Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rockefeller-Hutchison substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and that a budget pay-go statement be read.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act provides individuals who were brought to the United States as young children, at the age of 15 or younger, with the opportunity to legalize their status if they work hard, stay out of trouble, graduate high school, and eventually go to college or enlist in the Armed Forces. Passage of the DREAM Act is the right course of action for a variety of economic and humanitarian reasons. But it also makes sense in terms of strengthening our military's ability to attract talented recruits. For almost a decade now our Nation's military forces have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We rely on the courage, commitment, and dedication of an all volunteer force to fill the ranks of the military services. With the stress and hardship of repeated deployments and wartime service, the military has often struggled to maintain appropriate recruitment levels and standards. According to the Department of Defense, enacting the DREAM Act would help address this issue. The fiscal year 2010-2020 Strategic Plan for the Defense Department provides that passage of the DREAM Act would help ensure we maintain a mission-ready all volunteer force. As explained by then Under Secretary of Defense David Chu in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee: many of these young people may wish to join the military, and have the attributes needed--education, aptitude, fitness, and moral qualifications. . . . the DREAM Act would provide these young people the opportunity of serving the United States in uniform. We need to face the reality that we have individuals living in this country who were brought here unlawfully, but at no fault of their own, who have the skills and desire to make significant contributions. Frankly, I fail to see how our Nation benefits from denying hard- working young people who have grown up in our country from becoming productive members of our society. What is the benefit of telling a high school valedictorian who has lived in the United States since the age of five that he or she can't work, pursue higher education, or serve in the military? As a border State Senator, I understand the concerns about illegal immigration. Over the last several years we have made tremendous strides in enhancing border security, but I recognize that there is still more work to be done. However, penalizing individuals who came to the U.S. as children at no fault of their own is not the answer. Keeping these young people from bettering their lives through education or preventing them from serving our country by enlisting in the military doesn't make our Nation stronger, more secure, or more economically competitive. It simply deprives the Armed Forces of the ability to reach out to the many undocumented students who graduate from high school each year, and reinforces a permanent class of less-educated workers who are forced to live in the shadows and who are deprived of the chance to obtain their full potential. Over the years I have had the opportunity to meet with some of the young people who would benefit from this legislation. Their request is quite simple--that they be given the chance to serve the country where they have grown up, to make a difference in their communities, and to better their lives. These are the values, spirit, and dedication that have made America great, and I urge my colleagues to let them earn this opportunity.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of repealing the so-called don't ask, don't tell policy. It has been 17 years since this misguided policy was enacted. I believed then, as I believe now, that it was wrong for Congress to legislate in this area. Prohibiting gays and lesbians from openly serving in our Armed Forces is contrary to our Nation's values and weakens our military's ability to recruit and retain competent individuals with critical skills. By codifying a policy that reinforces discrimination, intolerance, and inequality, we established a system that is inconsistent with the rights embodied in our Constitution and the fundamental notion that a person should be judged squarely on the basis of his or her qualifications--not the color of their skin, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. I recently had the opportunity to visit President Franklin Roosevelt's home in New York--there was a quote that I saw that was particularly moving. In a campaign address delivered in 1940, FDR stated: I see an America devoted to our freedom--unified by tolerance and by religious faith--a people consecrated to peace, a people confidant in strength because their body and their spirit are secure and unafraid. I think this quote does a good job of capturing the true strength of America--a tolerant people committed to the preservation of freedom. The ability of a person to serve in our Nation's military should be based on his or her experience, qualifications and conduct. Since the inception of the don't ask, don't tell policy in 1993, over 14,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers have been discharged solely because of their sexuality. We have lost decorated soldiers and those with mission critical skills, such as Arabic linguists and intelligence specialists. Aside from the loss of necessary expertise, we've also wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money in discharging and replacing individuals who were completely willing and able to serve our country. The policy is also contrary to the values held by our military professionals. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, eloquently expressed this point: No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity--theirs as individuals and ours as an institution. When a person enlists in our Armed Forces and puts his or her life in harm's way in defense of our country, they should be able to serve with honor and dignity without being asked to live a life of deception. Secretary Gates ordered that a comprehensive review be conducted to assess the impact the repeal of the law could have on military effectiveness and to make recommendations about how a change could be implemented. The report, which was released a couple of weeks ago, surveyed thousands of active and reserve servicemembers as well as their families, veterans groups, health officials, and service academies. It is my understanding that this unprecedented report was the most comprehensive review of a personnel matter ever conducted. The key finding from this review is that the risk of repealing the don't ask, don't tell policy to overall military effectiveness is low and that the limited disruptions that may occur in the short-term can be addressed adequately through leadership, education, and training. In short, the Armed Forces are capable of accommodating this change without hampering unit cohesion, readiness, recruiting, and combat operations. There will never be complete unanimity when it comes to these types of controversial issues. However, the study found that 70 percent of military personnel believed that repealing the law would have positive, mixed, or no effect on them doing their jobs--only 30 percent anticipated that there would be negative consequences. And it is particularly telling that 92 percent of troops who served with a gay or lesbian servicemember believed their ability to work together was very good, good, or neither good or bad. We've had almost two decades to evaluate the success or failure of this policy and the legislation we are debating takes a very judicious approach. The bill stipulates that the repeal of the policy will not take effect until 60 days after the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff make certain certifications. In particular, that sufficient implementation procedures are in place to ensure the repeal could be carried out in a manner consistent with standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention. In my view this is a very reasonable approach. The reality is that it is no longer a question of whether this policy should be repealed, it is a matter of how it should be and in what matter. If Congress fails to act, it is very likely that the courts will. If this occurs, implementation may be more difficult and the changes may occur in a more haphazard manner as cases move slowly through the courts. Keeping this law in place doesn't make us any safer and it is inconsistent with our Nation's commitment to equality. I urge my colleagues to support the repeal of this ill-advised policy.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I would like to speak briefly on the New START treaty and state the reasons I believe the Senate should go ahead and ratify this treaty. Let me highlight some key points on, first, what the treaty accomplishes. Let me mention four things. No. 1, it reduces the number of deployed nuclear warheads by a relatively small number; that is, it takes us from 2,200, which is what we were required to reduce to under the Moscow Treaty, down to 1,550. Second, its counting regime is not based on attributing a number of warheads to a launch system but, instead, like the 2002 Moscow Treaty, this treaty actually requires the counting of deployed warheads. Third, this treaty reestablishes a verification regime of inspectors on the ground. This is something which lapsed a year ago when START I lapsed. Fourth, this treaty still maintains a credible nuclear deterrent against Russia, against China, against anyone who might threaten our country. Before discussing some of these points in detail, let me put the New START treaty in some historical perspective, at least as I see it. As this chart graphically demonstrates, at the peak of the Cold War some 30 years ago there were about 60,000 nuclear warheads. That is clearly an astounding number given that a single warhead would destroy most major American cities and most major cities anywhere in the world. From 1991, when the first START treaty was signed, until 2002 when the Moscow Treaty was signed, the number of warheads declined dramatically from about 50,000 to a little over 20,000, or about 10,000 for the United States and 10,000 for Russia. This includes spare and deployed warheads not just those that were deployed. The Moscow Treaty took this count further down and allowed 2,200 to 1,700 deployed warheads. Additional spares of about 3,300 were included, and the number rises to somewhere between 5,500 and down to 5,000 warheads for each nation. If the New START treaty is ratified as shown on this chart, down here where this arrow is in the right-hand bottom corner, in 2010, it will take the number of deployed warheads to 1,550 from the Moscow lower limit of 1,700 that was in the Moscow Treaty. That is a very modest reduction compared to what has been done in previous arms control agreements. After the Cold War ended 20 years ago, it was clear we had an astounding and excessive number of nuclear weapons. I believe it was the hope and the expectation of most Americans that there would be deep reductions in nuclear weapons at that time. That reduction, in my view, has been slow in coming. Our government has declassified the number of nuclear warheads we have in our active stockpile, and that number is 5,113. If asked directly, I believe most Americans would be surprised to know at the end of 2010 we still have over 5,000 nuclear warheads, and we have 2,200 that are deployed. Today we have a treaty before us that achieves a modest reduction from the Moscow level of 2,200 deployed warheads. As I indicated before, this treaty will take us down to 1,550. Quite frankly, I am surprised some are arguing for having a drawn-out debate over the treaty. START I took about 4 days of floor debate and lowered the number of warheads between Russia and the United States from about 50,000 to 20,000, a 60-percent reduction. The Moscow Treaty lowered the total number of U.S. warheads from about 11,000 to today's level of about 5,000. That took 2 days to debate. That involved a 55-percent reduction. Yet with a relatively modest reduction called for in this treaty, we still have people proposing a floor debate that could extend into the next Congress. Let me turn to a number of substantive issues associated with the New START treaty that I believe weigh in favor of its ratification by the Senate. First, we have been briefed by the military commanders about the 1,550 deployed warheads that will still be in place once this treaty is approved. This total is comprised of about 700 deployed ICBMs and SLBMs and about 800 total heavy bombers and launchers. I urge my colleagues to obtain the classified briefing on the treaty. I believe it is clear the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command has analyzed in detail the strategic nuclear force structure of each side under this treaty and is confident we can maintain our deterrence against Russia and China, who hold 96 percent of the world's strategic nuclear warheads. The resolution of approval as reported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee speaks to this issue, noting in condition 3 that before any reductions in deployed warheads are made below the current Moscow Treaty level, the President must notify Congress that such reductions are in the ``national security interests of the United States.'' The second point is that the intelligence community has judged that we are better off with this treaty and its inspection regime than we are without it. Monitoring and verification under START I, which has now expired, was based on counting strategic launch systems and then attributing a number of warheads to each submarine, each airplane, each missile. This counting rule overestimated the number of warheads carried on U.S. strategic systems. The New START treaty is much more specific than START I. It counts only the actual number of warheads carried by each deployed missile. In fact, this is the same counting rule as in the Moscow Treaty which was developed by the prior administration and subsequently approved in the Senate 95 to 0. Moreover, under this treaty we have the ability to inspect on the ground, with short notice, to determine whether uniquely coded launchers actually carry the declared numbers of warheads. Contrary to what some have claimed, short notice inspections of uniquely identified launchers combined with other intelligence assets give us a high probability of detecting cheating such as uploading more warheads, which would take days to months for Russia to achieve. Condition 2 of the resolution of approval out of the committee speaks to the monitoring issue by requiring the President to certify that our National Technical Means or other intelligence assets, combined with our on-the-ground verification capability, is ``sufficient to effective monitoring of Russian compliance with the provisions of the Treaty.'' Third, there is a larger policy issue of strategic stability. This treaty provides a framework of transparency through inspections and accountability of warheads and launchers. If we are worried about unchecked growth of Russia's strategic nuclear forces, not now but 5 years from now, it makes great sense to approve this treaty. Many have criticized the treaty because it does not deal with Russia's numerical advantage and tactical nuclear weapons, such as gravity bombs or submarine launched cruise missiles. I would point out that none of the previous nuclear arms control treaties have dealt with tactical nuclear weapons. While I agree we should have discussions with Russia on tactical nuclear weapons, we need this treaty to restart the process of negotiations if we are ever going to achieve the goal of reducing tactical nuclear weapons. This treaty lays the groundwork for a subsequent negotiation to address tactical nuclear weapons, many of which are deployed close to our NATO allies. If we cannot demonstrate we have the ability to enter into binding obligations on strategic nuclear forces, which are the most easily verifiable, how can we advance to the next step with Russia on reducing their tactical nuclear weapons, which number in the thousands and which are the most easily concealed of the weapons? The fourth point: Let me turn to the issue of modernization of our own nuclear arsenal. Despite our unsustainable budget deficit--and I notice the Senator from Alabama is on the Senate floor today. He and I both voted against the tax bill. I don't know all of his reasons. One of mine was the unsustainable deficits faced by this country today. But despite these unsustainable budget deficits, this administration is committing an additional $14 billion over the next 10 years for a total of $84 billion to modernize our nuclear weapons enterprise to ensure that as we draw that nuclear arsenal down, reduce the numbers in the nuclear arsenal under New START, we will be capable of maintaining those weapons we do rely upon. Now, this chart shows the 10-year projection for weapons stockpile and infrastructure funding, and my colleagues can see there is a very substantial commitment of funds by this administration to maintain the reliability of our stockpile. The fifth point I wish to make is that concerns have been raised regarding the nonbinding Russian unilateral missile defense statement. This is separate from the binding provisions of the treaty. This is a nonbinding statement that Russia made that considers the treaty effective only where there is, as they put it, ``no qualitative or quantitative buildup of the missile defense capabilities of the United States of America.'' In testimony before the Armed Services Committee, Secretary of State Clinton stated unequivocally the treaty does not constrain our missile defense efforts. Secretary Clinton went on to say: Russia has issued a unilateral statement expressing its view. But we have not agreed to this view and we are not bound by it. In fact, we have issued our own statement making it clear that the United States intends to continue improving and deploying effective missile defense. In the same hearing, Secretary of Defense Gates said: The treaty will not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defense possible, nor impose additional costs or barriers on those defenses. Secretary Gates then goes on to say in that hearing: As the administration's Ballistic Missile Defense Review and budget makes clear, the United States will continue to improve our capability to defend ourselves, our deployed forces and our allies and partners against ballistic missile threats. From a historical perspective I would note that similar unilateral statements on missile defense were made by Russia in connection with START I and in connection with START II, both of which treaties were approved by the Congress. Consistent with the statements by Secretaries Clinton and Gates, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's resolution of approval contains an understanding included in the instrument of ratification that ``it is the understanding that the New START Treaty does not impose any limitations on the deployment of missile defenses other than the requirement of paragraph 3, article V.'' That section of the treaty prohibits the use of existing ICBM and SLBM launchers for missile defense or the conversion of missile defense launchers for ICBMs except for those that have been converted before the treaty was signed. On the question of whether we should vote on ratification in this Congress or leave this to the next Congress to consider, some Senators claim that we simply need more time and that other treaties have laid before the Congress for much longer periods. This is simply not the case. Arms control treaties since the ABM Treaty in 1972 were either taken up, debated and ratified within the same Congress or, in the cases of START II, the Moscow Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Treaty were taken up, debated and approved within the Congress from which the Foreign Relations Committee reported a resolution of approval. This historical precedent on the ratification of arms control treaties runs counter to what some of my colleagues are advocating. It is this congressional session of the Senate that received the treaty, held 21 hearings and briefings and submitted over 900 questions as part of the advise and consent process and it should be this congressional session of the Senate that should finish the job. Let me conclude with where I started on the New START treaty, it is a relatively modest treaty in terms of reducing the number of nuclear warheads. Our military commanders have analyzed the force structure under the treaty and have concluded it maintains our nuclear deterrent and that it provides on the ground intelligence through verification that the intelligence community believes we are better off with than without. Finally, it is clear that it does not impede our missile defense programs. In my opinion there is no credible argument that the ratification of this treaty undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues to vote for the ratification of the New START treaty. I thank the chair and yield back any remaining time.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes on the tax package that is before the Senate and that we will be voting on tomorrow. Yesterday, the Senate voted to proceed to this $857 or $858 billion package that would have the effect of extending all personal income tax rates for 2 years, substantially reducing the estate tax, establishing or extending a host of tax incentives for American families and businesses. I think the way to evaluate this package is on two basic grounds. First of all, how does it help us deal with the very substantial economic problem we face with trying to strengthen the recovery from this deep economic downturn that we have experienced and, second, how is it helping us to set a long-term course to achieve fiscal stability. On the first issue, the economic recovery, there is much in the package that I would strongly support and that I do strongly support. We should protect 98 percent of American households from any tax increase. We should extend benefits to our fellow Americans who are unable to find jobs in this period of very high unemployment. We should continue key business incentives such as the section 103 program, which has provided a critical lifeline to the renewable energy industry. If the only economic imperative that we faced was how to strengthen this recovery from the downturn, I would be voting for the package. But as I said at the outset, that is not our only economic imperative. Our dire fiscal condition requires us also to adopt a strategy that will dramatically reduce deficits in the coming years. Frankly, I am disappointed by the plan's shortsightedness on that issue and, therefore, I did oppose the cloture motion yesterday, and I plan to vote against the package tomorrow when the vote is called. If we are serious about addressing the deficit, we need to admit that we cannot afford all of this package. In 2001, I came to the floor to explain my opposition to enacting the so-called Bush tax cuts. At that time the Congressional Budget Office was actually projecting budget surpluses. But as I explained then, I viewed the 2001 tax cuts as carrying a higher pricetag than we as a nation could afford. The 2001 cuts, which were accelerated in 2003, reduced the stream of revenue to the Federal Government by an amount that virtually guaranteed the elimination of our anticipated budget surplus, and instead insured that substantial deficits would once again become the norm in our Federal budget. The result, which is a Federal debt that today nears $14 trillion, could have been avoided under the Bush tax structure only if there had been major cuts in spending at the same time. As we all know, no such cuts in spending were ever proposed by the President, and no such cuts in spending were ever adopted by the Congress. In fact, in the years following the Bush tax cuts, spending increased very substantially. The Bush tax cuts were larger than we could afford when they were adopted. Including interest costs, those tax cuts account for nearly 55 percent of the deficit that is projected to the end of the next decade. Once again, in my view, we cannot afford to extend those tax cuts in their entirety today. The Nation's debt now stands at 62 percent of gross domestic product. The Congressional Budget Office says if we continue on our present course, that debt will reach 90 percent of gross domestic product by 2020 and 185 percent of gross domestic product by 2035. This concern is not merely academic. Our growing deficit has stark consequences for our government's ability to meet essential priorities. At current levels, government revenue in 2025 will be enough only to cover interest on the debt, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The threat to American prosperity is severe. By 2035, rising debt could reduce per capita gross domestic product by as much as 15 percent. In recent weeks, we have had several expert commissions tell us that we need to get the debt under control. They have offered thoughtful, practical proposals to do that. This National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform released a six-part plan that would achieve nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction through 2020. Five of the six senators who served on the commission supported the plan. Two weeks earlier, a bipartisan commission, headed by former Congressional Budget Office Director Alice Rivlin, and my former colleague Pete Domenici, issued their own report. Both bipartisan groups concluded that to be credible any deficit reduction plan must impose limits on spending and must increase revenue. For much of this Congress, the excuse for deferring serious action on deficits and debt has been that we should wait and see what these commissions decide. Well, now that these commissions have finished their work, this bill is our first chance to begin considering their recommendations. I see no evidence that we are doing so in this legislation. I understand we cannot tackle both tasks simultaneously, that is, stimulating the economy and reducing the deficit. We cannot attack both of those tasks with equal force at the same time. A decision, which I have supported, has been to focus first on stimulating the economy. But that focus does not excuse us from also taking the relatively easy steps that are available to reduce future deficits. I agree with the Commission for a Responsible Federal Budget, whose leaders argue that, ``The critical objective is to pair any stimulus for the short term with a credible plan to reduce the debt in the medium and long term.'' We should be talking about what triggers to attach, how to pay for the new package over the decade, what spending cuts and tax reforms to make. It is unfortunate that that conversation has not taken place. Because the cost of the package is not offset, it has been, unfortunately, larded up with very wasteful provisions that do little to stimulate the economy. The most problematic is the one many colleagues have commented on, that is, the $129 billion to extend tax cuts that benefit only the very high-income American households and reduce the estate tax below 2009 rates. Proponents of the bill say that because the economy is weak, now is not the time to allow the tax cuts for the wealthiest households to expire. But a Congressional Budget Office report issued earlier this year tears down this argument. They examined 11 options to stimulate growth and job creation and concluded that extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was dead last in that list of 11. They further found that extending the tax cuts for high-income households, in particular, would rate lower in effectiveness than extending all the tax cuts because: ``Higher-income households . . . would probably save a large fraction of their increase in after-tax income.'' There is one comparison that puts this sharply into perspective, at least to my view. Last month, the President announced that because of concerns about the deficit, he was proposing to freeze all civilian Federal salaries at a savings of about $2.5 billion a year. I stated at the time that I supported his decision. But in this package we will erase those savings nearly three times over merely with the reduction of the estate tax from the 2009 levels. Is it not enough to reinstate the 2009 estate tax provisions which exempt $7 million in assets per couple and tax amounts above that 45 percent? Under this package, the exemption is dialed up to $10 million per couple, and the rate is reduced to 35 percent. So instead of reaching only 1 out of 400 American estates, this plan would subject 1 out of 1,000 estates to any tax whatsoever. So while a GS3 clerk at the Department of Agriculture office in Albuquerque will have her salary frozen in the name of fiscal responsibility, the heirs of a $50 million estate will save $5.35 million. This unwarranted generosity will cost our Treasury an added $7 billion a year. Americans are right to question how we can be serious about reducing the deficit when we are ready to give wealthy heirs a windfall with no benefit whatsoever to the economic recovery. I also am troubled that the package makes the Tax Code permanently temporary and falsely assumes we will be able to achieve a different outcome when we debate this issue 2 years from now. Today's Wall Street Journal points this out in a story entitled ``Temporary Tax Code Puts Nation in a Lasting Bind.'' The piece opens with this sentence: ``Welcome to the world of the temporary tax code.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of that article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The main argument being used in support of the extension is that this is the only proposal we can get our Republican colleagues to agree to. In my view, that is an uncharitable view of our Republican colleagues. I think they would embrace a more responsible proposal if they felt they were required to do so. The fact that not a single Republican supported either the proposal Senator Baucus brought to the floor or the proposal Senator Schumer brought to the floor last week, in my view, results from their expectation, which was apparently accurate, that if they remained intransigent, Democrats would give in to their demands to extend all the tax cuts. Those demands reflected in the bill now before us do not acknowledge the serious problem we face with our deficits. I have explained why. There are also some important provisions that were included in the Recovery Act which, unfortunately, have been left out of this tax package. I am informed they have been left out because Republican leaders have insisted Recovery Act provisions not be extended. There are some of the provisions in the Recovery Act that had been extremely beneficial to economic activity in my State. The Build American Bonds program, for example. It is very unfortunate that program is not being continued as part of this package. The package also ends a provision Senators Crapo and Grassley and I fought to include in the Recovery Act, which raises the bank-qualified limit, which was last adjusted in 1986, for small municipalities that sell debt to community banks. This has significantly reduced rural governments' borrowing costs and created jobs and needed infrastructure improvements in thousands of communities. I am disappointed that has not been continued. The reflexive anti-Recovery Act position Republican leaders have taken is reflected as well in the provisions dealing with energy. In spite of the positive provisions in this legislation to strengthen the economic recovery--and there are some which I strongly support--the bill moves us in the wrong direction with regard to our other major problem, which is deficit reduction. On that issue, it will start the 112th Congress off on the wrong track. For that reason, I will oppose the legislation tomorrow when the vote is called. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted on proceeding to the most significant revenue bill of the 111th Congress. As I explained when I came to the floor earlier today, this bill contains important provisions that will stimulate the economy. I strongly support extending tax cuts to the overwhelming majority of American families. But this bill goes further than that. It extends tax cuts to the very highest earners and adds a substantial estate tax cut. And it does so without any offsets or any plan to address the deficit. The inclusion of those provisions will make it difficult for the next Congress to act in a responsible way to address our serious deficit situation. For those reasons, I voted against proceeding to the bill. While my ``no'' vote was driven primarily by the bill's fiscal recklessness, I am also disappointed by the inadequacy of its energy tax provisions. Aside from a 1-year extension of the section 1603 grant in lieu of credit program, which will offer some support to our renewable energy industries, every meaningful advanced energy incentive that was included in the package Senator Baucus offered has been stripped from today's bill, or reduced to the point of near- ineffectiveness. These include key provisions to promote energy efficiency, clean technology manufacturing, energy independence, and pollution reduction. Among its disappointing provisions, this bill chooses to extend the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit, or VEETC, for an additional year at its current rate of 45 cents per gallon. When we include the associated income tax deductions, this extension will cost American taxpayers about $6 billion. But the VEETC subsidizes production of a fuel whose consumption is already mandated by our renewable fuel standard. The House was poised to drop the credit down to 36 cents, a level that I would support. But today's so-called compromise package extends the credit at 45 cents a gallon, which will cost an additional $1 billion. That $1 billion would be better spent funding other clean energy technologies which do not enjoy the market protection of the renewable fuel standard. For instance, we could much better use the $1 billion for the advanced energy project credit, or section 48C, which enables companies to establish, reequip, and expand factories in the U.S. to manufacture advanced energy technologies. Failing to change this bill's energy provisions will ensure that the 111th Congress will be recorded as one that failed to maximize its potential in using the Tax Code to promote advanced energy priorities. To be sure, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included many significant tax innovations that promote clean renewable energy and energy efficiency. But since ARRA's enactment at the very beginning of this Congress, the Senate has failed to consider any legislation that would build off those innovations. Time and again, energy tax legislation was pushed back, delayed, and obstructed. Particularly galling is that this obstruction occurred in a year that saw the worst environmental disaster in the history of this Nation, one that resulted from our overdependence on fossil fuels. But we still have an opportunity to turn things around before the Congress adjourns. And so I urge the Senate to consider the comprehensive commonsense provisions that Senator Snowe and I have offered as an amendment. Our amendment, No. 4783, is modeled on a standalone bill, the Advanced Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2010, S. 3935, which Senator Snowe and I introduced in September. This is a bipartisan, comprehensive package of incentives focused on enhancing energy efficiency, deploying renewable energy, and rebuilding our domestic manufacturing base. These commonsense incentives will make our businesses more dynamic and competitive, our homes more efficient, our economy more secure, and our skies and waters cleaner. Among other highlights, our amendment would enable home and business owners to defray upfront costs of investing in energy-saving technologies, including the introduction of performance-based tax credits for whole home retrofits. It would make $2.5 billion in tax credits available to attract manufacturers of technologies that harness clean renewable energy or enhance energy efficiency and establish a $1 billion tax credit program to enable American manufacturers to undertake energy-saving measures that advance their competitiveness. Our amendment would facilitate the growth of renewable electricity by creating a tax incentive for energy storage systems, which will enable utilities to deploy intermittent energy sources like wind and solar power while reducing energy demands during peak hours and contributing to an overall more reliable smart grid. And the amendment would retool the tax credit for carbon capture and storage, CCS, to give CCS projects greater certainty. Mr. President, we must continue to ensure that the Tax Code contains well-designed incentives that will help us transition to an energy efficient economy. The most significant revenue bill of the 112th Congress should include robust provisions that expand domestic clean energy manufacturing; help American businesses and families reduce their energy use and dependence on fossil fuels; and create thousands of jobs. I deeply regret that in considering the bill before us, the Senate will not give priority consideration to our amendment. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, December 14, 2010] `Temporary' Tax Code Puts Nation in a Lasting Bind (By John D. McKinnon, Gary Fields and Laura Saunders) Washington.--Welcome to the world of the temporary tax code. In the late 1990s, there were typically fewer than a dozen tax provisions that had just a limited lease on life and needed to be renewed every year or so. Today there are 141. Now Congress, taking up a deal worked out between the Obama administration and Republican leaders, is poised to turn the whole personal income-tax system into something of a temporary structure. The plan embraces a broad range of provisions--an extension of Bush-era rates, a new estate-tax formula--but for only two years. A payroll-tax cut in the bill is for a single year. This means that if the compromise passes largely intact, the U.S. will have no permanent regime governing levies on salaries, capital gains and dividends, the Social Security tax, as well as a slew of targeted breaks for families, students and other groups. This on top of dozens of corporate-tax provisions that already were subject to annual renewal. The level of uncertainty, unusual for developed nations, complicates planning and discourages hiring and investment, many economists and corporate executives say. ``I haven't seen anything like it, and it's hard historically to find anything like'' the current and pending negotiations, says Mortimer Caplin, an Internal Revenue Service commissioner in the Kennedy administration who at 94 is just three years younger than the income tax itself. ``This Congress has left an awful lot up in the air.'' A vote to pass the tax deal in the Senate is expected on Tuesday or Wednesday; prospects for swift approval in the House remained cloudy but party leaders seem increasingly resigned to the measure clearing Congress intact. The two-year expiration of the bill's main provisions on individual rates would occur just after the next presidential election, and few in Washington envision a long-term solution being crafted at such a charged time. At the same time, the possibility of a sweeping tax-system revamp can itself add to the uncertainty, what with politicans increasingly ready to talk about this. President Barack Obama has lately, as has the deficit-reduction panel he appointed, including Republican members such as Rep. Dave Camp, future chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. The possibility of an overhaul that would put on the table long-established credits and deductions could further uproot predictability. This year has been something of a test case for tax uncertainty, with concern about what would happen when provisions adopted in 2001 and 2003 expired at year-end. Sales of certain kinds of life insurance rose as families wrestled with the possibility that estate taxes would jump in 2011. With no assurance the 15% rate on dividend income would last past 2010, Kraft Foods Inc., Exelon Corp. and Altria Group Inc. asked their shareholders to contact Congress in opposition to an increase. Stocks of utilities, which traditionally pay high dividends, appeared to factor in the possibility of a rise in the dividend tax rate in 2011, analysts said. At Incobrasa Industries Ltd., a producer of biodiesel in Gilman, Ill., sales manager Douglas Santos has been waiting to see what happens to an expired tax subsidy for his industry. He is running at 25% capacity, vs. 100% in 2008. Mr. Santos wants Congress to make up its mind one way or the other. ``Just do something,'' he says. The bill before Congress would restore the subsidy. Economic research has shown businesses tend to be more reluctant to invest when they perceive high levels of uncertainty about various things, including over taxes. The pressure on policy makers to narrow the budget deficit, not merely simplify the tax system, further muddies the waters now, says Massachusetts Institute of Technology tax economist James Poterba, who finds ``the crystal ball . . . particularly unclear at the moment.'' Some call the worries exaggerated. ``I truly do believe the concerns expressed over tax uncertainty are truly overblown,'' says Martin Sullivan, an economist with Tax Analysts, a nonprofit tax publisher, who sees today's situation as quite manageable compared with the profound business uncertainty companies faced during the financial crisis. ``We're used to [uncertainty] in the tax world,'' he says. ``What's changed in the last few years is the size of the temporary extensions.'' Obama administration officials note that the tax code has been through gyrations before, for example in the 1980s, when Congress adopted accelerated depreciation in 1981, only to repeal it five years later. That threw real-estate markets into an uproar and added to problems that contributed to the savings- and-loan collapse. The White House says the current confusion points to the need for a system that is more stable and simpler. ``We've got to have a larger debate about . . . how is this country going to win the economic competition of the 21st century,'' President Obama said last week. ``That's going to mean looking at the tax code and saying, what's fair, what's efficient? And I don't think anybody thinks the tax code right now is fair or efficient'' Small business is often looked to as a source of job growth. But the latest monthly survey by the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business advocacy group, found that 75% of owners felt it wasn't a good time to expand, and one in five said the main reason was doubt about policy environment, including taxes. For smaller companies, tax uncertainty could be an incentive to expand overseas rather than in the U.S., according to Tom Duesterberg, president of the Manufacturers Alliance, a group representing medium-size firms. Companies ``can't wait until all these [tax] questions are resolved,'' he says. ``They are not going to wait until all that definitively happens. They have to deploy cash, please their shareholders and expand and grow.'' Billy Hoffpauir, a developer in Lafayette, La., says he has been trying to sell some real estate because ``with the current uncertainty, I am unable to quantify the risk to make long-term investment decisions.'' If he finds buyers, he says, he would be likely to plow the cash into ``other interests, probably overseas,'' because some foreign countries have more favorable taxes and regulations. The tax situation is the overwhelming driver in his business decisions, Mr. Hoffpauir says. Lea Bailes, president of Guier Fence in Blue Springs, Mo., says his plans for next year depend on how the tax debate turns out: ``We're looking at acquiring a couple of smaller fence companies. The number we acquire, honestly, will depend on what we have to pay in tax.'' The company, which employs about 70, would try to hire two to three new workers for each acquisition, possibly 10 in all. ``If everybody our size can add 10 employees, we'd be a lot farther down the road in dealing with the unemployment,'' Mr. Bailes says. Guier is in the process of acquiring another firm now, and while Mr. Bailes likes to take time to make such decisions, he worries that concern over a possible rise in capital-gains rates might make the seller push to complete the sale this year. The bill in Congress would keep the current 15% top rate for two years. One reason unsettled rules on individual income taxes affect planning at small businesses is that many don't pay corporate tax, but pass business income through to the owners for taxation on their personal returns. Bill Wiygul, whose family owns four auto-repair businesses in northern Virginia, estimates he and his wife would pay at least $20,000 more in various taxes in 2011 if Congress doesn't address parts of the code, including the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT snags a growing number of filers each year, and while Congress regularly limits the number affected--and likely will do so again this week or next--this has so far been an AMT ``patch,'' never a permanent fix. Mr. Wiygul says he would trade an increase in tax rates for greater certainty if the pain was shared by all. ``We are petrified,'' he says. ``We would be more actively pursuing expansion opportunities if we felt like the climate was more certain.'' Large multinationals are only marginally affected directly by income-tax provisions on the table this year. Yet the stakes might be high for these companies. Executives worry about becoming a target for lawmakers seeking revenue to narrow deficits. If a broad revision ``is a true `step back, let's take a fresh look,' we would not be frightened by that,'' says Ken Cohen, a vice president at Exxon Mobil Corp. But if it pits industry versus industry or becomes a hunt for revenue, ``that's the process we would have much more apprehension about.'' The reasons the tax code has acquired an increasingly temporary cast have to do with deficits, a divided Congress and even the constitutional system. Political division contributes because of the daunting task of mustering a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate. Legislative shepherds of the Bush cuts resorted to passage under what is called ``budget reconciliation,'' requiring only a majority vote. But a measure passed this way can't be for longer than the budget that authorizes it, in this case 10 years. Hence the provisions expire in 2010. Such an outcome is less likely in countries with parliamentary systems because these leave the government less subject to having its will thwarted by a large minority. ``Very few countries have tax provisions that expire unless legislative action is taken,'' says Jeffrey Owens, head of tax at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. ``Also, in most OECD countries, it's the government that initiates new legislation, and once proposed the legislation generally passes.'' Deficits tempt legislators to give tax provisions a temporary term to disguise their cost. For proponents of a new tax provision, the strategy is to get a foot in the door by passing it for a year or two, at a seemingly affordable cost, intending to renew it regularly. That is how the number of provisions up for yearly extension has ballooned. Though the provisions are often extended in a bundle, a given provision's inclusion in the bundle is never certain. Perhaps nowhere has tax uncertainty been felt more intensely this year than in the estate tax, always a controversial matter. A 2001 law lowered its rate and increased the exemption in steps, with the tax lapsing in 2010 and then, unless Congress acts, returning in 2011 at a 55% top rate on estates of $1 million or more. The unusual hiatus coupled with a far more costly tax as soon as 2010 ended gave ``just an unbelievable Alice-in-Wonderland aspect'' to planning for certain well-to- do families, says Bruce Stone, a Miami-area estate lawyer. Sales of a life-insurance policy commonly used for estate planning rose 22% in the first nine months from a year earlier, and their death-benefit coverage was up 30%. Though the policies can also be used for other purposes, part of the jump seemed clearly to be for hedging against the possible estate-tax jump in 2011. In a few cases, the uncertainty drove people to ponder extreme measures to avoid a tax hit for heirs. David Drouhard, a Washington-state farmer who is 56, received a diagnosis of advanced kidney cancer 14 months ago and faced a grim set of treatment choices. Most offered little chance of extending his life more than 18 months, although an immunity-boosting drug held out some hope. Mr. Drouhard says he worried that inaction on the estate tax would force his family to sell his wheat and alfalfa farm, now worth about $3 million, to pay taxes if he died in 2011. After much deliberation, Mr. Drouhard decided to take the immunity-boosting drug, but with a caveat: ``I said, `If we don't see results from the first series [of treatments], I'm going to stop,'' he says. ``I try to take care of my family, so why not go ahead and die instead of living another six months.'' He has responded well to the treatment, but adds: ``I think it's wrong that you have to make that kind of decision.'' The compromise Congress is weighing this week would set a top estate-tax rate at 35% and the exemption at $5 million. But this would be for just two years. Just as this year, a failure by Congress to act then would cause the tax to then revert to a top 55% rate and $1 million exemption, in this case in 2013.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Senate has found G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. guilty of the charges contained in four articles of impeachment and removed him from office as a Federal district judge. In addition, it has adopted a motion disqualifying Mr. Porteous from ever holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Although I voted guilty on all four articles of impeachment, I voted against the motion to disqualify Mr. Porteous from future office. Although the Constitution clearly gives the Senate the power to disqualify a person from holding future federal office upon impeachment, I do not believe that sanction was justified in this case, viewed in light of previous judicial impeachments. Under our Constitution, impeachment is a remedial measure, not a penal one. Its purpose is to not to punish wrongdoers, but to protect our government against official misconduct by removing corrupt officials from office. As Justice Story put it, impeachment ``is not so much designed to punish an offender, as to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors.'' The Framers of our Constitution borrowed the idea of impeachment from Great Britain. But in Britain, in the centuries before the adoption of our Constitution, impeachments were used to punish as well as to remove from office. Impeachment by the British Parliament could result in fines, imprisonment, and even death. The Framers of our Constitution wanted none of that. They wove safeguards against legislative punishments throughout the Constitution, in the prohibitions against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, in an independent judiciary, and in the due process clause of the fifth amendment. Most clearly, they spelled out their design in the impeachment clause itself, which states that ``Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.'' Although united in a single sentence, ``removal from Office'' and ``disqualification to hold . . . Office'' are separate and distinct remedies. They are treated as separate and distinct in our rules and in our precedents. Removal from office follows automatically upon conviction. It does not require a separate motion or vote. Disqualification from holding office in the future is discretionary. A separate motion and a vote on the motion are required. Like removal, disqualification is remedial. It protects the integrity of our government by declaring persons found guilty of corrupt behavior unfit for Federal office. It is not unique to impeachment, but can be found in a number of federal statutes that disqualify persons convicted of certain crimes, typically involving official misconduct. As the Supreme Court has said, it is ``a familiar legislative device,'' and ``Federal law has frequently and of old utilized'' it. This is from De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 158-159, 1960. But disqualification also has a punitive dimension to it. In the same paragraph of his Commentaries on the Constitution in which Justice Story said that impeachment is not ``designed to punish an offender,'' he referred to ``the punishment of disqualification.'' The Supreme Court also said that ``Disqualification from office may be punishment, as in cases of conviction upon impeachment.'' This is from Cummings v. Missouri, 77 U.S. 277, 320, 1867--stating that disqualifications in Missouri's Constitution ``must be regarded as penalties --they constitute punishment''. Because of the punitive aspect of disqualification and because the Senate's decision to disqualify a person is not subject to judicial review, see Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 1993, the Senate's decision to impose disqualification is an especially grave one. The Senate has historically treated it as such. Out of the seven previous impeachment cases that resulted in a conviction since the Nation's founding, the Senate has impose disqualification in only two cases, one involving West Humphreys in 1862 and the other involving Robert Archbald in 1913. A motion was also made to disqualify Halsted Ritter following his conviction in 1936, but the Senate voted unanimously not to disqualify him. Thus, the Senate has not imposed the grave sanction of disqualification for nearly a century, between the impeachment of Mr. Archbald in 1913 and that of Mr. Porteous this week. None of the three judges convicted and removed from office in recent times--Harry Claiborne in 1986, Alcee Hastings in 1989, or Walter Nixon, also in 1989--have been disqualified. As Judge Sporkin said in connection with the impeachment of Judge Hastings, ``impeachment must be invoked and carried out with solemn respect and scrupulous attention to fairness. Fairness and due process must be the watchword whenever a branch of the United States government conducts a trial, whether it be a criminal case, a civil case or a case of impeachment.'' This is from Hastings v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 490, 492, D. D.C. 1992, vacated on other grounds, 988 F.2d 1280, D.C. Cir. 1993. Fairness, I believe, requires proportionality. As the Supreme Court has often said, ``it is a precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to offense.'' This is from Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367, 1910. There are two dimensions to proportionality. The first, rooted in Magna Carta, is that the punishment should fit the crime, and the harshness of the penalty should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Unquestionably, the impeachment charges upon which the Senate convicted Mr. Porteous are serious and, measured by the gravity of the offense alone, conviction on these charges might well warrant the sanction of disqualification. But proportionality ought also to be measured against the punishments imposed on others impeached and convicted of comparable offenses. See Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2040-2041, 2010, Chief Justice Roberts, concurring. Here, I think it is hard to justify disqualifying Mr. Porteous from holding future office when the Senate imposed no such disqualification on any of the other judges impeached and convicted for misconduct over the past 97 years. If there were considerations in this case that justify disproportionate punishment that were not present in the previous impeachments, they were not made clear at the trial. As Chief Justice Roberts recently wrote, ``the whole enterprise of proportionality review is premised on the `justified' assumption that `courts are competent to judge the gravity of an offense, at least on a relative scale.' '' This is from Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 2042, 2010, Chief Justice Roberts, concurring. Although the Senate sits as a ``court of impeachment'' to ``try'' impeachment cases, we are not sentencing judges and are not bound by judicial principles of proportionality. We possess what Alexander Hamilton described in Federalist No. 65 as the ``awful discretion . . . to doom'' people ``to infamy.'' Our judgments are not subject to judicial review. But for this very reason, I believe that we should only impose the punishment of disqualification with what Judge Sporkin called ``scrupulous attention to fairness,'' and some reasonable sense of proportion relative to previous, comparable impeachments. I do not believe that disqualification was a proportionate punishment in this case, and for that reason, I voted against the motion to disqualify Mr. Porteous.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate President Obama's signing of the historic Claims Resolution Act of 2010. The act contains measures that resolve long-standing claims against the United States including claims relating to three Indian water rights adjudication cases in New Mexico. In addition, the act provides significant funding to implement the settlement agreements. The signing of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 represents a significant achievement for the people of New Mexico. I would like to express my gratitude to the many New Mexicans who have worked on these settlement agreements over many years. I would also like to commend the Obama administration for its efforts to engage with the settlement parties to finalize the settlements in ways that will strengthen the relationship between the Federal Government and the tribes and protect the non-Indian residents in the settlement areas. Having the full support of the administration was a very important part of our success. The Aamodt and Abeyta settlements represent agreements that end long- standing litigation and provide numerous benefits that could never have been possible through the courts. The funding we have provided will ensure that the projects can move forward quickly. It is my hope that the settlement parties will continue to make swift progress toward implementation so that the Pueblo and non-Pueblo residents of Taos and the Pojoaque Valley will soon have access to more secure drinking water and improved ligation systems. In addition, the $180 million in funding provided for the Navajo settlement will expedite the construction necessary to bring drinking water to Navajo citizens who currently haul water to their homes from watering stations many miles away. The Navajo-Gallup project will also provide water to the city of Gallup and the Jicarilla Apache Tribe. I am pleased the Bureau of Reclamation's planning for the project is well underway and that construction may commence as early as 2012, providing hundreds of jobs for New Mexicans for years to come. The Aamodt case involves the water rights claims of the Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque Pueblos in the Rio Pojoaque stream system north of Santa Fe. It is my understanding that the case, which was filed in 1966, is the longest active Federal case in the country. The Aamodt settlement represents an agreement that quantifies the present and future water rights of the four Pueblos involved in the litigation. The settlement also protects the interests and water rights of non-Indian water users, including the historic acequias irrigation systems that have existed for centuries. The Aamodt settlement will bring new water into the basin for municipal and domestic needs for Pueblo and non-Pueblo residents throughout the Pojoaque basin. I commend the Aamodt settlement parties for their commitment to the negotiation process which will provide benefits to the basin for generations to come. The Abeyta settlement resolves Taos Pueblo's water rights claims in the Rio Pueblo de Taos stream system. The Abeyta adjudication case is also over 40 years old and the settlement parties have been working toward this result for decades. I commend them for their hard work and dedication. The Abeyta settlement will quantify the water rights of Taos Pueblo and will protect the interests of the other citizens throughout the Taos region. The Abeyta settlement provides for the construction of mutually beneficial projects designed to modernize water infrastructure and protect historic landscapes. The settlement will help to preserve the region's historic irrigation systems and provide security to domestic water users as well. The Aamodt and Abeyta settlements represent fair and reasonable conclusions to protracted, contentious litigation. They are the product of countless hours of hard work and determination. Numerous individuals have worked on these issues for decades like Nelson Cordova, Gil Suazo, Palemon Martinez and John Painter in the Taos Valley and David Ortiz, Maxine Goad, Herbert Yates, Ernest Mirabal, Charlie Dorame, James Hena, Perry Martinez, and George Rivera from the Aamodt case. I am grateful to those individuals and the many others who made these settlements possible. I would like to provide a special acknowledgment to Michael Connor, the Commissioner of Reclamation, for his longstanding commitment to resolving Indian water rights claims in ways that promote sound federal policy and fairness to the parties involved. Finally, I would like to recognize both Tanya Trujillo, my water expert on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and Trudy Vincent, my legislative director, for their wise counsel and hard work in passing this important legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me start by thanking Senator Baucus for putting forward his proposal on tax issues. It is a responsible course for us to follow. It is one I can vote for without reservation. He is basically saying: Look, let's ensure the first $250,000 that is earned by any and all Americans in this next year will be subject to the lower tax rates that were put in place during President Bush's time in office--the tax rates that were adopted essentially in 2001. Of course, it also contains other very useful provisions to reinstate the estate tax at a reasonable rate, with a significant amount exempted from the estate tax. It has provisions for energy tax--the extending of energy tax provisions, which I think are very important to the country. But we had a hearing yesterday in the Finance Committee. I am privileged to serve on that committee that Senator Baucus chairs. We had a very good hearing on the whole issue of Federal revenues and outlays. I thought some useful information came out there. I was able to speak very briefly with Doug Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office. I was particularly impressed with one chart he presented in his materials. I have made a copy of that, essentially, that I want to go through and explain because I think it puts this entire discussion into context. This chart shows what has happened with both outlays--and that is the light blue line--and revenues--the darker black line--outlays and revenues of the Federal Government for a 40-year period starting in 1970 and ending, essentially, right now. One useful thing about the chart is it has an average. It shows that, on average, outlays were about 21 percent, and that is the dotted blue line across here. It also shows, on average, revenues--what the government collects in taxes--was about 18 percent, and that is the dotted black line down here. You can see there is--I don't know if you call it a structure gap but a persistent gap between what we raise for the operation of the Federal Government and what we spend. Every year we spend more than we raise. There is an exception to that. There is a period here where these two lines cross, and that is the period at the end of the Clinton administration where we got to a balanced budget and a surplus. That was achieved for a variety of reasons, and let me talk a little about those reasons. There was a 4-year period there, 1998 through 2001, where the Federal Government essentially did not spend more than it took in. In 2001 again, as you can see from this chart, beginning in 2001 with this precipitous dropoff in revenue, the deficits began to grow. We now have a very large deficit. What is particularly disturbing is when you look ahead and project where we are going to be over the next 5, 10, 20 years, we are projected to have a very large deficit indefinitely unless we change some things. Changing either the outlay numbers, what we spend, or the revenue numbers, the level of taxes that are collected, is not easy. It is not easy in this Congress. It has never been easy. So how did we produce a surplus during the 4 years we had a surplus? I think there were three main factors that account for that. In 1990, the Congress and President George H.W. Bush were able to agree to legislation that controlled spending and increased revenues as well. That was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. It, for the first time, enacted pay-go rules. It also increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans by raising the top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent. At the time, President George H.W. Bush said--this is a quote from him--``It's time, I think it's past time, to put the interests of the country first.'' Over the next 5 years, this legislation did reduce the deficit by a total of $480 billion. That was one of the factors that got us to that period of balanced budget and surplus. The second factor was in 1993, when the Congress and President Clinton agreed, again, to legislation that increased revenue and controlled spending. This legislation once again raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Over the 5 years following, the legislation reduced the deficit by $430 billion and revenue increases were responsible for over half that deficit reduction that occurred in that period. Of course, the third factor, which is the most important, is that the country enjoyed very strong economic growth during the 1990s, particularly the latter part of the 1990s. That allowed revenues to rise above the historical average we see down here, this 18 percent historical average for revenues. We were able to get that up significantly, both because of the changes in law that occurred under President George H.W. Bush and under President Clinton and the very good economic circumstances we enjoyed in the 1990s. What caused the situation to reverse? Was it an increase in spending or was it a decrease in revenue? I think this chart makes the point very clearly that initially what caused the situation to reverse was the Bush tax cuts of 2001. They reduced revenue by $70 billion in that exact same year, 2001. In total, the tax cuts President George W. Bush signed into law reduced revenue by an estimated $1.6 trillion over a 10-year period. The actual costs may have been significantly greater. Simply put, the Congress and the President, when we enacted those Bush tax cuts, so-called Bush tax cuts, cut taxes more than we could afford to unless we were willing to also dramatically cut spending, and we did not cut spending. In fact, we increased spending. We increased it fairly dramatically to fund the Afghanistan war, to fund the Iraq war, to fund Medicare Part D. None of that new spending was paid for. Former Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag estimates that because they were not paid for, the Bush tax cuts, if extended again, and Medicare Part D, those together would add $5 trillion to the debt over the next decade. So the votes we are casting on this tax issue are significant votes that will reverberate for some time and affect our economy and the deficit and the debt. People need to understand that. Of course, in the last 3 years since we have been in this recession, the deficit has worsened very substantially. Revenue dropped to historic lows as the economy contracted. Spending also increased due to the Recovery Act and also due to the automatic stabilizers we have built into the law, such as unemployment compensation. It is important to note that only about 10 percent of the debt we incur over the next 10 years--the debt over the next 10 years--is due to the Recovery Act. With the economic recovery underway, the size of the deficit is beginning to stabilize. You can see that at the far right end as part of this chart. You can see these numbers, you can see the outlay number beginning to come down, you can see the revenue number at least leveling off, and that is positive. But the obvious point I think we need to understand is, we cannot solve the deficit problem by simply reverting to the situation before the economic crisis. The chart shows that, on average, outlays have exceeded revenues by about 3 percent of gross domestic product. That is about $450 billion under the current size of our gross domestic product. In other words, if Congress can only accomplish an average performance, we are looking at a $\1/2\ trillion deficit going forward even after we are fully out of this recession. Clearly, we need to do better than that. Congress needs to make some tough choices, both to control spending and to increase revenues, just as we did in the 1990s. Both the President's Deficit Reduction Commission, which I know is having its final vote today, and the bipartisan commission led by my former colleague, Senator Pete Domenici, and Alice Rivlin, former Budget Director--both of those Commissions recognize we will need revenue increases as well as spending cuts to solve the deficit problem. The proposal that Senator Baucus has come forward with is to allow everyone in the country to enjoy the lower tax rates that were adopted under President Bush but only to enjoy those lower rates for the first $250,000 of income each year. I know Senator Schumer has a proposal which says we will allow the lower rates on taxation of earned income to apply to the first $1 million of income of all Americans. All Americans will get the tax cut, as they will under the proposal by Senator Baucus, but Senator Schumer's proposal would be to give them the lower rates on the entire $1 million that they earn in the first year. Above that they would have to pay the rates that were in place under President Clinton's time in office, in the 1990s, when the economy was so strong. The question is, Can we in this Congress do what needs to be done to deal with the deficit issue and particularly on this tax bill to do what needs to be done to raise revenue? Tomorrow we will be voting on whether to let the Bush tax cuts expire for income above $250,000. One of these votes will be to effectively raise taxes on annual income above $1 million, as I said. Compared to other choices we have, it seems to me this is a fairly easy choice. If we are not willing to revert to the Clinton-era tax rates on any income, no matter at what level, then it is going to be very difficult for us to make a credible claim that we are serious about the deficit. I urge my colleagues to support the Baucus proposal, and I hope we can get a good, strong bipartisan vote on that. It is clear to me Americans do want to see the taxes they are paying on the first $250,000 of their income remain where they are today. That will only happen if we are able to pass this proposal Senator Baucus has put forward. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has worked diligently throughout this Congress to develop legislation that would strengthen our nation's energy security. In July of last year, on a strong bipartisan vote, the Committee reported the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, ACELA, and this past May, again with bipartisan votes, the Committee reported several amendments that would enhance ACELA. I know that other committees also have reported energy legislation, with the expectation that all of this work would be combined into a single bill that the full Senate could consider. Unfortunately, the Senate has, so far, not been able to find a combination of these energy policy proposals that it can move. This situation is particularly unfortunate because many of the provisions caught in this energy policy grid-lock have no known opposition. There is no rational reason why the Senate should not pass legislation which would save our nation energy, strengthen our economy, save Americans money, lower carbon dioxide emissions, and to which there is no known opposition, should not be passed by the Senate. In an effort to bypass this grid-lock, I am pleased to introduce a bill which packages many of these consensus elements. The Implementation of National Consensus Appliance Agreements Act, INCAAA, consolidates all of the consensual legislative provisions regarding the Department of Energy's appliance and consumer product energy efficiency program that the Energy Committee has reported, along with four more- recent agreements, into one bill. The DOE appliance standards program is one of the most powerful tools that our Nation has to reduce energy demand. It is a mature, broadly- supported program which has been estimated to have reduced the nation's electricity demand by about 10 percent. The enactment of INCAAA would strengthen this program by establishing, or increasing, energy efficiency standards for several classes of products. Such new or improved standards have been agreed to by the manufacturers of these products as well by as the Nation's leading energy efficiency advocacy groups such as the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. INCAAA includes new efficiency standards for outdoor lighting, supported by the National Electrical Manufacturing Association and major lighting manufacturers such as General Electric, Osram Sylvania, Philips, and Acuity Brands. It includes increased efficiency standards for furnaces, heat pumps, and central air conditioners, supported by the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute and its dozens of members, including Carrier, Johnson Controls, Rheem and Trane. It includes new efficiency standards for portable lamps, supported by the American Lighting Association. It includes increased energy and water efficiency standards for refrigerators and freezers, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, and room air-conditioners as supported by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and its many members, including Electrolux, General Electric, Panasonic, and Whirlpool. INCAAA also includes consensus standards and legislation reported by the Energy Committee covering smaller classes of products such as drinking water dispensers, hot food holding cabinets, and electric spas. Finally, this bill strengthens DOE's operation and administration of the appliance standards programs to include accelerated rulemaking and updated decisionmaking criteria to include new developments such as emerging smart-grid technologies. It is important to note that the bill requires no new authorizations or spending. These changes would be integrated into and administered by the existing DOE program. The American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy estimates that INCAAA would save the Nation over 1.2 Quadrillion Btus of energy each year by 2030--enough energy to meet the needs of 6.5 million typical American households. ACEEE also estimated that INCAAA would save nearly 5 trillion gallons of water annually by 2030, roughly the amount of water needed to meet the current needs of every resident of Los Angeles for 25 years. Broad Senate support for the provisions of INCAAA is demonstrated by the bipartisan votes in the Energy Committee when many elements of this bill were reported as a part of ACELA, or as amendments to ACELA. Broad support for these consensus standards among manufacturers and energy efficiency, and consumer groups is voiced in the letter written to the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders on August 13. In this letter, 16 manufacturing, energy efficiency advocacy, and consumer groups urged our Senate leadership to ``quickly pass several consensus appliance and equipment efficiency standards this session of Congress.'' Even if the Senate is unable to enact comprehensive energy legislation this year, enactment of the consensus agreements in this bill offers an opportunity to strengthen our economy by reducing energy use, saving consumers money, and improving the environment. I urge my colleagues to support and co-sponsor this legislation and seek its enactment this year. While there are plenty of energy policy proposal Senators disagree on, the efficiency standards and program improvements in INCAAA deserves the Senate's unanimous support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has worked diligently throughout this Congress to develop legislation that would strengthen our nation's energy security. In July of last year, on a strong bipartisan vote, the Committee reported the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, ACELA, and this past May, again with bipartisan votes, the Committee reported several amendments that would enhance ACELA. I know that other committees also have reported energy legislation, with the expectation that all of this work would be combined into a single bill that the full Senate could consider. Unfortunately, the Senate has, so far, not been able to find a combination of these energy policy proposals that it can move. This situation is particularly unfortunate because many of the provisions caught in this energy policy grid-lock have no known opposition. There is no rational reason why the Senate should not pass legislation which would save our nation energy, strengthen our economy, save Americans money, lower carbon dioxide emissions, and to which there is no known opposition, should not be passed by the Senate. In an effort to bypass this grid-lock, I am pleased to introduce a bill which packages many of these consensus elements. The Implementation of National Consensus Appliance Agreements Act, INCAAA, consolidates all of the consensual legislative provisions regarding the Department of Energy's appliance and consumer product energy efficiency program that the Energy Committee has reported, along with four more- recent agreements, into one bill. The DOE appliance standards program is one of the most powerful tools that our Nation has to reduce energy demand. It is a mature, broadly- supported program which has been estimated to have reduced the nation's electricity demand by about 10 percent. The enactment of INCAAA would strengthen this program by establishing, or increasing, energy efficiency standards for several classes of products. Such new or improved standards have been agreed to by the manufacturers of these products as well by as the Nation's leading energy efficiency advocacy groups such as the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. INCAAA includes new efficiency standards for outdoor lighting, supported by the National Electrical Manufacturing Association and major lighting manufacturers such as General Electric, Osram Sylvania, Philips, and Acuity Brands. It includes increased efficiency standards for furnaces, heat pumps, and central air conditioners, supported by the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute and its dozens of members, including Carrier, Johnson Controls, Rheem and Trane. It includes new efficiency standards for portable lamps, supported by the American Lighting Association. It includes increased energy and water efficiency standards for refrigerators and freezers, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, and room air-conditioners as supported by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and its many members, including Electrolux, General Electric, Panasonic, and Whirlpool. INCAAA also includes consensus standards and legislation reported by the Energy Committee covering smaller classes of products such as drinking water dispensers, hot food holding cabinets, and electric spas. Finally, this bill strengthens DOE's operation and administration of the appliance standards programs to include accelerated rulemaking and updated decisionmaking criteria to include new developments such as emerging smart-grid technologies. It is important to note that the bill requires no new authorizations or spending. These changes would be integrated into and administered by the existing DOE program. The American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy estimates that INCAAA would save the Nation over 1.2 Quadrillion Btus of energy each year by 2030--enough energy to meet the needs of 6.5 million typical American households. ACEEE also estimated that INCAAA would save nearly 5 trillion gallons of water annually by 2030, roughly the amount of water needed to meet the current needs of every resident of Los Angeles for 25 years. Broad Senate support for the provisions of INCAAA is demonstrated by the bipartisan votes in the Energy Committee when many elements of this bill were reported as a part of ACELA, or as amendments to ACELA. Broad support for these consensus standards among manufacturers and energy efficiency, and consumer groups is voiced in the letter written to the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders on August 13. In this letter, 16 manufacturing, energy efficiency advocacy, and consumer groups urged our Senate leadership to ``quickly pass several consensus appliance and equipment efficiency standards this session of Congress.'' Even if the Senate is unable to enact comprehensive energy legislation this year, enactment of the consensus agreements in this bill offers an opportunity to strengthen our economy by reducing energy use, saving consumers money, and improving the environment. I urge my colleagues to support and co-sponsor this legislation and seek its enactment this year. While there are plenty of energy policy proposal Senators disagree on, the efficiency standards and program improvements in INCAAA deserves the Senate's unanimous support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the legislation that is pending, the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act, but also more generally on the issue of the loss of jobs, particularly in the energy sector, as we go forward. When BP Solar closed its Frederick, MD, plant earlier this year, 320 Americans saw their jobs sent overseas to China and India. Bloomberg said the announcement ``signal[ed the] exodus of US renewable-energy jobs,'' which it obviously did. In fact, BP Solar's move followed General Electric's closing of its Newark, DE, solar panel plant, Evergreen Solar's shifting of hundreds of jobs from Danvers, MA, to China, and Gamesa's shutting down of its wind turbine factory in western Pennsylvania. Given the broad enthusiasm for creating clean energy jobs, few seem to notice this alarming trend. But we cannot afford to sit idly by as clean energy jobs steadily and stealthily move overseas. So as we debate this Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act--which the majority leader is trying to bring forward for Senate consideration, and which I support--I rise to call on the Senate, also, in addition, to pass three commonsense, bipartisan measures that will enable the United States to retain existing clean energy jobs and capture millions of new ones that the burgeoning global demand for clean energy will soon create. To begin, let me dispel the myth that the United States cannot lead in producing clean energy technology. In fact, we once were the leader. As recently as 1997, we had a ``green trade'' surplus of $14.4 billion. By 2008, that surplus had become a deficit of nearly $8.9 billion. The reversal was triggered largely by a steep fall-off in domestic renewable energy technology manufacturing. For instance, only a decade ago, U.S. solar cell manufacturers controlled 30 percent of the world market. By 2008, that had been reduced to 6 percent. Meanwhile, Chinese production has grown from nonexistent in 1999 to 32 percent of the world total in 2008. Similarly, European manufacturers now account for more than 85 percent of the global wind component market. Today, only 1 of the top 10 manufacturers is an American firm. What happened to bring about these changes? Simply put, other countries enacted policies to attract investment, both ``push'' incentives such as tax incentives and direct subsidies to attract manufacturers, and ``pull'' incentives to create domestic demand. As a result of the incentives they enacted, China displaced the United States last year as the world's leading destination for clean energy investment. Its total investment was nearly twice that of the United States. Measured as a share of gross domestic product, domestic clean energy investment places us--the United States--in the bottom half of the G20 countries. If the trend continues, we will fall further behind. Over the next 5 years, government investment by China and Japan and South Korea is expected to outstrip U.S. Government investment by 3 to 1. This public investment will drive trillions in private sector investment within those same countries. With global clean energy investments expected to reach $2.3 trillion by 2020, we cannot afford to delay measures that will ensure U.S. leadership in this area. We must look to create jobs across the clean energy value chain--from engineering to installation to sales. In particular, we must focus on manufacturing jobs, because failing to grow a domestic clean tech manufacturing base will result in trading our imported oil dependency for an imported clean energy component dependency. In fact, we are already seeing how shortages in renewable energy components and systems have slowed domestic renewable energy production. As we have begun to see, offshoring manufacturing is quickly followed by offshoring of research and development capacity. To grow our manufacturing base, Congress needs to take decisive action this year to enact, at a minimum, the three commonsense, bipartisan measures I alluded to before. First, we must send the appropriate market signal by enacting the renewable energy standard I have introduced along with Senator Brownback. Expanding demand for clean energy is essential to raising demand for domestically produced goods. For instance, every gigawatt of installed wind capacity--that is roughly enough to power all the homes in Atlanta--is estimated to create 4,300 jobs, more than three-fourths in manufacturing. European firms that now dominate U.S. wind turbine sales developed technical and marketing expertise by serving their own home markets first. Expanding domestic demand will enable American firms to catch up. As I indicated, Senator Brownback and I have introduced this legislation and we hope very much that in the short session of the Congress after the election, that can be brought up and dealt with in a positive way. But a demand-side strategy for clean energy cannot suffice. We also need to focus on the supply side to ensure that policies spurring clean energy demand will not only be filled by imports from overseas. So the second call is to expand the Advanced Energy Project, or section 48C tax credit that we created as part of the Recovery Act. That credit allows qualifying companies to claim a credit for up to 30 percent of the cost of creating, expanding, or reequipping facilities to manufacture clean energy technologies. The Recovery Act authorized the Departments of Energy and the Treasury to award $2.3 billion in tax credits. There are many success stories about funding that was way oversubscribed. The government received $10 billion in applications for the $2.3 billion in tax credits that were available under the Recovery Act. In December I joined with Senators Hatch, Stabenow, and Lugar in filing the American Clean Technology Manufacturing Leadership Act. That bill would add another $2.5 billion in tax credit allocation authority. President Obama has called for $5 billion in additional funds to be made available this way. The third of the initiatives I wish to focus on today is the need to address financing challenges that companies face in establishing onshore clean energy manufacturing facilities. Five years ago, Congress created a loan guarantee program at the Department of Energy. But from its start, the program has faced bureaucratic delays. So far, there are only 14 loan guarantees that have been issued, all of them in the past 14 months and 10 within the last year. The Recovery Act promised to add $6 billion to the program which would leverage about $60 billion in new loans for clean energy projects. Unfortunately, this Congress has seen fit to treat this funding as a piggybank and withdrew $3.5 billion as offsets for unrelated purposes. We need to restore that funding. We need to restore it as well as retool the loan guarantee program. The Energy Committee, which I chair, reported a bill that would create a robust successor to that program called the Clean Energy Deployment Administration, or CEDA, and I urge the Congress to enact that legislation as well. Alongside these three measures to retain and create clean energy manufacturing jobs, we also need to pass two important additional bipartisan packages. The Energy Committee has unanimously supported a bill to address the largest oilspill in our Nation's history. The American people are waiting for us to enact it. We should do so as soon as possible. The Tax Code is an increasingly important mechanism for delivering clean energy incentives. In fact, more than three in five Federal dollars spent on energy are delivered through tax provisions. I will return to the floor later this week to discuss a bipartisan package of incentives for clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency and I hope that package will receive priority attention by the Congress before it adjourns as well. Some have said the United States cannot regain its footing in the clean energy manufacturing arena. Those who doubt the potential of this sector think that clean energy jobs can flow only to low-wage countries such as China. We need only look at what has happened in Germany where employment in the clean energy industry is second only to the nation's strong automotive industry. We are deservedly proud of our Nation's tradition as a leader in research and development, in innovation, and in venture-backed investing. With the right policies, we can guarantee that clean technology investment will come to our shores. Let's enact the job-creating legislation pending in the Senate today and then move swiftly to enact legislation creating a renewable electricity standard and a Clean Energy Employment Administration, and expanding the section 48C credit. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a joint hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks and the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 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 the following bills: S. 3261, to establish the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area in the State of Texas, and for other purposes; S. 3283, A bill to designate Mt. Andrea Lawrence; S. 3291, to establish Coltsville National Historical Park in the State of Connecticut, and for other purposes; S. 3524 and H.R. 1858, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement for a park headquarters at San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, to expand the boundary of the Park, to conduct a study of potential land acquisitions, and for other purposes; S. 3565, to provide for the conveyance of certain Bureau of Land Management land in Mohave County, Arizona, to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, for use as a public shooting range; S. 3612, to amend the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park Establishment Act to expand the boundary of the Marsh-Billings- Rockefeller National Historical Park in the State of Vermont, and for other purposes; S. 3616, to withdraw certain land in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes; S. 3744, to establish Pinnacles National Park in the State of California as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 3778 and H.R. 4773, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands within Fort Pulaski National Monument, and for other purposes; S. 3820, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for a microhydro project in nonwilderness areas within the boundaries of Denali National Park and Preserve, to acquire land for Denali National Park and Preserve from Doyon Tourism, Inc., and for other purposes; S. 3822, to adjust the boundary of the Carson National Forest, New Mexico; and H.R. 1858, to provide for a boundary adjustment and land conveyances involving Roosevelt National Forest, Colorado, to correct the effects of an erroneous land survey that resulted in approximately 7 acres of the Crystal Lakes Subdivision, Ninth Filing, encroaching on National Forest System land, 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 testimony@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 29, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the Propane Education and Research Council, PERC, and National Oilheat Research Alliance, NORA. 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 Rosemarie_ Calabro@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010. I am pleased that Senators Udall of New Mexico, Schumer, and Bennet of Colorado, are joining me today in sponsoring this important piece of legislation. Similar legislation, which was championed in the House of Representatives by Congressman Teague, overwhelmingly passed that body with a bipartisan vote of 357 to 32. The bill is named after Katie Sepich, a promising graduate student attending New Mexico State University who was tragically murdered in 2003. The man who killed Katie was arrested for aggravated assault about three months after the murder. Although police had collected the killer's DNA from the crime scene, because there was no requirement that DNA be taken from individuals arrested for serious felonies, police weren't able to get a match until about three years after the murder when the man was sent to prison after being convicted of unrelated crimes. If New Mexico had the arrestee law then that it has today it would have taken three months, not three years, to solve the crime. Katie's mother, Jayann, has worked tirelessly at the state and Federal level to give law enforcement the tools they need to promptly solve crimes and ensure that other mothers don't have to suffer the same horrible ordeal that her family has. I commend Congressman Teague for taking up this cause in the House, and I look forward to helping with this effort in the Senate. We can't get Katie back, or the other lives that have been lost to these senseless crimes, but we can do something to help solve cases and prevent similar crimes from occurring in the future. One such step is to enhance the capacity of states to collect the DNA of individuals arrested for certain felony crimes, which would substantially increase the ability of law enforcement to match DNA found at crimes scenes with that of suspects and individuals who have been previously arrested, charged, or convicted of crimes. The Federal Government and about half the states, including New Mexico, currently collect arrestee DNA for serious offenses. This has proven to be a very effective tool in solving cases, and it makes sense to incentivize states to continue and to expand this effort. Since New Mexico implemented ``Katie's Law'' in 2007, there have been about 100 matches of arrestees. It is also important to note that DNA collection has not only demonstrated its effectiveness in terms of saving lives and preventing crimes, but it has also proved to be an important means of ensuring that innocent individuals are not mistakenly jailed for crimes they did not commit. Let me take a moment to specifically describe what this legislation would, and would not, do. First, this legislation is aimed at creating an incentive for states to enact arrestee DNA collection programs. It is not a mandate. States that meet minimum collection guidelines could apply for DOJ grant assistance in covering the first-year costs that they have incurred or will incur in implementing the standards. If they enact laws in accordance with the enhanced guidelines, States would be eligible for an additional bonus payment. Second, the bill encourages DNA testing for serious felonies, such as murder, sex crimes, aggravated assault, and burglary. It is narrowly tailored to apply to the most serious crimes. Third, the legislation provides that all of the expungement provisions under federal law are applicable. Arrestees who have their DNA included in the federal database may have their records expunged if their conviction is overturned, they are acquitted, or charges are dismissed or not filed within the applicable time period. Furthermore, the bill provides that as a condition of receiving a grant states must notify individuals who submit samples of the relevant expungement procedures and post the information on a public Web site. Lastly, I would like to address the concerns some have raised about the constitutionality of collecting arrestee DNA. Although courts have upheld the collection of arrestee DNA, I recognize that the question of whether the collection of a DNA sample from an arrestee is consistent with the Fourth Amendment isn't a completely settled question of law. Some courts have viewed the collection as something akin to fingerprinting and other courts have viewed it as a more intrusive search, such as the taking of a blood sample. However, the Department of Justice has stated that it believes that this legislation is constitutional and is supportive of encouraging states to pass DNA arrestee laws. I believe that such programs, with appropriate safeguards in place, have demonstrated that they can be a very effective mechanism to save lives, solve crimes, and prevent wrongful convictions. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, September 23, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the U.S. Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program and its effectiveness in spurring the near-term deployment of clean energy technology. 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 Mike Carr or Abigail Campbell.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I would like to ask the chairman of the Finance Committee a question on the application of a provision in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. Section 2042 of the bill will allow self-employed persons to deduct the cost of health coverage for themselves, their spouses, and their children who have not reached age 27 by the end of the year for purposes of determining their liability for self-employment taxes. Is it correct that the provision is not intended to affect the determination of earned income for other purposes? For example, earned income for purposes of determining the maximum amount of health insurance premiums a self-employed person may deduct for income tax purposes is not affected by this provision.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 Automatic IRA Act of 2010. When fully phased in, this bill will give nearly 42 million Americans nationwide an easy, effective way to take responsibility for their financial futures and plan for a secure retirement. The act incorporates the President's call, in his proposed fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 budgets, for Congress to enact automatic IRA legislation. Currently, about half of American workers have no opportunity to save for retirement at work. In my home State of New Mexico, that share is nearly 60 percent. Among those lacking coverage at work, only 1 in 10 contributes annually to an individual retirement account, IRA; the rest generally make no dedicated savings for retirement. The result? An alarming number of American workers are woefully unprepared for a financially secure retirement. According to Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, ``in 2009 half of today's households will not have enough retirement income to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living, even if they work to age 65, which is above the current average retirement age.'' Especially in this period of economic uncertainty, it is imperative that Congress focus on this retirement savings crisis. My bill takes a commonsense approach to doing so. Under this bill, most private sector employees working in establishments of 10 or more employees who are not currently covered by a workplace retirement plan would be given the opportunity to save through regular payroll deposits that continue automatically, unless they elect out. The savings will be deposited into the worker's own IRA, which will be subject to the laws already in place governing IRA accounts. Employers' administrative functions will be minimal. And the arrangement is market oriented; other than the smallest of accounts, automatic IRAs will be provided by the same banks, mutual funds, insurance carriers, and other institutions that currently provide them. The automatic IRA approach is intended to help these households overcome the barrier of inertia. It builds on the successful use-- encouraged by reforms I strongly supported the Pension Protection Act of 2006--of automatic features in 401(k) plans that encourage employees toward sensible decisions (while allowing them to make alternative choices). We have already seen evidence that automatic 401(k) enrollment can dramatically boost employee participation rates, from seven in ten eligible workers to nine in ten. And in the 401(k) context, the gains are even more striking for population groups least likely to save, including women, Latino, and low-income workers. Of the 75 million American workers who now are not covered by employment-based retirement plans, an estimated 42 million would be eligible to save and enroll under automatic IRA legislation. This includes more than 250,000 in my home State of New Mexico. Many of these individuals are familiar with IRAs. But when asked why they have not used the existing program, about half point to issues relating to setup and decisionmaking as the key barriers. The automatic IRA would eliminate these barriers, and the Retirement Security Project estimates that automatic IRA legislation could increase net national saving by nearly $15 billion annually. This is the third consecutive Congress in which I have introduced automatic IRA legislation. The concept was initially developed by scholars at the Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation. Indeed, the automatic IRA concept has long enjoyed broad support across the political spectrum. For instance, Martin Feldstein, chief economic advisor to President Reagan, has described himself as ``a great enthusiast of automatic enrollment IRAs'' who thinks ``as a policy, it's a no-brainer'' and ``can't imagine why there would be any significant opposition from political players on either side of the aisle.'' Finally, this bill seeks to send a strong signal of preference for employers to offer qualified retirement plans, like 401(k)s. Among other features, it doubles the credit for employers that newly establish qualified plans and it directs the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor to implement final regulations and establish a model plan for Multiple Employer Plans. I am grateful that my colleague on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Kerry, is joining me in introducing this bill. I am also pleased to note the broad range of stakeholders supporting the automatic IRA concept, including AARP; the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries; Aspen Institute's Initiative on Financial Security; the Business and Professional Women's Foundation; CFED; Consumers Union; FINRA; the Minority Business Roundtable; New Economics for Women; the United States Black Chamber; the United States Women's Chamber of Commerce; Women Impacting Public Policy; and the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement. Ensuring easy access to a retirement account and the ability to have part of their wages go directly from their paycheck into this account are proven strategies to encourage retirement savings. I call on the Senate to take up this bill in the fall and to include it in legislation extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the 90th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote on August 26, 1920, and to acknowledge the celebration of this anniversary by the community of Las Cruces, NM. The struggle for the right to vote began in 1848 at a convention in Seneca Falls, NY, hosted by Lucretia Mott, Mary Ann McClintock, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. This convention began the seventy-two year struggle by women to win the right to vote, which was also a struggle to rise from second class citizenship and a struggle to gain equality. Women throughout the United States are empowered by the efforts of the brave and pioneering suffragists Susan B. Anthony, Carrie Chapman Catt, and Alice Paul. These women serve as an inspiration to those who secure leadership positions in industry, government, the military, and academia. Las Cruces was founded in 1849 and became a town of the Territory of New Mexico in 1907. After gaining the right to vote, the women of Las Cruces sought elected office. These women include Bertha Paxton, who was the first female elected to the New Mexico State House of Representatives in 1922, Mrs. E. C. Wade, who was the first female elected as a Trustee in the town of Las Cruces in 1932, Ellen Steele, who was the first female elected as a New Mexico State Senator in 1985 from Dona Ana County and Dolores C. Archuleta who was the first Native American female elected to the Las Cruces City Council in 2001. In continuation of this tradition, the first female Governor will be elected by New Mexicans on November 2, 2010. To celebrate and commemorate the 90th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, women will continue to advocate for responsible and responsive government through the election process. The League of Women Voters of Greater Las Cruces will hold a celebration with an informative panel on women's history of performance and films on the suffragists and the role of women in the political system to further commemorate this praiseworthy day. I join with the League of Women Voters, the people of Las Cruces, and the people of New Mexico in celebration of this important day, August 26 when women finally won the right to vote and greatly enhanced their great contributions to our government and our society.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills, S. 3746 and S. 3759, making improvements to the operation of the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program. The first makes a number of changes that will ease the administration of the program and allow for quicker processing of applications within the Department. In addition, the bill will add a fourth category to the subsidized loan guarantee program created and funded in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act that would allow energy efficiency projects to gain access to the program. This bill is substantially similar to a provision that the House of Representatives passed last year as a portion of H.R. 2847 but which did not receive consideration in the Senate. The second bill institutes a time limit on consideration by the Office of Management and Budget of loan guarantee applications submitted by the Secretary. If the Secretary submits a term sheet for conditional commitment to OMB for review and comment, then OMB has 30 days to submit such comments. After 30 days the Secretary may issue a conditional commitment on the guarantee, taking into account any comments received from OMB, without further authorization from OMB. This provision would not affect the currently used OMB-approved subsidy cost model for loan guarantees or its application. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.