Jeff Bingaman

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 National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 5, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to review the National Park Service's implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to allison_seyferth@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, on this annual Tax Day, I rise to introduce the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2007, a robust package of reforms aimed at protecting the rights of all American taxpayers. I am pleased that my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senators Schumer, Kerry, and Menendez, as well as Senators Akaka, Brown of Ohio, Dodd, Durbin, Lieberman, Merkley, Pryor, and Udall of New Mexico, are joining me in introducing this bill. This act consists of numerous well-vetted provisions, which will ensure our nation's taxpayers are better able to prepare and file their tax returns each year in a fashion that is fair, reasonable, and affordable. First, the act clarifies taxpayers' rights and responsibilities by requiring Treasury to publish an easy-to-understand Taxpayer Bill of Rights, enumerating taxpayers' rights and obligation, and corresponding Internal Revenue Code citations. As the National Taxpayer Advocate has explained: ``The [Internal Revenue] Code contains no comprehensive Taxpayer Bill of Rights that explicitly and transparently sets out taxpayer rights and obligations. Taxpayers do have rights, but they are scattered throughout the [Internal Revenue] Code and the Internal Revenue Manual and are neither easily accessible nor written in plain language that most taxpayers can understand.'' The act would rectify these shortcomings, without conferring any rights or obligations not already provided for under law. Second, the act supports programs that assist low-income taxpayers. It authorizes a $35 million grant program for Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, VITA, programs. VITA programs across the country offer free tax assistance to low- to moderate-income individuals who cannot afford professional assistance. More than 75,000 VITA volunteers prepare basic tax returns for these taxpayers; typically VITA programs focus on at least one specific underserved group with special needs--such as persons with disabilities, non-English speaking persons, Native Americans, rural taxpayers, and the elderly. During the 2009 filing season, VITA programs prepared more than 1.2 million tax returns and brought back over $1.6 billion in tax refunds to working families. I have seen firsthand the impact that free tax-preparation clinics can have on taxpayers and their communities. In fact, New Mexico is fortunate to have one of the nation's leading programs. Tax Help New Mexico began 35 years ago at Central New Mexico Community College, CNM, as a practical means of giving accounting students work experience in tax preparation while serving a community need. But while 70 percent of New Mexicans are eligible for Tax Help New Mexico's services, only 6.5 percent are able to take advantage. To enable community VITA programs like Tax Help New Mexico to reach more underserved low-income taxpayers, the act authorizes a $35 million IRS grant program. Likewise, the act would strengthen Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics. These clinics, typically operated by community organizations and law schools, provide representation to low-income taxpayers in disputes with the IRS. The act authorizes the Treasury Secretary to refer taxpayers to these clinics. It also increases to $20 million annually the authorization for LITC grant programs. This will provide a substantial boost to clinics that serve this vital function, such as that which the University of New Mexico Law School operates for taxpayers in my state. Third, the act enhances the regulation of paid tax-return preparers. Nearly all professions--from beauticians to mortuaries to opticians-- are regulated at the state level. But with only a handful of exceptions, states do not regulate tax return preparers. Nor does the federal government currently regulate unenrolled tax return preparers, i.e., return preparers who are not CPAs, attorneys, enrolled agents, or enrolled actuaries--all already regulated under IRS Circular 230. A significant percentage of unenrolled preparers are well-trained and maintain high ethical standards. But untrained and unscrupulous tax return preparers can inflict serious harm on taxpayers and significantly undermine tax compliance. For years, taxpayers, tax professionals, and the National Taxpayer Advocate have been calling for federal regulation of unenrolled preparers. In early 2010, the IRS began taking steps to exercise oversight over these unenrolled preparers. I applaud the IRS's initiative. But it is still unclear that the IRS's program will be sufficiently comprehensive. Moreover, many see a benefit in clarifying the scope of the IRS's regulatory authority. The act responds to these concerns by codifying a regulatory system for unenrolled preparers. In order for a tax preparer to become registered and authorized by Treasury, the act requires preparers to pass a basic background check and an examination of competency and ethics standards. To remain in good standing, preparers will be required to satisfy continuing education requirements or be reexamined every three years on changes in tax law and common preparation mistakes. The act requires Treasury to maintain and publish for taxpayers a comprehensive list of all authorized tax return preparers, including Circular 230 preparers. Fourth, the act creates an oversight system for tax refund delivery products. Refund Anticipation Loans, RALs, are high-cost bank loans secured by a taxpayer's expected refund--loans that typically last 7 to 14 days, until the actual IRS refund arrives and is used to repay the loan. RALs are often aggressively marketed by paid income-tax preparers, which advertise ``Instant Refunds'' or ``Quick Cash,'' sometimes disguising that they are selling advance loans on anticipated tax refunds. According to the National Consumer Law Center: ``Tax preparers and their bank partners made approximately 8.7 million RALs during the 2007 tax-filing season. . . .'' In my state of New Mexico, 25 percent of taxpayers eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit received a RAL in 2005. RALs might offer quick cash, but they are not a good deal for taxpayers. As the National Consumer Law Center exposed in a 2009 report, the typical RAL of about $3,000 carries an annual percentage rate, APR, from 77 percent to 140 percent. We know that our vulnerable communities are particularly susceptible to RALs. In fact, a recent study by the First Nations Development Institute and Center for Responsible Lending found that RALs drained over $9.1 million from Native American communities in 2005. I am very troubled by the prevalence of RALs. And to begin addressing problems associated with them, the act requires Treasury to establish a registration program for those involved in the process of facilitating a tax refund delivery product, RDP, including RALs. Additionally, RDP facilitators will be required to disclose in writing and in an easily understandable format the taxpayer's options for receiving tax refunds, listed from least expensive to most expensive, the RDP's loan terms and fee schedule, and any other costs that the taxpayer may incur in filing a tax return. Moreover, the Act would prohibit Treasury from issuing a Refund Indicator, a score on which RDP facilitators rely before issuing a RDP, unless Treasury first determines that the taxpayer's refund would not be prevented by debts the taxpayer owes on student loans, child support, or by other provisions in the Tax Code. This additional screen will minimize the likelihood that a taxpayer will be issued a loan based on a refund claim that will not ultimately materialize and which the taxpayer would nonetheless be required to repay. Fifth, the act requires additional protections before the IRS files a federal tax lien. The IRS has a number of enforcement tools at its disposal to ensure tax compliance, but use of these tools must be balanced with the need to ensure taxpayers do not suffer unnecessary long-term harm as a result. One such tool is the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, NFTL, when a taxpayer owes back taxes. But as the National Taxpayer Advocate explains in her 2009 Report to Congress: ``[The filing of a tax lien can significantly harm the taxpayer's credit and affect his or her ability to obtain financing, find or retain a job, secure affordable housing or insurance, and ultimately pay the outstanding tax debt. For these reasons, the National Taxpayer Advocate believes that the IRS should not automatically file NFTLs but instead should carefully consider and balance these competing interests when determining whether a lien filing is appropriate.'' In my state alone, the IRS filed nearly 5,000 liens against taxpayers last year. The act would require the IRS to make individualized determinations before filing an NFTL, and in doing so to consider several enumerated factors, including the amount due, the taxpayer's compliance history, and any extenuating circumstances. Sixth, the act establishes a demonstration program to provide accounts to those who currently lack bank accounts. IRS data show that of the 60 million Federal tax refunds that were issued via paper checks in 2005, almost half went to households earning $30,000 or less. These households are most likely to lack access to reasonably-priced financial services--and thus most likely to pay a disproportionate amount of their income to conduct routine financial transactions. Yet the issuance of a refund check presents an important opportunity to bring these low-income taxpayers into the financial mainstream. The act authorizes Treasury to award eligible entities demonstration project grants so that they can establish accounts for individuals who currently lack bank accounts. The act also requires a study on the feasibility of delivering tax refunds on debit, prepaid, and other electronic cards. Finally, the act requires the IRS to study processing information returns and the effectiveness of collection alternatives. Currently, the IRS processes income tax returns before it processes most information returns, such as W-2s and 1099s. From the taxpayer's perspective, this leads to millions of cases where taxpayers may inadvertently make overclaims that the IRS does not identify until months later, exposing the taxpayer not only to additional tax liability, but to penalties and interest. This sequence also provides opportunities for fraud and requires the IRS to devote resources that should have not been paid and that it often cannot recover. The act also directs Treasury to conduct a study to identify and recommend legislative and administrative changes that would enable the IRS to receive and process information reporting documents before it processes tax returns. This should bring us closer to the goal of voluntary pre- populated returns, which I understand are already available in most OECD countries. I have long maintained that our tax system depends on taxpayers being able to receive the best advice and assistance possible. We have a responsibility to our nation's taxpayers to make sure that they do receive such advice and assistance. This bill goes a long way toward that goal. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that this bill is the product of considerable collaboration. It draws on many recommendations of our National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson. It also builds on input we have received from national and local taxpayer advocacy organizations, among them the Center for Economic Progress, Tax Help New Mexico, and the Maryland CASH Campaign. I am grateful for these stakeholders' participation. These are long overdue reforms; I hope that the Senate will consider them in this session. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on this annual Tax Day, I rise to introduce the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2007, a robust package of reforms aimed at protecting the rights of all American taxpayers. I am pleased that my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senators Schumer, Kerry, and Menendez, as well as Senators Akaka, Brown of Ohio, Dodd, Durbin, Lieberman, Merkley, Pryor, and Udall of New Mexico, are joining me in introducing this bill. This act consists of numerous well-vetted provisions, which will ensure our nation's taxpayers are better able to prepare and file their tax returns each year in a fashion that is fair, reasonable, and affordable. First, the act clarifies taxpayers' rights and responsibilities by requiring Treasury to publish an easy-to-understand Taxpayer Bill of Rights, enumerating taxpayers' rights and obligation, and corresponding Internal Revenue Code citations. As the National Taxpayer Advocate has explained: ``The [Internal Revenue] Code contains no comprehensive Taxpayer Bill of Rights that explicitly and transparently sets out taxpayer rights and obligations. Taxpayers do have rights, but they are scattered throughout the [Internal Revenue] Code and the Internal Revenue Manual and are neither easily accessible nor written in plain language that most taxpayers can understand.'' The act would rectify these shortcomings, without conferring any rights or obligations not already provided for under law. Second, the act supports programs that assist low-income taxpayers. It authorizes a $35 million grant program for Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, VITA, programs. VITA programs across the country offer free tax assistance to low- to moderate-income individuals who cannot afford professional assistance. More than 75,000 VITA volunteers prepare basic tax returns for these taxpayers; typically VITA programs focus on at least one specific underserved group with special needs--such as persons with disabilities, non-English speaking persons, Native Americans, rural taxpayers, and the elderly. During the 2009 filing season, VITA programs prepared more than 1.2 million tax returns and brought back over $1.6 billion in tax refunds to working families. I have seen firsthand the impact that free tax-preparation clinics can have on taxpayers and their communities. In fact, New Mexico is fortunate to have one of the nation's leading programs. Tax Help New Mexico began 35 years ago at Central New Mexico Community College, CNM, as a practical means of giving accounting students work experience in tax preparation while serving a community need. But while 70 percent of New Mexicans are eligible for Tax Help New Mexico's services, only 6.5 percent are able to take advantage. To enable community VITA programs like Tax Help New Mexico to reach more underserved low-income taxpayers, the act authorizes a $35 million IRS grant program. Likewise, the act would strengthen Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics. These clinics, typically operated by community organizations and law schools, provide representation to low-income taxpayers in disputes with the IRS. The act authorizes the Treasury Secretary to refer taxpayers to these clinics. It also increases to $20 million annually the authorization for LITC grant programs. This will provide a substantial boost to clinics that serve this vital function, such as that which the University of New Mexico Law School operates for taxpayers in my state. Third, the act enhances the regulation of paid tax-return preparers. Nearly all professions--from beauticians to mortuaries to opticians-- are regulated at the state level. But with only a handful of exceptions, states do not regulate tax return preparers. Nor does the federal government currently regulate unenrolled tax return preparers, i.e., return preparers who are not CPAs, attorneys, enrolled agents, or enrolled actuaries--all already regulated under IRS Circular 230. A significant percentage of unenrolled preparers are well-trained and maintain high ethical standards. But untrained and unscrupulous tax return preparers can inflict serious harm on taxpayers and significantly undermine tax compliance. For years, taxpayers, tax professionals, and the National Taxpayer Advocate have been calling for federal regulation of unenrolled preparers. In early 2010, the IRS began taking steps to exercise oversight over these unenrolled preparers. I applaud the IRS's initiative. But it is still unclear that the IRS's program will be sufficiently comprehensive. Moreover, many see a benefit in clarifying the scope of the IRS's regulatory authority. The act responds to these concerns by codifying a regulatory system for unenrolled preparers. In order for a tax preparer to become registered and authorized by Treasury, the act requires preparers to pass a basic background check and an examination of competency and ethics standards. To remain in good standing, preparers will be required to satisfy continuing education requirements or be reexamined every three years on changes in tax law and common preparation mistakes. The act requires Treasury to maintain and publish for taxpayers a comprehensive list of all authorized tax return preparers, including Circular 230 preparers. Fourth, the act creates an oversight system for tax refund delivery products. Refund Anticipation Loans, RALs, are high-cost bank loans secured by a taxpayer's expected refund--loans that typically last 7 to 14 days, until the actual IRS refund arrives and is used to repay the loan. RALs are often aggressively marketed by paid income-tax preparers, which advertise ``Instant Refunds'' or ``Quick Cash,'' sometimes disguising that they are selling advance loans on anticipated tax refunds. According to the National Consumer Law Center: ``Tax preparers and their bank partners made approximately 8.7 million RALs during the 2007 tax-filing season. . . .'' In my state of New Mexico, 25 percent of taxpayers eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit received a RAL in 2005. RALs might offer quick cash, but they are not a good deal for taxpayers. As the National Consumer Law Center exposed in a 2009 report, the typical RAL of about $3,000 carries an annual percentage rate, APR, from 77 percent to 140 percent. We know that our vulnerable communities are particularly susceptible to RALs. In fact, a recent study by the First Nations Development Institute and Center for Responsible Lending found that RALs drained over $9.1 million from Native American communities in 2005. I am very troubled by the prevalence of RALs. And to begin addressing problems associated with them, the act requires Treasury to establish a registration program for those involved in the process of facilitating a tax refund delivery product, RDP, including RALs. Additionally, RDP facilitators will be required to disclose in writing and in an easily understandable format the taxpayer's options for receiving tax refunds, listed from least expensive to most expensive, the RDP's loan terms and fee schedule, and any other costs that the taxpayer may incur in filing a tax return. Moreover, the Act would prohibit Treasury from issuing a Refund Indicator, a score on which RDP facilitators rely before issuing a RDP, unless Treasury first determines that the taxpayer's refund would not be prevented by debts the taxpayer owes on student loans, child support, or by other provisions in the Tax Code. This additional screen will minimize the likelihood that a taxpayer will be issued a loan based on a refund claim that will not ultimately materialize and which the taxpayer would nonetheless be required to repay. Fifth, the act requires additional protections before the IRS files a federal tax lien. The IRS has a number of enforcement tools at its disposal to ensure tax compliance, but use of these tools must be balanced with the need to ensure taxpayers do not suffer unnecessary long-term harm as a result. One such tool is the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, NFTL, when a taxpayer owes back taxes. But as the National Taxpayer Advocate explains in her 2009 Report to Congress: ``[The filing of a tax lien can significantly harm the taxpayer's credit and affect his or her ability to obtain financing, find or retain a job, secure affordable housing or insurance, and ultimately pay the outstanding tax debt. For these reasons, the National Taxpayer Advocate believes that the IRS should not automatically file NFTLs but instead should carefully consider and balance these competing interests when determining whether a lien filing is appropriate.'' In my state alone, the IRS filed nearly 5,000 liens against taxpayers last year. The act would require the IRS to make individualized determinations before filing an NFTL, and in doing so to consider several enumerated factors, including the amount due, the taxpayer's compliance history, and any extenuating circumstances. Sixth, the act establishes a demonstration program to provide accounts to those who currently lack bank accounts. IRS data show that of the 60 million Federal tax refunds that were issued via paper checks in 2005, almost half went to households earning $30,000 or less. These households are most likely to lack access to reasonably-priced financial services--and thus most likely to pay a disproportionate amount of their income to conduct routine financial transactions. Yet the issuance of a refund check presents an important opportunity to bring these low-income taxpayers into the financial mainstream. The act authorizes Treasury to award eligible entities demonstration project grants so that they can establish accounts for individuals who currently lack bank accounts. The act also requires a study on the feasibility of delivering tax refunds on debit, prepaid, and other electronic cards. Finally, the act requires the IRS to study processing information returns and the effectiveness of collection alternatives. Currently, the IRS processes income tax returns before it processes most information returns, such as W-2s and 1099s. From the taxpayer's perspective, this leads to millions of cases where taxpayers may inadvertently make overclaims that the IRS does not identify until months later, exposing the taxpayer not only to additional tax liability, but to penalties and interest. This sequence also provides opportunities for fraud and requires the IRS to devote resources that should have not been paid and that it often cannot recover. The act also directs Treasury to conduct a study to identify and recommend legislative and administrative changes that would enable the IRS to receive and process information reporting documents before it processes tax returns. This should bring us closer to the goal of voluntary pre- populated returns, which I understand are already available in most OECD countries. I have long maintained that our tax system depends on taxpayers being able to receive the best advice and assistance possible. We have a responsibility to our nation's taxpayers to make sure that they do receive such advice and assistance. This bill goes a long way toward that goal. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that this bill is the product of considerable collaboration. It draws on many recommendations of our National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson. It also builds on input we have received from national and local taxpayer advocacy organizations, among them the Center for Economic Progress, Tax Help New Mexico, and the Maryland CASH Campaign. I am grateful for these stakeholders' participation. These are long overdue reforms; I hope that the Senate will consider them in this session. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of Philip D. Moeller and Cheryl A. LaFleur, to be Members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 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 Amanda_kelly@energy .senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler or Amanda Kelly. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 28, 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. 1241, to amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to require annual permits and assess annual fees for commercial filming activities on Federal land for film crews of 5 persons or fewer; S. 1571 and H.R. 1043, to provide for a land exchange involving certain National Forest System land in the Mendocino National Forest in the State of California, and for other purposes; S. 2762, to designate certain lands in San Miguel, Ouray, and San Juan Counties, Colorado, as wilderness, and for other purposes; S. 3075, to withdraw certain Federal land and interests in that land from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws; S. 3185, to require the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land to Elko County, Nevada, and to take land into trust for the Te-moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada, and for other purposes; and H.R. 86, to eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation, provide management consistency by incorporating the rocks and small islands along the coast of Orange County, California, into the California Coastal National Monument managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and meet the original Congressional intent of preserving Orange County's rocks and small islands, 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 e-mail to allison_seyferth@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks or Allison Seyferth.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 20, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on carbon capture and sequestration legislation, including S. 1856, S. 1134, and other draft legislative text. 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 Allyson Anderson at (202) 224-7143 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests previously announced for March 23, has been rescheduled and will now be held on Wednesday, April 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office S. 1546, to provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of Mantua, Utah; S. 2798, to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire through the facilitation of insect and disease infestation treatment of the National Forest System and adjacent land, and for other purposes; S. 2830, to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects; and S. 2963, to designate certain land in the State of Oregon as wilderness, to provide for the exchange of certain Federal land and non-Federal 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: allison_seyferth@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact Scott Miller at (202) 224- 5488 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Warner and Senator Graham in introducing the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010. This legislation will save consumers money, create American skilled labor jobs, and reduce home energy consumption. If enacted, HOME STAR will build on existing policies and initiatives that have already proved effective. The program is supported by a broad coalition of over 600 groups including construction contractors, building products and mechanical manufacturers, retail sales businesses, environmental groups and labor advocates. HOME STAR will provide point-of-sale instant savings to encourage homeowners to install residential energy upgrades such as air sealing, insulation, and high efficiency furnaces and water heaters. HOME STAR will have a two-tiered approach that will offer flexibility to homeowners when choosing retrofits to install. Under the Silver Star program, rebates averaging $1,000 will be offered for the installation of each eligible energy-saving measure such as new insulation and high- efficiency heating and cooling systems, up to maximum of $3,000 per home. Under the Gold Star program, there will be performance-based grants of $3,000 for a 20 percent reduction in home energy consumption and $1,000 for each additional 5 percent of verified energy reduction as determined by a comparison of the energy consumption of the home before and after the retrofit. HOME STAR will also create American jobs in the construction industry, which has lost 1.6 million jobs since December 2007, with unemployment rates topping 25 percent in some regions. HOME STAR leverages private investment to create a strong market for home energy retrofits, and will put hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans back to work as well as stimulating demand for building materials produced by American factories. Finally, HOME STAR will reduce home energy consumption and dependence on foreign oil. HOME STAR helps Americans pay for cost-effective home improvements, create permanent reductions in household energy bills, and reduce our national carbon footprint. Residential energy efficiency improvements covered by the HOME STAR program reduce energy waste in most homes by 20 to 40 percent. When combined with low-interest financing, these retrofits can be cash-flow positive upon project completion. An initiative with a potential to retrofit over 3 million homes, HOME STAR will achieve significant reductions in building- related greenhouse gas emissions while generating long-term energy savings for American consumers and reducing energy usage by an amount equal to four 300-megawatt power plants. In the interest of time we will postpone our remarks on this important bill until the Senate is back in session. Meanwhile, members will have an opportunity to review the legislation with their constituents. We hope that many members of the Senate will become cosponsors of the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Warner and Senator Graham in introducing the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010. This legislation will save consumers money, create American skilled labor jobs, and reduce home energy consumption. If enacted, HOME STAR will build on existing policies and initiatives that have already proved effective. The program is supported by a broad coalition of over 600 groups including construction contractors, building products and mechanical manufacturers, retail sales businesses, environmental groups and labor advocates. HOME STAR will provide point-of-sale instant savings to encourage homeowners to install residential energy upgrades such as air sealing, insulation, and high efficiency furnaces and water heaters. HOME STAR will have a two-tiered approach that will offer flexibility to homeowners when choosing retrofits to install. Under the Silver Star program, rebates averaging $1,000 will be offered for the installation of each eligible energy-saving measure such as new insulation and high- efficiency heating and cooling systems, up to maximum of $3,000 per home. Under the Gold Star program, there will be performance-based grants of $3,000 for a 20 percent reduction in home energy consumption and $1,000 for each additional 5 percent of verified energy reduction as determined by a comparison of the energy consumption of the home before and after the retrofit. HOME STAR will also create American jobs in the construction industry, which has lost 1.6 million jobs since December 2007, with unemployment rates topping 25 percent in some regions. HOME STAR leverages private investment to create a strong market for home energy retrofits, and will put hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans back to work as well as stimulating demand for building materials produced by American factories. Finally, HOME STAR will reduce home energy consumption and dependence on foreign oil. HOME STAR helps Americans pay for cost-effective home improvements, create permanent reductions in household energy bills, and reduce our national carbon footprint. Residential energy efficiency improvements covered by the HOME STAR program reduce energy waste in most homes by 20 to 40 percent. When combined with low-interest financing, these retrofits can be cash-flow positive upon project completion. An initiative with a potential to retrofit over 3 million homes, HOME STAR will achieve significant reductions in building- related greenhouse gas emissions while generating long-term energy savings for American consumers and reducing energy usage by an amount equal to four 300-megawatt power plants. In the interest of time we will postpone our remarks on this important bill until the Senate is back in session. Meanwhile, members will have an opportunity to review the legislation with their constituents. We hope that many members of the Senate will become cosponsors of the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus. I congratulate him on his leadership on this issue for many months. I rise in strong support of the reconciliation bill that is before us. It is a historic time for our Nation. I am very glad that after decades of effort, national health reform has become law and that we are considering this set of changes to the law through this reconciliation bill. There is considerable confusion about what health reform, in fact, will accomplish. It is not surprising that there is confusion when one considers all of the nefarious charges that have been made and claims of nefarious provisions within the legislation. I am glad to see that most Americans, according to polling, believe the actual provisions that are described to them that are contained in the bill are meritorious and deserve support. Simply stated, the law has four main goals. It reforms health insurance markets to ensure Americans have access to affordable care that meets their needs. Second, the bill improves the efficiency and quality of health care and does it in a way that helps contain rapidly rising costs. Third, the bill improves access to primary care and preventive services. Fourth, the bill significantly reduces the Federal deficit over the coming decades. I think we need to focus on what the effect of the legislation will be on particular individuals and families in our States. I look at our circumstance in New Mexico, which I am proud to represent. Let me pick out a few examples. First, there are families there who are very happy with their current coverage. For these folks, reform ensures they can keep that coverage. They do not have to purchase any new coverage offered through health insurance exchanges. The reform will help protect their coverage and introduces important policies to put downward pressure on the cost of premiums, requirements that the coverage continue to be meaningful, and significant improvements in the overall quality of and their access to health care. Small business owners or the people who work for small businesses--a third of the people in my home State fall into that category. For those who do offer coverage, we know that without reform, they have difficulty affording and keeping meaningful and affordable coverage for their employees. Premiums are rising quickly. These costs threaten the financial stability of these small businesses. CBO tells us that for small businesses, the impact of reform will be very significant. First, the businesses would have the option to come to the new health insurance exchanges and would have a guaranteed source of meaningful coverage for themselves and their employees. In addition, these small businesses may qualify for tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage. For businesses receiving tax credits, their employees' premiums would decrease by 8 to 11 percent compared to their costs under current law. Small businesses and their employees do well. What about individuals purchasing coverage in the individual market? This is particularly important in my home State, for over half of the workers in my State are not offered employer-sponsored coverage. We have the highest percentage of workers without coverage of any State in the Union. Like small businesses, individuals today have great difficulty in navigating insurance policies, securing affordable and meaningful coverage. This reform will provide these individuals with the options to come to new health insurance exchanges and have a guaranteed source of meaningful coverage for themselves and their families. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the subsidies enrollees would pay would reduce the premiums they otherwise would have to pay by 50 to 60 percent. Among higher income enrollees in the individual market who would not receive new subsidies--only about one-fifth of new enrollees--average premiums would increase by 10 to 13 percent. This is consistent with estimates of the impact in my home State of New Mexico, where average families may see a decrease in premiums of as much as 60 percent as compared to the premiums they would pay without reform. In addition, about two-thirds of New Mexicans could potentially qualify for subsidies or Medicaid. This reconciliation bill also contains important provisions to help Americans obtain a quality education. The higher education provisions of this bill will help put college within reach for more Americans. By eliminating subsidies to private student lenders, the bill supports large Pell grant increases for low-income college students, grants to States to help low-income students enter and succeed in college, and major new investments in minority-serving colleges and universities. And it does this without raising taxes; in fact, the CBO estimates that these student loan reforms will reduce the deficit by over $10 billion over 10 years. In challenging economic times, we can no longer afford to subsidize private lenders at the expense of college students and their families. In my home State of New Mexico, this bill will provide almost $240 million in new Pell grant funding and an estimated $95 million for Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges over the next 10 years. In supporting economically disadvantaged college students through this bill, we help them to achieve the American dream. We also strengthen our economy by ensuring that we continue to have the smartest, most competitive workforce in the world. It is clear that the legislation before us and the new health reform law signed by President Obama yesterday are important steps forward for our country. Once we get beyond the rhetoric and discuss the specific reforms in this legislation--it becomes clear that this bill is vital to our Nation. It protects the aspects of our health care system that are working well while fixing those things that are broken including outlawing the nefarious games that health insurance companies play. It improves health care quality and it reduces costs; reforms the student loan system and expands important programs to help all America's children access a higher education--and it does all this while substantially reducing the Federal deficit. I hope we can join our colleagues in the House and move swiftly to pass this reconciliation bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will conclude by complimenting my other committee chair who is on the Senate floor, Senator Harkin, who has worked tirelessly to get this legislation through the HELP Committee. He deserves great credit for his leadership on this bill, as does Senator Baucus.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nassim Zecavati and Jason Ackleson, who are fellows in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of H.R. 4872, the health care reconciliation bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I heard my colleague's comments about health care. I will plan to return to the Senate floor to discuss health care in some detail in the next couple days.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a great American who has inspired me and countless others with his leadership and commitment to public service. That great American is Stewart Udall. At the outset, I extend my condolences to my friend and colleague, Stewart's son, Tom Udall, and his wife Jill; his nephew, my friend and colleague, Mark Udall, and his wife Maggie; and all the Udall family for this enormous loss. In several conversations I had with Stewart in recent years, it was clear that Tom's own exemplary public service and I'm sure Mark's as well, were a source of great pride for him. Stewart Udall is best known for his lifetime of service in preservation of our public lands. His accomplishments as Secretary of the Interior under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson are legendary. Those accomplishments were recounted yesterday in the New York Times. It said: . . . he presided over the acquisition of 3.85 million acres of new holdings, including four national parks Canyonlands in Utah, Redwood in California, North Cascades in Washington, and Guadalupe Mountains in Texas--six national monuments, nine national recreation areas, twenty historic sites, fifty wildlife refuges and eight national seashores. I ask unanimous consent that the obituary from the Times be printed in the Record, after my comments.

Mr. BINGAMAN. His commitment to and achievements in conservation and preservation are unequaled in our country. He was a moving force behind all of the landmark environmental legislation of the 1960s, including the Clean Air Act of 1963, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965, the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, the Endangered Species Act of 1966, the National Trails System Act of 1968, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Long after leaving public office, he was instrumental in securing the enactment of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 which I was proud to support. But his commitment to our public lands was part of a larger lifetime commitment, a commitment to public service. With all the rancor and heated rhetoric that surround us in Washington today, it is easy to lose sight of what is good about our system of government. And one of the very best things about our great country, and our system of government, is that it has attracted to public service many of the best among us to devote their lives to work for us all. Stewart Udall was one of those people. He devoted his life to pursuing the common good the greater good and left this Nation a better place because of it. Stewart cared deeply about the people of this great country and that caring was evident in each encounter that he had. My wife Anne has fond memories of heartfelt conversations she had with Stewart where he spoke forcefully about the challenges we face. I myself was fortunate to always hear from him words of encouragement and constructive advice whenever we would visit. Stewart Udall set the highest standards for public service and for decency as a human being. As Ben Jonson said of Shakespeare, ``he was not of an age, but for all time.'' Stewart Udall had, as he urged his grandchildren to have, ``a love affair with the wonder and beauty of the earth.'' We are all the richer for it. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Mar. 20, 2010] Stewart L. Udall, 90, Conservationist in Kennedy and Johnson Cabinets, Dies (By Keith Schneider) Stewart L. Udall, an ardent conservationist and a son of the West, who as interior secretary in the 1960s presided over vast increases in national park holdings and the public domain, died Saturday at his home in Santa Fe, N.M. The last surviving member of the original Kennedy cabinet, he was 90. Mr. Udall had been in failing health after a fall last week, according to a son, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico. Though he was a liberal Democrat from the increasingly conservative and Republican West, Stewart Udall said in a 2003 public television interview that he found in Washington ``a big tent on the environment.'' The result was the addition of vast tracts to the nation's land holdings and--through his strong ties with lawmakers, conservationists, writers and others--work that led to landmark statutes on air, water and land conservation. President Obama said in a statement Saturday night that Mr. Udall ``left an indelible mark on this nation and inspired countless Americans who will continue his fight for clean air, clean water and to maintain our many natural treasures.'' Few corners of the nation escaped Mr. Udall's touch. As interior secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, he presided over the acquisition of 3.85 million acres of new holdings, including 4 national parks-- Canyonlands in Utah, Redwood in California, North Cascades in Washington State and Guadalupe Mountains in Texas--6 national monuments, 9 national recreation areas, 20 historic sites, 50 wildlife refuges and 8 national seashores. He also had an interest in preserving historic sites, and helped save Carnegie Hall from destruction. ``Republicans and Democrats, we all worked together,'' Mr. Udall said in a television interview with Bill Moyers. But by the time of that interview, Mr. Udall added that Washington had been overtaken by money and that people seeking public office fought for contributions from business interests that viewed environmental protection as a detriment to profit at best. In his years in Washington, he won high regard from many quarters for his efforts to preserve the American landscape and to educate his fellow Americans on the value of natural beauty, points he made in his 1963 book ``The Quiet Crisis.'' The book, whose aim, he wrote at the time, was to ``outline the land and people story of our continent,'' sold widely. It was Mr. Udall who suggested that John F. Kennedy invite Robert Frost to recite a poem at Mr. Kennedy's inauguration. Mr. Udall accompanied Mr. Frost to the Soviet Union in 1962, a trip meant to foster better ties with Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev. Mr. Udall also held evenings at the Interior Department with the poet Carl Sandburg and the actor Hal Holbrook. In addition, he invited the Pulitzer Prize-winning author Wallace Stegner to be the department's writer in residence. It was Mr. Stegner's presence that prompted Mr. Udall to write ``The Quiet Crisis.'' Mr. Udall was also an early supporter of Rachel Carson, the biologist whose book ``Silent Spring'' brought attention to the environmental hazards of pesticide use. Mr. Udall stepped onto the national stage in 1954, when he was elected to Congress from Arizona. In the hotly fought Democratic presidential primary of 1960, he urged his fellow Arizona Democrats to support Kennedy. When Kennedy won the White House, he nominated Mr. Udall as interior secretary. After Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, Mr. Udall was kept on by Lyndon B. Johnson. ``I think probably part of that was Lady Bird,'' Mr. Udall said, referring to Mr. Johnson's wife, with whom he collaborated on beautifying the nation's capital and similar projects. ``She treasured me, and we were wonderful friends,'' he added. Roger G. Kennedy, who was director of the National Park Service in the 1990s, said Mr. Udall ``escaped the notion that all public land was essentially a cropping opportunity-- the idea that if you cannot raise timber on it or take a deer off it, it wasn't valuable.'' On the other hand, Mr. Kennedy said, Mr. Udall understood that public lands like parks enhanced the economic value of privately held land nearby. This lesson was sometimes communicated with difficulty. For example, in the 1960s, when the Kennedy administration, with Mr. Udall in the lead, began efforts to establish the nation's first national seashores, people in regions including Cape Cod in Massachusetts, Cape Hatteras in North Carolina, and Point Reyes in California objected that taking coastal land out of private hands would ruinously inhibit economic development. Instead, the parks have been beacons for lucrative tourism. On this and other fronts Mr. Udall pushed with a formidable combination of political acumen and political allies-- including his younger brother Morris K. Udall, who succeeded him in Congress and in 1976 ran for president in a campaign that his older brother managed. Many of the significant environmental and land-protection statutes that became law in the 1970s and '8os, including the Endangered Species Act, bore their stamp and influence. ``That was a wonderful time, and it carried through into the Nixon administration, into the Ford administration, into the Carter administration,'' Stewart Udall said. ``It lasted for 20 years. I don't remember a big fight between the Republicans and Democrats in the Nixon administration or President Gerald Ford and so on. There was a consensus that the country needed more conservation projects of the kind that we were proposing.'' Stewart Lee Udall was born on Jan. 31, 1920, in St. Johns, Ariz., a small community in Apache County in the northeast, into a family with strong ties to the Mormon Church. His mother, Louise Lee Udall, was a granddaughter of John Doyle Lee, who was executed in 1877 for his involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre in Utah, in which a wagon train of California-bound migrants were killed in 1857. Mr. Udall served as a Mormon missionary in Pennsylvania and New York. During World War II, he was a gunner in the 15th Army Air Forces, serving in Europe. He received bachelor's and law degrees from the University of Arizona. After graduating from law school in 1948, he started his own law practice in Tucson, where he and Morris later became partners. After leaving Washington, he taught at Yale, practiced law and wrote several books, including ``The Myths of August,'' an account of the effects of uranium mining and nuclear weapons work in the Western desert. That grew out of his representation of thousands of uranium miners, nuclear weapons industry workers and citizens exposed to radiation from atomic weapons manufacturing and testing in the West. Though he won the first case in 1984 in Federal District Court, an appeals court overturned the ruling and the United States Supreme Court declined in 1988 to hear arguments. Mr. Udall then turned to Congress, working with lawmakers of both parties, particularly Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who died in August. In 1990, President George Bush signed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The law, administered by the Justice Department, provided up to $100,000 for those sickened by radiation exposure, and issued a formal apology for harm done to those who were ``subjected to increased risk of injury and disease to serve the national security interests of the United States.'' Throughout his life he relished physical challenges. He was an all-conference guard on the University of Arizona basketball team and he climbed Mount Kilimanjaro, in East Africa, and Mount Fuji, in Japan, while heading American delegations to both regions. When he was 84, at the end of his last rafting trip on the Colorado River, Mr. Udall hiked up the steep Bright Angel Trail from the bottom of the Grand Canyon to the south rim, a 10-hour walk that he celebrated at the end with a martini. Mr. Udall's wife, the former Irmalee Webb, died in 2001. Besides his son Tom, he is survived by his other sons, Scott, Denis and Jay, and his daughters, Lynn and Lori, as well as eight grandchildren. At his death, Mr. Udall was a senior member of one of the nation's last and largest political dynasties--in the West it was often said there were ``oodles of Udalls'' in politics. His grandfather David King Udall served in the Arizona Territorial legislature; his father, Levi Udall, was for decades an elected judge in the Arizona Superior Court and later a justice and chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court; Morris Udall was followed to Washington by his son Mark Udall, elected in 2008 as a senator from Colorado, the same year that Tom Udall was elected. But Tom Udall said that in recent years his father had become greatly concerned over the state of politics in the country, worrying ``we were losing the bipartisanship in the environmental area.'' He added that Mr. Udall had recently written a letter to his grandchildren, urging them to focus on ``trying to transform our society to a clean energy and clean job society.''

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain amendment No. 3528. I understand we are scheduled to consider that amendment in a series of votes beginning at 5:30 p.m. The amendment deals with commercial air tours over Grand Canyon National Park. I wish to take a few minutes to explain the reasons for my opposition. The Grand Canyon, of course, is one of the crown jewels of the National Park System. It is one of the earliest areas that was set aside for conservation purposes--originally in 1893 as a forest reserve; later designated as a national monument by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908; and in 1919, it was designated by Congress as a national park. The Colorado River winds its way over 275 miles through the park, forming one of the most spectacular series of canyons anywhere in the world. The park is one of the most heavily visited sites in our country, with just under 4.4 million visitors last year. Visitors come not only to see the awe-inspiring views or to float down the Colorado River but also to experience the quiet and the solitude that much of the park offers. In recent years, however, experiencing the natural quiet has become more difficult as noise associated with aircraft flights over the park has resulted in increased noise on the ground in the park. Recognizing this fact, in 1987 Congress enacted the National Parks Overflight Act. This law included a finding that ``noise associated with aircraft overflights at Grand Canyon National Park is causing a significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the park . . .'' The 1987 Park Overflight Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to submit to the Federal Aviation Administration ``recommendations regarding actions necessary for the protection of resources in the Grand Canyon from adverse impacts associated with aircraft overflights.'' It also went on to say: . . . and shall provide for substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the park and protection of the public health and safety from adverse effects associated with aircraft overflight. Importantly, the act also directed the FAA to implement the Secretary's recommendations unless the FAA Administrator determined doing so would adversely affect aviation safety. In response to the 1987 law, the National Park Service developed recommendations which were implemented by the FAA and which remained in place for several years. However, by 1996, both the Park Service and the FAA concluded that the policies in place were not achieving the goal of restoring the natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. In addition, the projected increase in commercial air tours over the park would result in even more noise at the park. Since then, the agencies attempted to finalize new rules to improve noise conditions in the park, but those rules were challenged in court, both by air tour operators who thought the rules were too restrictive and by environmental groups who thought the rules did not go far enough to limit aircraft noise. The challenges went to the court of appeals on two separate occasions. This is in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Following clarification of the law from the court in its most recent decision in 2002, the agencies refined key definitions and have worked with affected stakeholders to be able to finally implement a rule that will achieve the congressional directive to restore the natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. I am told that currently the National Park Service and the FAA expect to have the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed rule ready this summer and the final environmental impact statement completed and a record of decision implemented sometime next year. That is a lot of history. It has been 23 years since the National Parks Overflight Act was enacted. I appreciate the frustration all parties have with the fact that a final rule is still not in place that meets the goals and requirements of the 1987 law. However, as evidenced by the history of the process I have described, the delays are not the result of inaction or of inattention to the law; rather, they are the result of the difficulty establishing accurate models for acceptable noise standards, as well as the multiple legal challenges that have occurred. I have several concerns with the amendment Senator McCain has proposed. My principal objection is, however, that I do not believe it makes sense to legislatively enact new standards when the National Park Service is close to putting out its new recommendations, especially since it has taken so long to get to this point. I believe the better action would be for us to wait and see what the agencies actually propose. Then, if there is disagreement with the new proposed rule, we can enact legislation to correct it. Besides the fact that I believe the timing of the amendment is premature, I also have concerns about many of the specific provisions the amendment would legislate. Some of these get somewhat detailed. Let me indicate that there is a concern I have with the definition in this legislation for ``substantial restoration of the natural quiet.'' What does that mean? The legislation would establish a certain definition of that which is significantly different from what has been assumed and worked with for a long time by a great many people. The amendment also prohibits the National Park Service from considering aircraft sound from sources other than commercial tour operators, which will significantly limit the ability to control aircraft noise over the park. The amendment prohibits the allocation for commercial air tours over the Grand Canyon from being reduced, notwithstanding any other provision of law, regardless of the noise effects over the park. It goes even further and directs that the FAA begin a rulemaking to increase the flight allocations over the park. Because the proposal has not been through a standard committee process--as, to my knowledge, there have not been hearings on this proposal--and input from affected agencies and stakeholders have not been solicited, the potential impact of several other provisions in the amendment remain unclear, at least to this Senator. For all these reasons, I believe we should not proceed with this amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose it. Let me mention also a very good editorial on this issue that appeared in the Arizona Republic yesterday. It is entitled ``Congress Should Not Foil Process,'' and its first couple of sentences say: The plan to reduce aircraft noise at the Grand Canyon is finally wrapping up. Suddenly, there's an attempt in Congress to make a last-minute end-run around the process. This makes no sense. The draft environmental document is weeks away from being released. Multiple stakeholders have weighed in. After years of work, we are on the verge of a plan to restore natural quiet to one of the most majestic places on Earth. Then it goes on to discuss, in very substantial detail, what the amendment of Senator McCain would try to do. It ends by saying: Congress should hold off. A plan to restore quiet at the Grand Canyon is so close to completion. Let the process go forward. That sums up my sentiments exactly. I hope we will heed the good advice contained in the editorial, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the Arizona Republic.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kirsten Talken-Spaulding, a National Park Service fellow working on the staff of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources this year, be granted the privilege of the floor for today and for the remainder of the Senate's consideration of H.R. 1586.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the Public that the business meeting previously announced for Tuesday, March 23, at 10 a.m., is postponed until a later date. The purpose of this business meeting was to consider the nomination of Jeffrey Lane to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs) and cleared legislative agenda items. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836. committee on indian affairs

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, among the many casualties of our economic downturn is the collapse of the primary form of private financing to construct affordable housing. I rise today to introduce the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Recovery Act, which would restore investment in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. In doing so, the bill will create tens of thousands of new affordable housing units and, in turn, thousands of construction jobs. I am grateful to my Finance Committee colleagues, Senators Kerry, Cantwell, Menendez, Stabenow, and Schumer for joining me in introducing this bill. Many of us are familiar with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program's importance; indeed, I consider it the most successful affordable housing production program in our nation's history. Since its enactment in 1986, the program has spurred the creation of more than 1.7 million units of affordable housing nationwide, including nearly 20,000 units in my home State of New Mexico. But today, the Housing Credit program is facing tremendous challenges in attracting private investment. Having incurred significant losses, many traditional investors cannot currently use these tax credits, and thus have temporarily exited the market. Moreover, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--which until recently provided a significant share of private investment in Housing Credit projects in New Mexico and nationwide--have pulled out entirely. Our bill will help attract new private investment to Housing Credit projects in New Mexico and across the country. First, the bill will permit existing investors to carryback their unusable existing housing credits for up to five years. A major impediment to new investment today is that traditional Housing Credit investors have incurred business losses that prevent them from utilizing tax credits on previous investments. Consequently, these traditional investors have become disinclined to make new investments-- as doing so would generate further credits they could not use for some time. But through a 5-year carryback, many of these traditional investors will be able to make use of accumulated credits. Only investors who are committed to creating additional affordable housing deserve this tax treatment. Accordingly, the bill makes the 5-year carryback election available only to the extent that carryback proceeds are entirely invested in new affordable housing credit investments. Additionally, the bill provides that Housing Credits generated from future investments can be carried back 5 years. With its 10-year credit stream and 15-year tax compliance period, the Housing Credit program faces hurdles lining up investors, as compared to other tax credit programs with shorter investment horizons. Without shortening the compliance period, a 5-year carryback will make the Housing Credit more competitive with other tax credits, by providing greater flexibility. This will result in more stable investor demand and thus more resources for affordable housing. Our bill is based on consensus proposals developed by a broad coalition of affordable housing organizations--including housing advocates, state housing finance agencies, developers, and investors-- to restore private investment in affordable housing. That these proposals will create tens of thousands of affordable housing units and thousands of construction jobs was endorsed in studies by Harvard University's Joint Center on Housing and Ernst & Young's Tax Credit Advisory Services Center. I am grateful for the coalition's efforts, as well as input that New Mexico stakeholders--including the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority, Enterprise Community Partners, and the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness--provided as I developed this bill. We must act swiftly to ensure continued progress in constructing affordable housing, to meet our nation's affordable housing needs and create jobs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see these provisions enacted into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, among the many casualties of our economic downturn is the collapse of the primary form of private financing to construct affordable housing. I rise today to introduce the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Recovery Act, which would restore investment in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. In doing so, the bill will create tens of thousands of new affordable housing units and, in turn, thousands of construction jobs. I am grateful to my Finance Committee colleagues, Senators Kerry, Cantwell, Menendez, Stabenow, and Schumer for joining me in introducing this bill. Many of us are familiar with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program's importance; indeed, I consider it the most successful affordable housing production program in our nation's history. Since its enactment in 1986, the program has spurred the creation of more than 1.7 million units of affordable housing nationwide, including nearly 20,000 units in my home State of New Mexico. But today, the Housing Credit program is facing tremendous challenges in attracting private investment. Having incurred significant losses, many traditional investors cannot currently use these tax credits, and thus have temporarily exited the market. Moreover, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--which until recently provided a significant share of private investment in Housing Credit projects in New Mexico and nationwide--have pulled out entirely. Our bill will help attract new private investment to Housing Credit projects in New Mexico and across the country. First, the bill will permit existing investors to carryback their unusable existing housing credits for up to five years. A major impediment to new investment today is that traditional Housing Credit investors have incurred business losses that prevent them from utilizing tax credits on previous investments. Consequently, these traditional investors have become disinclined to make new investments-- as doing so would generate further credits they could not use for some time. But through a 5-year carryback, many of these traditional investors will be able to make use of accumulated credits. Only investors who are committed to creating additional affordable housing deserve this tax treatment. Accordingly, the bill makes the 5-year carryback election available only to the extent that carryback proceeds are entirely invested in new affordable housing credit investments. Additionally, the bill provides that Housing Credits generated from future investments can be carried back 5 years. With its 10-year credit stream and 15-year tax compliance period, the Housing Credit program faces hurdles lining up investors, as compared to other tax credit programs with shorter investment horizons. Without shortening the compliance period, a 5-year carryback will make the Housing Credit more competitive with other tax credits, by providing greater flexibility. This will result in more stable investor demand and thus more resources for affordable housing. Our bill is based on consensus proposals developed by a broad coalition of affordable housing organizations--including housing advocates, state housing finance agencies, developers, and investors-- to restore private investment in affordable housing. That these proposals will create tens of thousands of affordable housing units and thousands of construction jobs was endorsed in studies by Harvard University's Joint Center on Housing and Ernst & Young's Tax Credit Advisory Services Center. I am grateful for the coalition's efforts, as well as input that New Mexico stakeholders--including the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority, Enterprise Community Partners, and the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness--provided as I developed this bill. We must act swiftly to ensure continued progress in constructing affordable housing, to meet our nation's affordable housing needs and create jobs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see these provisions enacted into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a business meeting has been scheduled before Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The business meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 23, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the business meeting is to consider the nomination of Jeffrey Lane to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs) and cleared legislative agenda items. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler or Amanda Kelly.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is completely unrelated to the FAA reauthorization legislation. It deals with a matter that is in the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee. It would make, in my view, inappropriate changes to a program that provides assistance to six coastal States. I oppose the amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. In my view, it will dilute the authority of the Secretary of Interior to properly oversee and ensure the accountability for the funds that are being spent in these programs. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate that the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, for Wednesday, March 17, 2010, will begin at 3:30 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. 553, to revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic Trail in northeastern Minnesota to include existing hiking trails along Lake Superior's north shore and in Superior National Forest and Chippewa National Forest, and for other purposes; S. 1017, to reauthorize the Cane River National Heritage Area Commission and expand the boundaries of the Cane River National Heritage Area in the State of Louisiana; S. 1018, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with Northwestern State University in Natchitoches, Louisiana, to construct a curatorial center for the use of Cane River Creole National Historical Park, the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, and the University, and for other purposes; S. 1537, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, to designate the Dr. Norman E. Borlaug Birthplace and Childhood Home in Cresco, Iowa, as a National Historic Site and as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 1629, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the archeological site and surrounding land of the New Philadelphia town site in the state of Illinois, and for other purposes; S. 2892, to establish the Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; S. 2933, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the Colonel Charles Young Home in Xenia, Ohio, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 2951, to authorize funding to protect and conserve lands contiguous with the Blue Ridge Parkway to serve the public, and for other purposes; and H.R. 3804, to make technical corrections to various Acts affecting the National Park Service, to extend, amend, or establish certain National Park Service authorities, 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 e-mail to allison_seyferth@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.