most recently extended in 2009 as part of President Obama's Recovery Act. So renewable energy has enjoyed longstanding bipartisan support, and the wind tax credit has been a great success.

The cost of wind power has fallen dramatically, as the Presiding Officer knows. It has fallen dramatically over the years. For example, GE's wind power costs have dropped from 15 cents per kilowatt hour to near 5 cents in the last 10 years. Wind is becoming cost competitive with fossil fuels. On some days, it is the cheapest electricity available. Let me repeat that because that is important because we hear arguments out there that this is expensive. But on some days, it is the cheapest electricity available.

The Department of Energy estimates we could receive 20 percent of our electric power from wind alone by 2030. But we need to stay the course and support a policy with proven benefits. We will not need this incentive forever, but we should not eliminate it overnight. Wind resources are widely available in the West, the Midwest, and often offshore.

Support of the wind tax credit is diverse. Wind power benefits a wide variety of Americans: farmers and ranchers who lease their land, tax revenues for rural school districts, iron workers, steel workers and engineers and everyone who wants to breathe clean air. Other countries--China, India, Japan, and Germany--see these benefits too. They also want the job growth. They also want the energy security. They are acting aggressively to take leadership of the clean energy economy.

Our workers and entrepreneurs can compete with anyone on a level playing field. But the Congress is tying one hand behind their backs by leaving important incentives such as this in jeopardy. Let us continue the bipartisan support for the wind tax credit. Let us work together and get the job done for our economy, for our energy independence. Let us continue to invest in clean energy.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today with a difficult task: to honor a great Senator and a great friend, Senator Jeff Bingaman.

This is difficult for two reasons. First, Senator Bingaman is not one to call attention to himself, and, second, he does so as briefly as possible. On both counts--let me just say now--I am going to fall short.

Jeff is that rare combination of character--brilliant and humble. For Jeff, it is about the work, not about his own ego, not about a monument to himself. For three decades in the U.S. Senate, he has been making a difference, for the American people and for our home State of New Mexico.

Public service is a noble profession--when it isn't swamped by money, when it isn't held hostage to hyperpartisanship. Jeff is the best example I know of the nobility of politics. The origin of the word ``noble'' is ``nobilis''--well-known--from the latin ``noscere'' to come to know. Jeff, who is a scholar, probably knows that. I had to look it up. But, knowing, making sense of the world, using that knowledge to make the world a better place, that is what public service is supposed to do, and that is what Jeff Bingaman does.

By Washington standards, Jeff is a man of few words. And when he comes to this floor to speak, we listen. If I am at my desk in my office, I will turn up the television, I will stop what I am doing, because I know that he will say something insightful, something worth knowing, something worth thinking about.

When Jeff came to the Senate 30 years ago, this was a different place. There was a new President. There was a fierce battle of ideas, of ideology, of where the country needed to go. Principles did not matter any less then than they do now. But folks worked together. They clashed, but they also compromised.

We all know what has happened since then. Washington has become more and more polarized. But, time and again, Jeff Bingaman has been a voice of reason, of doing what is best for our country--no grandstanding, just hard work, paying attention to details, getting problems solved, getting the job done. He is an inspiring role model.

In his own quiet way, Jeff does something essential: He challenges us to think a little harder, look further down the road, see how we can move our country forward, not just today, but far into the future. He doesn't look for the limelight. He looks for solutions. And his accomplishments make for a very long list.

He has been a truly great chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He has done so much to protect our natural resources, to build a clean energy economy, for jobs, for the environment. I was proud to work with Jeff on the first renewable electricity standard in Congress. He led the Senate bill, and I led the House bill. And, as always, I learned from his example: steady, focused, and reasonable.

We will continue to carry the torch on renewable and clean energy standards in Congress, following in his footsteps. But today, we can be proud that 30 States--including New Mexico--have enforceable renewable standards. Together, these cover the large majority of the U.S. population.

Jeff also shepherded the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the first comprehensive energy bill in 13 years. a ``do it all'' energy bill that covered renewables, nuclear, clean coal, and oil and gas.

And 2 years later, he took the lead in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That bill was an even more ambitious effort than 2005. As the National Journal reported, it was ``the most sweeping energy efficiency legislation ever put into law.''

On both of these bills, Jeff worked in a commendable, bipartisan fashion with Senator Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico. He also achieved these compromise bills with a Republican House in 2005, a Democratic House in 2007, and both were signed into law by Republican President George W. Bush.

The public lands package of 2009 was another great achievement. Jeff reached across the aisle for compromise and protected 2 million acres in nine States as new wilderness areas, and more than 1,000 miles of rivers and streams--one of the greatest land protection laws ever. It will benefit generations to come, and it is part of the legacy of Jeff Bingaman.

We are spending time these days debating the failings of the Senate, the gridlock, the partisanship. In contrast, Jeff's committee has been a leading light of cooperation and compromise. When other committees lost their bipartisan way, the Energy Committee kept steady. I believe the standard he set will shape future energy and natural resources policy in years to come. I hope it guides us next year.

When this body has looked for answers, so often it has turned to Jeff. No surprise that he was one of the Gang of 6 to negotiate health care reform. When real solutions are on the agenda, Jeff will have a seat at the table.

Jeff was also one of the key negotiators in the No Child Left Behind Act, and he pushed for the Technology for Education Act and the America COMPETES Act--raising standards for all students, increasing opportunity for all Americans. Because he knows that investments in education and technology and training are crucial, crucial for the jobs of the future, crucial for our country.

Education, health care, jobs, energy, and the environment--Jeff has been a leader in all these areas. And what comes through over and over: he never forgets the people who brought him here. He never forgets that what we do here is about families, is about communities, is about making a better future for our children and grandchildren. That is what drives him, and that is what has made him such a great Senator.

One of the things I admire most about Jeff Bingaman is his courage. You know where he stands, and he is not afraid to go against the current. He was one of 23 Senators who voted against war with Iraq. As he said later: ``I think that was the right vote, but it was not a popular vote.''

I have valued his counsel on many occasions. It has been an honor to serve with him. He is going to be missed--not just for his good humor, not just for his friendship, but, more

importantly, for his character and wisdom. On both sides of the aisle, his absence will be felt.

With typical humility, Jeff would be the first to say he has a great staff, and he does. When I first came to Congress, on the House side, Jeff and his staff reached out to me, and to my staff, always available to help, always ready to work together, to try and do what is best for our State and our Nation.

And, finally, I know Jeff would also say, he could not have accomplished so much without the support of his amazing wife Anne. They met at Stanford Law School, and have walked side by side, equal partners, ever since. Anne Bingaman is as remarkable as her husband, and he would very likely insist more so.

My dad once said that the measure of someone isn't about winning elections or awards or honors. It is what the people who know you best think about you. For those of us who know Jeff Bingaman, he is the real deal.

Jeff Bingaman has lived a life of service--substantial, enduring, noble service. I have no doubt that--though he is leaving the Senate-- he will find other ways to serve, and New Mexico and our Nation will be the better for it.

Jeff, thank you. Thank you for your leadership, for your friendship, and for your always wise counsel. As you and Anne begin a new chapter in your lives, Jill and I wish you the very best.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I spoke about Senator Bingaman. I know the Presiding Officer is on his committee and she feels the same way about him and all the work he has done. It is going to be a sad day for all of us when he exits at the end of this year, but he is a pretty remarkable leader.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the vote on the motion to waive earlier today, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask through the Chair if the Senator from Nebraska will yield for a question.

The Senator from Nebraska has talked about the rules not being able to be changed because internally in the Senate rules there is a provision that says you need a supermajority, two- thirds of the Senate, to change the rules. This is the proposition we are hearing argued by many Senators, that we are breaking the rules to change the rules. We have heard that repeated several times over and over on the Senate floor.

The other side of the argument, as the Senator I think well knows, as he worked up here and was around and saw Senator Byrd, is that the Constitution is superior to the Senate rules. And the Constitution specifically says, in article 1, section 5, that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. Statutory construction applied to that means a simple majority determines the rules of its proceedings. This is a standard interpretation construction.

We know supermajorities are only indicated at several places in the Constitution, and every place else it is implied that it is by a majority. Here you have a supermajority in the Senate rules and you have the Constitution saying at the beginning of a Congress you can change the rules by majority vote. So the question to the Senator is: Does not he agree the Constitution is superior to the Senate rules?

Mr. President, I would ask to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, there has been much discussion about the need to reform the Senate rules, and I have listened closely to the arguments against these changes by the other side. Today I rise to address some of their concerns. My Republican colleagues have made impassioned statements in opposition to amending our rules at the beginning of the next Congress. They say the rules can only be changed with a two-thirds supermajority. They say any attempt to amend the rules by a simple majority is breaking the rules to change the rules. This simply is not true.

Repeating it every day on the Senate floor doesn't make it true. The supermajority requirement to change Senate rules is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is very specific about when a supermajority is required and just as clearly when it isn't required.

Article I, section 5 of the Constitution States:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,

punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the

Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

When the Framers require a supermajority, they explicitly said so. For example, for expelling a Member. On all other matters, such as determining the Chamber's rules, a majority requirement is clearly implied.

There have been three rulings by Vice Presidents sitting as President of the Senate. Sitting up where the Presiding Officer is sitting, three Vice Presidents have sat there. And the meaning of article I, section 5, as it applies to the Senate, this is what they were interpreting. In 1957, Vice President Nixon ruled definitively, and I quote from his ruling:

While the rules of the Senate have been continued from one

Congress to another, the right of a current majority of the

Senate at the beginning of a new Congress to adopt its own

rules, stemming as it does from the Constitution itself,

cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a

majority of a previous Congress. Any provision of Senate

rules adopted in a previous Congress, which has the expressed

or practical effect of denying the majority of the Senate in

a new Congress the right to adopt the rules under which it

desires to proceed is, in the opinion of the Chair,

unconstitutional.

That was Vice President Nixon. Vice Presidents Rockefeller and Humphrey made similar rulings at the beginning of later Congresses.

I have heard many of my Republican colleagues quote Senator Robert Byrd's last statement to the Senate Rules Committee. The Presiding Officer knew Senator Byrd well. He is from his State of West Virginia. Senator Byrd came to that Rules Committee. I was at that Rules Committee, and I was at the hearing where he appeared--and I have great respect for Senator Byrd. He was one of the great Senate historians. He loved this institution, but we should also consider Senator Byrd's other statements and the steps he took as majority leader to reform this body.

In 1979 it was argued that the rules could only be amended in accordance with the previous Senate rules. Majority Leader Byrd said the following on the floor:

There is no higher law, insofar as our Government is

concerned, than the Constitution. The Senate rules are

subordinate to the Constitution of the United States. The

Constitution in Article I, Section 5, says that each House

shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we are at

the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be

bound by the dead hand of the past.

That was Senator Robert Byrd. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past.

As Senator Byrd pointed out, the Constitution is clear. There is also a

longstanding common law principle upheld in the Supreme Court that one legislature cannot bind its successors. For example, the Senate cannot pass a bill with a requirement that it takes 75 votes to repeal it in the future. That would violate this common law principle and be unconstitutional. Similarly, the Senate of one Congress cannot adopt procedural rules that a majority of the Senate in the future cannot amend or repeal.

Many of my Republican colleagues have made the same argument. In 2003 Senator John Cornyn wrote in a Law Review article--as many of you know, Senator Cornyn was an attorney general in Texas, was a distinguished justice. Senator Cornyn said the following in this Law Review article:

Just as one Congress cannot enact a law that a subsequent

Congress could not amend by a majority vote, one Senate

cannot enact a rule that a subsequent Senate could not amend

by a majority vote. Such power, after all, would violate the

general common-law principle that one parliament cannot bind

another.

That was Senator John Cornyn.

Amending our rules at the beginning of a Congress is not breaking the rules to change the rules, it is reaffirming that the U.S. Constitution is superior to the Senate rules. And when there is a conflict between them, we follow the Constitution.

I find some of the rhetoric about amending our rules particularly troubling. We have heard comments that any such reforms, if done by a majority, would ``destroy the Senate.'' Again, I can turn to my Republican colleagues to answer this accusation.

In 2005 the Republican Policy Committee released a memo entitled ``The Constitutional Option: The Senate's Power to Make Procedural Rules by Majority Vote.'' That memo supports the same arguments I make today for reform by a majority, and it also refutes many of the recent claims about how the Senate will be permanently damaged.

One section of the memo titled, ``Common Misunderstandings of the Constitutional Option'' is especially interesting and enlightening. It responds to the argument that ``the essential character of the Senate will be destroyed if the constitutional option is exercised,'' and it responds with the following words:

When Majority Leader Byrd repeatedly exercised the

constitutional option to correct abuses of Senate rules and

precedents, those illustrative exercises of the option did

little to upset the basic character of the Senate. Indeed,

many observers argue that the Senate minority is stronger

today in a body that still allows for extensive debate, full

consideration, and careful deliberation of all matters with

which it is presented.

What is more important about the Republican memo is the reason they believed a change to the rules by a majority was justified. Because of what Republicans saw as a break in longstanding Senate tradition. They claimed they weren't using the constitutional option as a power grab, they were using it as a means of restoring the Senate to its historical norm.

This is exactly where we find ourselves today. Back then, the Republicans argued the constitutional option should be used because 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees were threatened with a filibuster. I believe the departure from Senate tradition now is far worse.

Since Democrats became the majority party in the Senate in 2007, we have faced the highest number of opposition filibusters ever recorded. Lyndon Johnson faced one filibuster during his 6 years as Senate majority leader. In the same span of time, Harry Reid has faced 386.

For most of our history, the filibuster was used very sparingly. But in recent years, what was rare has become routine. The exception has become the norm. Everything is filibustered--every procedural step of the way, with paralyzing effect. The Senate was meant to cool the process, not send it into a deep freeze.

Since the Democratic majority came into the upper Chamber in 2007, the Senates of the 110th, 111th, and current 112th Congresses have witnessed the three highest total of filibusters ever recorded. A recent report found the current Senate has passed a record low 2.8 percent of bills introduced. That is a 66-percent decrease from the last Republican majority in 2005 and 2006 and a 90-percent decrease from the high in 1955 and 1956.

So the Republicans argued in 2005, ``[a]n exercise of the constitutional option under the current circumstances would be an act of restoration.'' An act of restoration. I cannot improve on that statement. We must return the Senate to a time when every procedural step was not filibustered.

I respect the concerns some of my Republican colleagues have regarding the constitutional option, but there is an alternative. We don't have to reform the Senate rule with a majority vote in January. This is up to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Each time the filibuster rule has been amended in the past, a bipartisan group of Senators was prepared to use the constitutional option. But with a majority vote on the reforms looming, enough Members agreed on a compromise and passed the changes with two-thirds in favor. We could do that again in January.

I know many of my Republican colleagues agree with me that the Senate is not working. Some say we don't need to change the rules, we need to change behavior. But we tried that--the changing of behavior--with a gentleman's agreement at the beginning of this Congress. It failed. So now it is time to make some real reforms.

This is not a ``power grab,'' as some have charged. We want to make the Senate a better place--a place where real debate happens for both parties. So I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to bring their own proposals to the table. Let's work together to restore the deliberative nature of the Senate where all sides have the opportunity to debate and be heard.

I said 2 years ago I would push for reforms at the beginning of the next Congress regardless of which party was in the majority. I will say again that our goal is to reform the abuse of the filibuster, not trample the legitimate rights of the minority party. I am willing to live with all the changes we are proposing whether I am in the majority or the minority.

The American people, of all political persuasions, want a government that actually gets something done, that actually works. We have to change the way we do business. The challenges are too great, the stakes are too high, and we do not want a government of gridlock to continue.

I thank the Chair for the time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator.

I too am concerned by the rising consumer ATM costs. As you know, the Senate recently passed legislation that does away with the requirement that ATMs post a physical sign notifying consumers that they may be charged multiple fees for a transaction. In many ways this requirement was outdated and it put our local institutions at risk for frivolous lawsuits. While I supported the bill we passed, I believe we must proceed with caution.

All of my friends speaking on this issue today, myself included, believe that this legislation was only intended to remove duplicative disclosures and not to lessen the important information consumers rely on when making an ATM transactions. We are concerned that one of the unintended consequences of this legislation is that consumers will lose access to information about the fees that they might face at an ATM, including, for example, fees for simple transactions like a balance inquiry and additional fees imposed by their own institution.

I would like to ask Senator Johnson, the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, for his input on this point as well.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Kerry for the recognition. I appreciate it. I have been an earlier supporter of the ratification of this important treaty. I am pleased to have worked with Senators Durbin, McCain, Harkin, Coons, and Barrasso. In particular, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee. I thank all of these fine Senators for their bipartisan work on this bill.

We still have work to do to improve our treatment and acceptance of disabled persons. But through the Americans with Disabilities Act, the United States has been at the forefront of protecting the dignity of people with disabilities. This treaty will help expand American values and leadership throughout the world. It is a vital step forward in respecting the rights of the disabled.

As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am aware of the challenges many countries face. These challenges include supporting their disabled citizens. Our Nation has set the standard for improving access to buildings, technology, and other areas for the disabled. Without the United States accepting its leadership role, it is possible that different standards could be adopted internationally. As for one example, this would place disabled travelers at a disadvantage. They would be forced to deal with different standards while traveling overseas.

In many countries there has been insignificant investment in infrastructure to improve access for the disabled, and in many cases there is a misunderstanding about what rights disabled persons should be afforded. Ratifying this treaty will help the United States clarify to the world that people with disabilities have dignity and that they are capable of living full and meaningful lives.

For instance, article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities addresses the issue of women with disabilities. The article provides that:

State Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure

the full development, advancement, and empowerment of women

for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and

enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms set

out in the present Convention.

Many countries are falling short in protecting the rights of women. It is tragic that so many women are subject to human rights abuses in a number of countries. Secretary of State Clinton has made empowering women an important part of our diplomatic priorities, and I support her efforts.

Fortunately for the United States, we do not need to implement additional legislation in order to be in full compliance with the convention. Laws such as the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, the Family and Medical Leave Act strengthen the U.S. position in the convention, and our leadership could lead to other countries adopting similar protections for disabled women.

Most importantly, I am reminded of the veterans who have returned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These brave veterans have served in all the places we have asked them to go. They have advanced the interests and ideals of the United States. We owe them a debt for their service. Many of them have returned with severe wounds, some requiring a lifetime of care.

I wish to read a statement from one of the veterans who appeared in front of the Foreign Relations Committee. John Lancaster is a disabled attorney and marine veteran. This is what he said:

In 1968, I arrived in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive,

assigned to the 1st Battalion, 27th Marines as an Infantry

Platoon Commander. Five months later, I was shot and injured

in a firefight. After months of rehabilitation, I arrived

back home in Western New York a disabled veteran. Although my

friends and family welcomed me home, society did not receive

me quite as well. While there was certainly tension around

the politics of the Vietnam war, it was the inaccessibility

of my environment that made me feel the least welcome. I

returned to a country not ready to receive me as a man who

now used a wheelchair.

That was the reality that an honored soldier had to overcome until the United States improved its laws to protect the disabled, and it is still a reality in many places overseas, places where our veterans and other disabled citizens will likely travel in the future for either business or pleasure. We must ratify this treaty because protecting the rights of the disabled is the right thing to do in the United States of America, and it is the right thing to do throughout the world.

Again, I thank Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar for their hard work on this treaty. We look forward to our colleagues voting for it in a short hour from now.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wanted to come down and talk about an amendment I am working on to the Defense authorization bill. Last week Senator Corker and I filed amendment No. 3049, which would create an open burn pit registry in the Defense Authorization Act.

Our veterans and Active-Duty members suffering from exposure to burn pits should not have to wait any longer. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee agrees and has passed the legislation after holding hearings. However, I understand there is currently opposition to passing this amendment via a managers' package.

I would note that we have already passed two amendments dealing with veterans yesterday, both the Pryor amendment No. 3291 dealing with veterans employment and training and the Reed of Rhode Island amendment No. 3165 dealing with housing assistance for veterans. Both of these were outstanding amendments and help maintain the trust we have made to our veterans and our current servicemembers whom we have an obligation to care for when they have completed their service.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, open-air burn pits were widely used at forward operating bases. Disposing of trash and other debris was a major challenge. I believe, like the rest of my colleagues, that if we are forever in debt to our veterans for their service, we must be asking this question: How did these burn pits impact the health of our returning heroes? This amendment is a step toward finding the answers we owe them. It is supported by numerous groups, including Burnpits 360, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Association of the U.S. Navy, Retired Enlisted Association, the Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees, and the National Military Family Association.

I am hopeful that we can pass this amendment No. 3049 through a unanimous consent agreement, but I respectfully request a vote at this time if no such agreement can be made.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about two of my amendments to the Defense authorization bill. I will maybe at a later point speak on some of the other amendments I had filed, but I am not going to offer the amendments at this time.

I first rise to speak on the Udall-Corker amendment No. 3049. Last year I introduced S. 1798, the Open Burn Pits Registry Act with Senator Corker. We have met with veterans and Active-duty members of the military and they have told us how important it is that we act now on this issue. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee agrees and has passed the legislation after holding hearings.

This week, Senator Corker and I submitted amendment No. 3049 to the Defense authorization bill because our veterans and Active-duty members suffering from exposure to burn pits should not have to wait any longer.

I began this work because of servicemembers such as MSgt Jesse Baca, a member of the New Mexico Air National Guard, and his wife Maria. Master Sergeant Baca was stationed in Balad, Iraq, and exposed to burn pits. Because of the burn pits he has battled cancer, chronic bronchialitis, chemical-induced asthma, brain lesions, TBI, PTSD, and numerous other ailments. He knows firsthand the suffering caused by burn pits and the need for answers.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, open air burn pits were widely used at forward operating bases. Disposing of trash and other debris was a major challenge. Commanders had to find a way to dispose of the waste while concentrating on the important mission at hand. The solution that was chosen, however, had serious risks. Pits of waste were set on fire, sometimes using jet fuel for ignition.

For example, the air samples at Joint Base Balad turned up some nasty stuff: particulate matter, chemicals that form from the incomplete burning of coal, oil, and gas, garbage, or other organic substances, also volatile organic compounds such as acetone and benzene--benzene is known to cause leukemia--and dioxins associated with Agent Orange.

A scientific study by the American Lung Association found the following:

Emissions from burning waste contain fine particulate

matter, sulfur dioxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic

compounds and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides

that can scar the lungs.

All of this was in the air and our veterans have begun to raise the alarm.

We are forever in debt for their service so we must ask the question: How did these burn pits impact the health of our returning heroes? This amendment is a step toward finding the answers we owe them.

This amendment is supported by numerous groups, including Burn Pits 360, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Association of the U.S. Navy, Retired Enlisted Association, Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees, and the National Military Family Association.

I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment so that Master Sergeant Baca and his fellow servicemembers and veterans can begin to heal.

Now I want to speak about a second amendment. This is an amendment that deals with the issue of buying American solar. This amendment is Udall No. 3150, sponsored by Senators Schumer, Bingaman, and Wyden.

Solar power increases energy security for American military installations, but we should be using Buy American- compliant solar panels. The Department of Defense is a leader on utilizing solar power, not for environmental reasons but for energy security reasons. When we use taxpayer funds to support military solar power, we need a level playing field for U.S. solar manufacturers in the contracting process. Today we have U.S. military bases with Chinese solar that violates the trade laws, but there is no U.S. solar on Chinese military bases.

The 2011 Defense authorization bill took an important step to clarify DOD's Buy American Act requirements, making sure they apply to solar. My amendment is needed to close existing loopholes in the 2011 Buy American solar requirements. It would ensure Buy American standards apply to solar on DOD property that is used to meet DOD energy goals.

This amendment is nearly identical to the one passed on voice vote last year but dropped in conference with the House. The change from last year's amendment is a 1-year term so we can test this provision. CBO estimated the cost of this amendment as insignificant, so we know this amendment does not raise costs. The difference in price is very small. Chinese solar now has significant tariffs. Nations that are in the WTO are not discriminated against. Buy American does not bar nations that allow reciprocal access to U.S. firms. Existing exemptions, such as availability and cost, still apply. We do not expect this to harm DOD's procurement in any way.

I would once again urge the Senate, when we have the opportunity, to adopt this amendment.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time on the Democratic side be equally divided between Senator Murray and me.

Madam President, I say to Senator Merkley, who has been a good friend and partner on this issue of filibuster reform, I couldn't agree more with his comments and with the kinds of things he has been talking about: commonsense proposals to make the Senate work.

What Senator Merkley and I have been talking about is the way we can have the Senate do the work of the American people. We just went through an election. We know our States are hurting. People want to create jobs. They want us to deal with health care costs and make sure there is quality health care. On education reform, we haven't even reauthorized the No Child Left Behind Act or dealt with education. So all of those issues are front and center. As we know, the last couple of years, because of the filibuster and because of the delay and because of the obstruction we have had go on, we haven't been able to get to those issues. And I think Senator Merkley has experienced what I have when we have talked to our friends on the Republican side--they agree it is not working.

Really what we are trying to do is come up with commonsense proposals such as the Senator has talked about to make the Senate work. The first one is very simple. It is to make sure that the motion to proceed to a bill will not be debatable. We are talking about not allowing filibusters on the motion to proceed because, as we have seen on the chart here, we are in a situation where we now cannot even get on the bills. So this is a commonsense proposal.

One of the other areas we are trying to address deals with conference committees. There are three debatable motions--three motions that can be filibustered to get us into the conference committee. We have not gone to conference as a result, and so we don't resolve differences between the House and the Senate--another important area we could reform and really make the process work much better.

The final one is one Senator Merkley and I have worked on. Senator Specter, a Republican who at the very end of his career became a Democrat, talked about it as the talking filibuster. He said: If you are going to object, if you are going to slow down the Senate and prevent the Senate from doing anything, you should have to come down here and talk about it. That is really the essence of what we are trying to do--shift the burden onto the people who are obstructing to say: Come down here and talk about it. And as Senator Merkley has said several times, it could be that what you talk about, you become a hero or you become a bum in the eyes of the American people. But the reality is that the Senate is deliberating, the Senate is doing its work, the Senate is engaging--we are engaging each other and having a debate about those particular issues.

I think these are commonsense proposals, and the minority should understand that we have thought through these proposals in such a way that if we were in the minority, we could live with them. That is the crucial fact here. We are not trying to ram something through that we couldn't live with in the minority. I believe this place can work a lot better and we can do a better job if we just work with each other and try to come up with rules and not abuse the rules.

My colleague and our leader, Senator Murray, has joined us. Senator Durbin was here earlier. I know the time has been equally divided. It was shortened a little bit with Senator Durbin's talk at the beginning of our half hour. At this time, I yield for Senator Murray's remarks.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about our efforts to change the Senate rules. There has been a great deal of comment on this subject lately.

I have listened with great interest to the arguments against these changes by the other side. Let me just say at the outset: Senators Merkley, Harkin, and I are not talking about taking away the rights of the minority. We are not abolishing the filibuster.

But there must be change. The unprecedented use and abuse of the filibuster and other procedural rules has prevented the U.S. Senate from doing its job. We are no longer the world's greatest deliberative body. In fact, we barely deliberate at all.

For most of our history, the filibuster was used very sparingly. But in recent years, what was rare has become routine. The exception has become the norm. Everything is filibustered, every procedural step of the way, with paralyzing effect. The Senate was meant to cool the process, not send it into a deep freeze.

For some reason, ever since the Democratic majority came into the upper Chamber in 2007, the Senates of the 110th, 111th, and current 112th Congress have witnessed the three highest totals of filibusters ever recorded. A recent report found the current Senate has ``passed a record-low 2.8 percent of bills introduced in that chamber, a 66 percent decrease from the last Republican majority in 2005-2006, and a 90 percent decrease from the high in 1955-1956.''

Our proposal to reform the rules is simple, it is limited, and it is fair. Again, we are not ending the filibuster. We preserve the rights of the minority. We are only proposing that, No. 1, Senators should be required to go to the floor and actually tell the American people why they oppose a bill or nominee in order to maintain a filibuster; and No. 2, motions to proceed to a bill or to send a bill to conference should be nondebatable. These are sensible changes. Yet we are warned that these simple reforms will transform the very character of the Senate, will leave the minority without a voice. These arguments are covers for continued abuse of the rules.

The reforms are modest--some would say too modest. But they would discourage the excessive use of filibusters. The minority still has the right to filibuster, but not the right to do so by simply making an announcement and then going out to dinner or, more likely, to a fundraiser.

Nevertheless, the other party insists we are attacking the rights of the minority. But there seems to be another message, too, with a truly odd logic. They say that if we make any reasonable changes in January, they may make radical ones in the future. In short, if we dare to reform any rule, they might throw out all of them when they are in the majority. How this comports with their stated concern for the rights of the minority is unclear.

It is also being argued that we are breaking the rules to change the rules. This has been repeatedly charged by the minority leader. We disagree. We are reforming the rules to save the Senate. The status quo is abusing the rules and debasing the Senate. It is a choice between rules reform and rules abuse.

History contradicts the minority leader as well. Members of the other side have agreed with changing the rules when they have been in the majority. The Record is already chock

full with their past remarks, fervent in their support for changing the rules with a simple majority vote.

This reminds me of a story my Uncle Mo used to tell. A former Senator once said of himself that ``never has the clammy hand of consistency rested upon my shoulder.'' He meant it too. On one occasion, he introduced a bill, and he pushed very hard for it. Then, seeing the tide was turning, he led the fight against his own bill. A constituent sent him a telegram that read ``I thank God for your courageous stand.'' And he replied, ``Which one?''

And so the question: how to change the rules? The Constitution is clear on this point. The Senate rules reforms can be accomplished by a simple majority at the start of the new Congress in January. This is the ``constitutional option,'' not a ``nuclear option.'' That is something else, and I will speak to it in a moment.

This has been a heated topic of debate this week on the Senate floor, particularly between the majority and minority leaders. I have followed the debate carefully, and I would like to address some of the distinguished minority leader's concerns.

Earlier this week, Leader McConnell said the following:

This small group of primarily senate sophomores is now

proposing that when the Senate gavels in at the beginning of

the new Congress, a bare majority of senators can disregard

the rule that says changes to the Senate's rules can only be

approved on the same broad bipartisan basis we reserve for

approving treaties and overriding presidential vetoes, a

supermajority-plus.

I am glad he framed our argument in this way. Why do treaties and veto overrides require a supermajority vote? Because those requirements are enshrined in our Constitution. The Constitution is very specific about when a supermajority is needed and, just as clearly, when it isn't.

Article I, section 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,

punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the

Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

When the Framers required a supermajority in the proceedings of Congress, they explicitly stated so in the Constitution, as they did for expelling a Member. On all other matters, such as determining the Chamber's rules, a majority requirement is clearly implied.

The constitutional option has been used numerous times since the cloture provision was adopted in 1917, the last being in 1975 when it was the catalyst for amending the filibuster rule to its current form.

In 1957, then-Vice President Richard Nixon noted while presiding in the Senate, ``[W]hile the rules of the Senate have been continued from one Congress to another, the right of a current majority of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress to adopt its own rules, stemming as it does from the Constitution itself, cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a majority of a previous Congress.''

Current Republican Senators agree. Senator John Cornyn said in 2003:

Just as one Congress cannot enact a law that a subsequent

Congress could not amend by majority vote, one Senate cannot

enact a rule that a subsequent Senate could not amend by

majority vote.''

And Senator Orrin Hatch noted in 2005 that a

simple majority can invoke cloture and adopt a rules change

it is clear that the Senate, at the beginning of a new

Congress, can invoke cloture and amend its rules by simple

majority.

As I said earlier, some on the other side of the aisle have drawn a false equivalency between the constitutional option and the Republicans' threatened nuclear option of 2005. Yet this misses a crucial distinction. The nuclear option sought to change Senate rules in midsession. The constitutional option follows Senate precedent and would change the rules only at the start of the new Congress.

We don't have to reform the rules with only a majority vote in January. That is up to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Each time the filibuster rule has been amended in the past, a bipartisan group of Senators was prepared to use the constitutional option. But they didn't have to. With the inevitability of a majority vote on the reforms looming, enough Members agreed on a compromise and passed the changes with two-thirds in favor.

We could do that again in January. I know many of my Republican colleagues agree with me. The Senate is not working. I said 2 years ago that I would push for the same reforms at the beginning of the next Congress--regardless of which party was in the majority. If Leader McConnell was going to be the majority leader in January, I would ask him to work with me on implementing these reforms.

I will say again that the proposed changes will reform the abuse of the filibuster, not trample the legitimate rights of the minority party. I am willing to live with all of the changes we are proposing, whether I am in the majority or minority.

The other side has suggested that a change in the rules is an affront to the American public but the real affront would be to allow the abuse of the filibuster to continue.

It has also been suggested that ``the campaign is over.'' Well, this effort to change the rules has something to do with the results of the campaign. The American people sent us a message. We have to change the way we do business. We have to govern and pay attention to jobs and the economy and the things that matter to American families. That was their message, and we would do well to listen to it.

As to the comment that some of the reformers are ``sophomores,'' true enough. Senator Merkley and I are relatively new to this Chamber, but I don't think the American people think that is a bad thing because we came here to find solutions, to actually get things done for the American people. But what we found was a graveyard of good ideas. No real debate. No real consideration.

Under the abuse of the current rules, all it takes to filibuster is one Senator picking up the phone, period. Doesn't have to even go on the floor and defend it. Just a phone call by one Senator. No muss. No fuss. No inconvenience. Except for the American public. Except for a nation that expects and needs a government that works, a government that actually works together and finds common ground.

Maybe some of my colleagues believe that the Senate is working as it should that everything is fine. Well, Mr. President, we sophomores do not take that view. It isn't working. It needs to change, and I know plenty of experienced Senators agree.

The American people, of all political persuasions, are clamoring for a government that actually gets something done. The challenges are too great, the stakes are too high, for a government of gridlock to continue.

Mr. President, before my colleague, Senator Durbin, leaves the floor, let me just say that this whole issue, as he has pointed out, of campaign finance is a pressing issue. It is one that is before us now. We are seeing it play out in the campaign. I am sure that at the end of this campaign, citizens across this country are going to demand reform, they are going to demand change. The Senator has outlined several pieces of legislation that I believe really do that. This constitutional amendment is one. The DISCLOSE Act, a piece of legislation the Senator has offered and fought for, I think both in the House and the Senate, really brings transparency to the process. They bring disclosure to the process, and we need to do it. So I really appreciate the Senator's leadership and look forward to working with the Senator very closely on this issue as we get into the next Congress.

Tribute to Russell Train

I rise today to pay tribute to a gentleman by the name of Russell Train. On Monday of this week, our Nation lost a great friend of the environment. I was saddened to learn of the passing of Russell Train. Russ was a true pioneer in the history of environmental protection. He was a part of that great generation of bipartisan leaders, that remarkable group of men and women, Democrats and Republicans, who put the environment center stage, who championed conservation. My father, who knew and admired Russ, was also a part of that generation. They leave very big shoes to fill. Their legacy is monumental.

Russ Train's life parallels so much of the history of the environmental movement in this country because he was part of that history because he did so much to make it happen. In 1965, when he was 45, Russ left his position as U.S. Tax Court judge. He decided to devote himself full time to conservation and became president of the Conservation Foundation. His midlife career change may have been a loss for the Tax Court, but it was a huge gain for the environment.

Brilliant, tenacious, committed, he dedicated the rest of his life to the environment. Along with Rachel Carson, the celebrated author of ``Silent Spring,'' Russ helped raise environmental issues to the national level. He served as Under Secretary of Interior from in 1969 to 1970. He was the first Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality from 1970 to 1973. He was instrumental in the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and headed it from 1973 to 1977. During those years, he oversaw landmark legislation: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Toxic Substance Control Act. All bore the imprint of Russell Train.

Perhaps his most lasting achievement was the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. He helped see that groundbreaking legislation through the Nixon White House and through Congress. For over 40 years now, NEPA has required Federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements for any major projects. NEPA is justly regarded as the foundation for U.S. environmental protections.

But what began as a bipartisan triumph was later subject to partisan divide. While in the House in 2005, I served as the ranking member of a task force whose stated purpose was to review and improve NEPA. But there were those who wanted to destroy it--with 1 swift blow or by 1,000 cuts but destroy it all the same. Many of us fought very hard not to let that happen. As I said at that time, where critics of NEPA saw only delay, we saw deliberation. Where they saw postponed profits, we saw public input. NEPA was then and is now an antidote to the potential arrogance of government power. It listens to the community, it addresses opposition early on, and in the long run it minimizes conflict and protects the environment. It trusts the American people to take part in managing their public resources. And it remains one of Russell Train's greatest legacies.

Russ himself stated it best at the 40th anniversary of NEPA. He said:

NEPA is America's most-imitated environmental legislation

around the globe. What we launched in 1970 has become a

contribution to the planet not less than to our citizenry . .

. NEPA's legacy is that what the people know has great value

to a government that seeks their knowledge and takes it

seriously.

After leaving the government, Russell led the U.S. branch of the World

Wildlife Fund for many years. He did so with his usual passion and commitment, always engaged, always pragmatic and reasonable but ever the visionary for a better world.

In 1991 President Bush awarded Russ the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Russell Train was a remarkable man. Jill and I have been honored to call him and his wonderful wife Aileen our friends. We extend our sincere condolences to Aileen and their children and hope they will take comfort in knowing the world is a better place for Russell's life and work.

New Mexico's Centennial

On January 16, 1912, President Taft signed the proclamation making New Mexico the 47th State. So it is with great pride that I join Senator Bingaman in submitting a resolution recognizing the centennial anniversary of our State.

For those of us who are blessed to call New Mexico home, we are imprinted by its remarkable history and its awesome beauty. We are part of the rich diversity of its people.

One hundred years ago, the population of New Mexico was 327,000 people. Now it is over 2 million. But the mix of Native American, Hispanic, and European tradition has long been a part of our State. New Mexico is a land of deep roots. We are enriched by this mosaic of culture. It has informed our history, our art, and our sense of who we are as a people. Our State is rightly called the Land of Enchantment. It is also a land of courage. From the Civil War to Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders, from the Navajo Code Talkers to Bataan and Corregidor, and from Korea and Vietnam to the brave men and women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, when our Nation has called, New Mexico has always stood ready to answer that call.

The story of New Mexico is a long and proud one. It goes back well over 10,000 years to the Clovis people. It goes back to Santa Fe, founded in 1610, the oldest capital city in the United States. In 1920, Route 66 connected New Mexico to California and to the Midwest. This and other interstate projects that followed brought jobs and more people to our State, and today we need a new commitment to investing in the infrastructure that is essential to renewed prosperity.

In the 1920s and 1930s, New Mexico was part of an oil boom that fueled the rest of the Nation, and today we are on the cutting edge of clean energy technology, helping to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. In the 1940s and 1950s Sandia and Los Alamos National Labs became legendary centers of scientific innovation and research. Today they continue to play a vital role in our Nation's security. Our State is also promoting STEM education--science, technology, engineering, and math--so that our graduates can get good jobs, so they can compete in a global economy.

How we address these issues will shape the next 100 years in our State, but I am sure of one thing: We have a blend of cultures and backgrounds like nowhere else. It has helped bring us where we are today. It will help take us where we need to go tomorrow. The vitality and creativity of our people is as strong as ever. Working together, we will continue to meet the challenges of our State and our Nation. In this year of our centennial, we look back to our unique history and we look forward to a bright future.

I thank the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul, for allowing me to finish my statement. I appreciate very much his courtesy. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in the annals of our Nation's military history, the Navajo Code Talkers will always be remembered. They were a small group of marines, but their impact was far beyond their numbers. Their skills were crucial to American victory in the Pacific during World War II. They turned their Native language into an unbreakable code, and wielded that power as a great force in securing Allied victory.

Today, we mourn the loss of one of those heroic men. On June 23, Mr. Frank Chee Willeto died at his home in Pueblo Pintado, NM. Mr. Willeto was 87 years old. His life was a remarkable story of valor, of dedication, and of service.

Mr. Willeto was born and raised in Crownpoint, NM. In January 1944 he enlisted with the U.S. Marines, 6th Division. He trained for 8 weeks as a Navajo Code Talker. He served in the Pacific Theater in the Saipan and Okinawa campaigns.

Frank Willeto and his fellow Navajo Code Talkers joined a fight for freedom in a world that did not always accord freedom to them. They knew firsthand the ugly face of discrimination, of intolerance. U.S. law had recognized Native Americans as citizens for only 17 years when our country entered World War II.

And yet, many Native Americans bravely served during World War II, served at a higher percentage rate than the general population. And among them were Frank Willeto and the legendary Navajo Code Talkers.

Mr. Willeto was awarded the Congressional Silver Medal. Our Nation is forever in debt to him and his fellow Navajo Code Talkers. But that is only part of his story. When he came home from war, he devoted his life to his community. He worked for many years with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and then with the Department of Education.

In 1974, he was elected as a Navajo tribal councilman. He was later elected president of Pueblo Pintado Chapter. He also served as a judge on the Navajo Supreme Judicial Council and as vice president of the Navajo Nation.

Last November, Mr. Willeto testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. He shared his experiences in the military, and he reminded us all how important it is that our veterans receive the benefits they were promised. He was a tireless advocate for housing and health benefits for veterans. Frank Willeto lived a long and productive life, and to the end he was steadfast in his efforts to help others.

His was a life of service, of defending others in time of war, and serving others in times of peace. A life that is inspiring to all who knew him, and who mourn him now. We remember Frank Willeto, and we honor his legacy when we hold true to the ideals that he lived: honor, courage, commitment. I extend my sincere sympathies to Mr. Willeto's family, to his many friends, and to his community.

Madam President, I, on behalf of my colleague Senator Bingaman and myself, wish to recognize Rex E. Kirksey on the occasion of his retirement, following a distinguished career serving the agricultural community in our home State of New Mexico and elsewhere.

Mr. Kirksey has dedicated 32 years of his life working for New Mexico State University to improve agricultural outreach and to facilitate vital research. As the Superintendent of the NMSU Agricultural Science Center in Tucumcari, NM, Mr. Kirksey oversaw research programs focusing on developing forage and grazing systems for irrigated lands in New Mexico and the western United States.

In 2003, he took on additional responsibilities as superintendent of the Agricultural Science Center in Clovis, NM. Under his leadership, that institution emerged as the State's leading off-campus center with nationally and internationally recognized programs in agronomy, dairy management, peanut breeding, and crop stress physiology.

During his tenure at New Mexico State University, Mr. Kirksey authored many professional publications, including peer reviewed journal articles, proceedings papers, research reports and bulletins, progress reports and published abstracts, and an extensive range of business reports and correspondence. He has also given numerous presentations to industry and peer groups.

In addition to his work domestically, Mr. Kirksey has been involved with the Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology Transfer, AWATT, project--a partnership with USAID and New Mexico State University. This project aims to improve the community and farm-level management of the supply and demand of irrigation water resources for increased agricultural productivity and food security in Afghanistan. He also has worked with the Botswana Sustainable Agriculture Initiative, an international consortium with a goal to develop an integrated, sustainable agricultural system. The Botswana Initiative will assist both small and large farms to employ conservation agriculture practices to increase fresh water availability, grow more nutritious food, build agricultural infrastructure, create more agricultural jobs, and stimulate enterprise creation in rural areas.

Mr. Kirksey's leadership and expertise has made a difference in the lives of so many people in our Nation, as well as other parts of the world. Senator Bingaman and I thank Mr. Kirksey for his commitment and dedication to the people of New Mexico and to our agricultural communities. We would also like to thank his wife Cyndie and their three children for always supporting Rex in his endeavors. Thanks to his work and the work of our land grant institutions, farmers and ranchers across the country have access to the resources they need to help ensure our country's future competitiveness in an increasingly global economy.

We wish Mr. Kirksey continued success, and a most happy retirement.

Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank Senator Whitehouse for heading up this campaign finance task force. I think this has been a real solid effort by a number of Senators. Senator Whitehouse, whether it is at Netroots or on the Senate floor, has been participating this evening, and we appreciate all of his help. The Presiding Officer, Senator Merkley, has also been a key member of the task force. Senator Bennet, who is going to be speaking after I have finished, is another member of the task force. So we appreciate being allowed to get together.

What we need to be reminded of this evening is where we are. We just took

a vote to try to get onto the DISCLOSE Act, and 51 Democrats said let's get onto the bill, with 44 Republicans--not a single Republican--voting not to allow us to move to the bill.

Basically, as Senators Bennet, Whitehouse, and Merkley know, the Senate is now in the mode of a full filibuster. We are on a motion to proceed and have not been allowed to move to the bill. So people should recognize that is the posture we are in right now, so we are going to be down here talking about this issue.

I have joined my colleagues to talk about this serious problem of campaign finance reform, one that threatens the very nature of our democracy. That threat is the unprecedented flow of money into our elections. We need to look at this dangerous torrent of money and consider how to stop it. I believe a step in the right direction is the DISCLOSE Act.

In January 2010 the Supreme Court issued its disastrous opinion in Citizens United v. FEC. Two months later, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decided the SpeechNow v. FEC, which the Supreme Court upheld. These two cases gave rise to super PACs. They opened the floodgates of secret cash. Super PACs have poured millions of dollars into negative and misleading campaign ads, and, as they often do, under the cover of darkness--quiet, stealthy, without disclosing the true source of the donations.

It is ironic. They make all this sound and fury on the airwaves, but they are silent on who is paying for it. Why? Why the silence? Why the cat and mouse? The American people are blessed with common sense. They know usually when someone will not admit to something it is because there is something to hide. They have seen where all that shadowy campaign money can take us--to corruption, to scandal, to places like Watergate, dark days where we have been before. And believe me, I don't think the American people want to go back to the era when we had big suitcases of cash, with the President keeping cash in his White House safe. The American people don't want to return to that time.

The Citizens United and SpeechNow decision sparked a renewed focus on the need for campaign finance reform. But let's be clear, the Court laid the groundwork for this broken system many years ago. In 1976 the Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that restricting independent campaign expenditures violates the first amendment right to free speech. That ruling established the flawed precedent that money and speech are the same thing--another nail in the coffin of common sense. The result: elections based too much on the ability to raise money and too little on the quality of ideas, too much on a dedication to fundraising and too little on the public good.

Money and free speech are not the same, and it is a tortured logic to say they are. They may seem comparable in the rarified hallways of the Supreme Court but not in the rough and tumble streets of political campaigns. We know this. The super PACs writing these huge checks know it too, and they must be chuckling all the way to the bank. But the American people do not find this funny--infuriating perhaps but definitely not funny.

I don't think we can truly fix this broken system until we undo the false premise that spending money on elections is the same thing as the constitutional right of free speech. That can only be achieved if the Court overturns Buckley or we amend the Constitution. Until then, we will fall short of the real reform that is needed. But we still should do all we can in the meantime to make a bad situation better, and that is what we have been trying to do with the DISCLOSE Act. That is what we must do with the DISCLOSE Act. It is not the comprehensive reform I would like to see, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, and the DISCLOSE Act is the good we can do now. It is a step forward, a vital step forward, even with the flawed Supreme Court precedents that constrain us.

The DISCLOSE Act is a step out of the shadows, and that is exactly where we need to be headed. The DISCLOSE Act of 2012 asks a simple question--an important and eminently fair question: Where does the money come from and where is it going?

If we don't start asking that question, we may soon be asking another one, one we heard when scandal shook this country in years passed: What did he know and when did he know it? It is a simple question that follows the money because the American people have a right to know who is writing the checks.

Under the bill any covered organization, including corporations, labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and super PACs that spend $10,000 or more on campaign-related disbursements during an election cycle, would have to file a report with the Federal Election Commission that discloses all donations above $10,000.

It also requires the disclosure of any transfer made to a third party for the purposes of campaign-related expenditures. This addresses the growing problem of using so-called social welfare organizations to funnel anonymous money to super PACs.

This is a practical, sensible measure. It doesn't get money out of our elections, but it does shine a light into the dark corners of the campaign finance system. A similar bill in the last Congress had broad bipartisan support, with 59 votes in the Senate and passing the House. Since then we have all watched a flood of money raining down during this election year. We are seeing the real impact of the Citizens United and SpeechNow decisions on our elections. The need for this legislation has become even more apparent.

I serve on the Senate Rules Committee, and in March Chairman Schumer held a hearing on the DISCLOSE Act. We heard several concerns about the bill, both from our Republican colleagues on the committee and their witness. At the hearing, the minority witness claimed there were many provisions in the bill he disliked. He said:

I think perhaps the most radical is the government-mandated

disclaimer.

While I disagree with his assertion that standing by your ad is a radical idea, that is no longer an issue in this bill. We have taken the disclaimer provision out. I still believe it is an important provision, but we listened to the minority's concerns and revised the bill.

Another concern raised at the hearing was the effective date of the legislation. Senator Alexander is our ranking member on the committee, and I think a great deal of him and appreciate the work he and Chairman Schumer have done on this and many other issues. At the hearing on DISCLOSE, Senator Alexander said the following:

This hearing is as predictable as the spring flowers in the

middle of an election. My friends on the other side of the

aisle are trying to change the campaign finance laws to

discourage contributions from people with whom they disagree,

all to take effect on July 1, 2012.

Well, guess what, Senator Alexander. We have also addressed this concern. The bill has been changed so that the disclosure requirements go into effect at the beginning of next year. So the shadow groups can still do everything in their power to buy this election. They can still hide their faces from the voters, but they will have to step to the plate the next time around. They can still write the checks, they can still try to buy future elections, but they will finally have to say who they are at the checkout stand.

The bill we are considering is as simple and straightforward as it gets: If you are making large donations to influence an election, the voters in that election should know who you are. That is not a radical concept.

What is disappointing is that this type of disclosure, and campaign finance reform more generally, used to have broad bipartisan support. Now that conservative super PACs are raising huge sums of cash and hiding many of their donors, disclosure has suddenly become another partisan issue.

If we look at past reform efforts, they have always been bipartisan. In 1972, the Federal Election Campaign Act passed with strong bipartisan support from both parties. After Watergate, Democrats and Republicans came together, again to strengthen the act and set limits on independent expenditures. More recently, in 2002, we passed the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as McCain-Feingold. That bill passed in the Senate with broad support. Five of our current Republican colleagues voted for it.

The constitutional amendment that Senator Bennet and I introduced this Congress also used to be bipartisan.

Senator Fritz Hollings was the lead sponsor for many years, but the amendment was always bipartisan. It had the support of respected Republican Senators such as Ted Stevens, Arlen Specter, John Danforth, Thad Cochran, and John McCain.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed an additional 2 minutes.

So we can see why I am disappointed with the partisanship that has taken over this important issue. It is not like the problem of money influencing our elections has been solved. The recent Supreme Court decision struck down laws my Republican colleagues voted for. I hope they will be willing to work with us now to pass disclosure laws that will withstand judicial scrutiny.

And unless we take action, I fear things will only get worse. Earlier this year, my friend Senator John McCain said the following at a panel discussion on campaign finance reform:

What the Supreme Court did [in Citizens United] is a

combination of arrogance, naivete and stupidity the likes of

which I have never seen. I promise you, there will be huge

scandals because there's too much money washing around, too

much of it we don't know who's behind it and too much

corruption associated with that kind of money.

I think Senator McCain is right. I recall the debate when we considered the DISCLOSE Act in the last Congress. Many of our concerns then were still hypothetical. We could only guess how bad it might get. Well, now we know. Unfortunately, our worst fears have come true.

The toxic effect of the Citizens United and SpeechNow decisions has become brutally clear. The floodgates of campaign spending are open and gushing and threaten to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.

Look at what we have seen already. Huge sums of unregulated, unaccountable money are flooding the airwaves. An endless wave of attack ads, paid for by billionaires, is poisoning our political discourse 501c4 social welfare organizations are abusing their non- profit status. They shield their donors and then funnel the money into Super PACs.

The American public, rightly so, looks on in disgust.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that nearly 70% of registered voters would like Super PACs to be illegal. Among independent voters, that figure rose to 78%. Supporters of Super PACs and unlimited campaign spending claim they are promoting the democratic process. But the public knows better--wealthy individuals and special interests are buying our elections.

Our nation cannot afford a system that says, ``come on in'' to the rich and powerful, but then says ``don't bother'' to everyone else.

The faith of the American people in their electoral system is shaken by big money. It is time to restore that faith. It is time for Congress to take back control.

There is a great deal to be done to fix our campaign finance system. I will continue to push for a constitutional amendment that will allow comprehensive reform. But, in the interim, let's at least shine a light on the money. The American people deserve to know where this money is coming from. And they deserve to know before, not after, they head to the polls. That is what the DISCLOSE Act will achieve.

With that, I yield the floor.