Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me state my understanding of how we are going to proceed now. I believe, in the spirit of going back and forth, the Senator from Colorado has indicated he would agree that I can go ahead and speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business; that he is going to be requesting 15 minutes to speak. At that time, if Senator Feingold is here, I know he wanted to speak, too, and Senator Bond has been waiting and wants to speak. I gather maybe I should do a unanimous consent at this point that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes and then Senator Allard be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008. This legislation creates unprecedented collaborations and collective across agencies, and among private and public entities, individuals, and communities. The very high prevalence of individuals who are obese or overweight has resulted in an epidemic in the United States, affecting over 66 percent of adults and 32 percent of children according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Over the last 30 years, the obesity rate has more than doubled in all ages. The United States now has the highest prevalence of obesity among the developed nations. In fact, the prevalence of obesity in U.S. in 2006, 34 percent is more than twice the average for other developed nations, 13 percent. The prevalence of obesity in the next closest country, the United Kingdom, is over 25 percent less than that of the U.S. The Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008 comprehensively addresses the obesity and overweight epidemic by focusing on coordinating and augmenting existing prevention and treatment activities. The legislation is based on the extensive work on obesity of the Institutes of Medicine, IOM, over the last few years. The legislation focuses on developing dynamic new collaborations and collective actions, which IOM recommends as essential to successfully addressing the problems of obese and overweight individuals throughout the nation. In addition, the legislation focuses on supporting interventions that will improve access to obesity prevention and treatment services in our federal healthcare programs in recognition that the high prevalence of overweight and obese individuals dramatically increases the costs in Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other public and private health insurance programs. I note that interventions aimed at significantly decreasing the prevalence of these illnesses are extremely cost effective and are critical to overall disease prevention and health promotion efforts. The Trust for America's Health recently reported that an investment of just $10 per person per year in proven community based disease prevention programs would yield a $2.8 billion annual health expenditure reduction. Put another way, our nation would recoup nearly $1 over and above the cost of a comprehensive disease prevention and health promotion program for every $1 invested in the first 1 to 2 years of the program. The Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008 establishes the United States Council on Overweight & Obesity Prevention, USCO-OP, which is charged with creating a comprehensive strategy to prevent, treat and reduce the prevalence of overweight individuals and obesity. This advisory council will update Federal guidelines, identify best practices, conduct ongoing surveillance and monitoring of existing Federal programs, and make recommendations to coordinate budgets, policies and programs across Federal agencies in collaboration with private and public partners. In addition, the Council will provide guidance to the Federal Government for a new series of grant programs established by the legislation to combat obesity and the high prevalence of overweight individuals. It is important to note that in July the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that physical activity levels drop sharply as children age. Children should be engaging in 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity most days of the week. While 90 percent of children met the recommended activity at age 9, by age 15 only 31 percent met the level on weekdays, and only 17 percent on weekends. Moreover, these behaviors become worse as they get older. I find these trends very disturbing. In addition, experts tell us that Americans want and need better and more accessible information about healthier foods, beverages and exercise programs. The Council will help develop and update the daily physical activity requirements in our schools, and identify activities that families can do together, involving parents and their children throughout the week, and as lifelong participants. My legislation also creates grant programs to provide funding to schools, community health centers, academic institutions, state medical societies, state health departments, and communities to reduce the prevalence and improve the prevention and treatment of individuals that are obese or overweight. It is also critical to point out that certain populations are more vulnerable than others to the obesity and overweight epidemic. In my home state of New Mexico, for example, the consequences are devastating. 74 percent of Native American adults in New Mexico are overweight or obese, as are 38 percent of Native American High School students. I take steps in this legislation to address populations more severely impacted by the obesity and overweight epidemic, including: prioritizing grants to these populations and requiring Federal reporting on research and data related to obesity in these populations. The legislation also doubles existing funding levels for the Department of Agriculture's Fresh Foods and Vegetables program to levels that will assure that most low-income children will have access to these foods within their schools. The legislation also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with USCO-OP to update and reform Federal oversight of food and beverage labeling. Such reforms include improving the transparency of labeling with regard to nutritional and caloric value of food and beverages. These updates and reforms are critical. Research suggests that high-energy dense foods that are low in nutrients represent 30 percent of the average American total calorie intake. Research also suggests that these foods don't trigger the brain's normal pathways and responses to let the body know that it is full. My legislation also amends the Social Security Act to expand access to medical nutrition therapy and exercise counseling when determined cost effective by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We have to figure out a way to prevent the development of end stages of morbid obesity, such as kidney failure, heart failure and disability from arthritis and other problems. My bill seeks to invest our Federal dollar more wisely. This is truly the case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I would like to thank Dr. Dan Derksen, who served as a Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellow in my office this year, for his great work in developing this legislation. In addition, I would like to thank the Institutes of Medicine, the Campaign to End Obesity, and First Focus for their assistance in developing this legislation. The legislation has received the endorsement of: the Campaign to End Obesity, American College of Gastroenterology, First Focus, Shaping America's Health, YMCA of the USA, the National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers of America, and the New Mexico Medical Society. I urge my other Senate colleagues to join in supporting this critical legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008. This legislation creates unprecedented collaborations and collective across agencies, and among private and public entities, individuals, and communities. The very high prevalence of individuals who are obese or overweight has resulted in an epidemic in the United States, affecting over 66 percent of adults and 32 percent of children according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Over the last 30 years, the obesity rate has more than doubled in all ages. The United States now has the highest prevalence of obesity among the developed nations. In fact, the prevalence of obesity in U.S. in 2006, 34 percent is more than twice the average for other developed nations, 13 percent. The prevalence of obesity in the next closest country, the United Kingdom, is over 25 percent less than that of the U.S. The Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008 comprehensively addresses the obesity and overweight epidemic by focusing on coordinating and augmenting existing prevention and treatment activities. The legislation is based on the extensive work on obesity of the Institutes of Medicine, IOM, over the last few years. The legislation focuses on developing dynamic new collaborations and collective actions, which IOM recommends as essential to successfully addressing the problems of obese and overweight individuals throughout the nation. In addition, the legislation focuses on supporting interventions that will improve access to obesity prevention and treatment services in our federal healthcare programs in recognition that the high prevalence of overweight and obese individuals dramatically increases the costs in Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other public and private health insurance programs. I note that interventions aimed at significantly decreasing the prevalence of these illnesses are extremely cost effective and are critical to overall disease prevention and health promotion efforts. The Trust for America's Health recently reported that an investment of just $10 per person per year in proven community based disease prevention programs would yield a $2.8 billion annual health expenditure reduction. Put another way, our nation would recoup nearly $1 over and above the cost of a comprehensive disease prevention and health promotion program for every $1 invested in the first 1 to 2 years of the program. The Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008 establishes the United States Council on Overweight & Obesity Prevention, USCO-OP, which is charged with creating a comprehensive strategy to prevent, treat and reduce the prevalence of overweight individuals and obesity. This advisory council will update Federal guidelines, identify best practices, conduct ongoing surveillance and monitoring of existing Federal programs, and make recommendations to coordinate budgets, policies and programs across Federal agencies in collaboration with private and public partners. In addition, the Council will provide guidance to the Federal Government for a new series of grant programs established by the legislation to combat obesity and the high prevalence of overweight individuals. It is important to note that in July the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that physical activity levels drop sharply as children age. Children should be engaging in 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity most days of the week. While 90 percent of children met the recommended activity at age 9, by age 15 only 31 percent met the level on weekdays, and only 17 percent on weekends. Moreover, these behaviors become worse as they get older. I find these trends very disturbing. In addition, experts tell us that Americans want and need better and more accessible information about healthier foods, beverages and exercise programs. The Council will help develop and update the daily physical activity requirements in our schools, and identify activities that families can do together, involving parents and their children throughout the week, and as lifelong participants. My legislation also creates grant programs to provide funding to schools, community health centers, academic institutions, state medical societies, state health departments, and communities to reduce the prevalence and improve the prevention and treatment of individuals that are obese or overweight. It is also critical to point out that certain populations are more vulnerable than others to the obesity and overweight epidemic. In my home state of New Mexico, for example, the consequences are devastating. 74 percent of Native American adults in New Mexico are overweight or obese, as are 38 percent of Native American High School students. I take steps in this legislation to address populations more severely impacted by the obesity and overweight epidemic, including: prioritizing grants to these populations and requiring Federal reporting on research and data related to obesity in these populations. The legislation also doubles existing funding levels for the Department of Agriculture's Fresh Foods and Vegetables program to levels that will assure that most low-income children will have access to these foods within their schools. The legislation also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with USCO-OP to update and reform Federal oversight of food and beverage labeling. Such reforms include improving the transparency of labeling with regard to nutritional and caloric value of food and beverages. These updates and reforms are critical. Research suggests that high-energy dense foods that are low in nutrients represent 30 percent of the average American total calorie intake. Research also suggests that these foods don't trigger the brain's normal pathways and responses to let the body know that it is full. My legislation also amends the Social Security Act to expand access to medical nutrition therapy and exercise counseling when determined cost effective by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We have to figure out a way to prevent the development of end stages of morbid obesity, such as kidney failure, heart failure and disability from arthritis and other problems. My bill seeks to invest our Federal dollar more wisely. This is truly the case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I would like to thank Dr. Dan Derksen, who served as a Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellow in my office this year, for his great work in developing this legislation. In addition, I would like to thank the Institutes of Medicine, the Campaign to End Obesity, and First Focus for their assistance in developing this legislation. The legislation has received the endorsement of: the Campaign to End Obesity, American College of Gastroenterology, First Focus, Shaping America's Health, YMCA of the USA, the National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers of America, and the New Mexico Medical Society. I urge my other Senate colleagues to join in supporting this critical legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight Hearing on EPA's Cleanup of the Superfund Site in Libby, Montana.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 3 p.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: Hard Lessons Learned From Troubled Investments.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Addressing Cost Growth of Major DOD Weapons Systems.''

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to express my strong support for the so-called extenders package, which includes the Energy Improvement and Extension Act and will come before the Senate, as I understand it, as early as this afternoon. Passage of this bill is very important for the country and will have wide-reaching impacts. It will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, curb greenhouse gas emissions, create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, promote R&D in our innovative industries, ease fiscal burdens on rural counties, and reduce the tax burden on middle-class families. The bill demonstrates the critical role that tax incentives can play in addressing our country's most pressing challenges. Let me focus today on the very robust package of tax incentives for clean, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. Those are incentives I and many of my colleagues have worked on since the beginning of this Congress. We have already taken eight votes this Congress on various versions of this energy tax package. Unfortunately, as the ``green'' energy sector has sat by and production has slowed in that sector, and as skyrocketing gas prices have made our dependence on foreign oil more apparent than ever, our energy tax incentives have been hostage to a broader dispute between the parties concerning whether, and how, to offset the costs of extending various tax provisions. I am very pleased that after a number of false starts, we appear, finally, to have reached a compromise. The compromise will enable us to become a more energy-efficient nation. It will wean us off of our dependence on fossil fuels. It extends the production tax credit by 1 year for wind energy and by 2 years for other qualified renewable sources. I had hoped we could achieve a longer term extension of the production tax credit, but this is all that could be afforded within the package's cost constraints. Undoubtedly, this bill's extension of the production tax credit will enable our renewable industries to stay afloat. Today, I want to state my commitment again to work for a long-term extension of the production tax credit, which is very much needed, which I hope we can achieve in the next Congress. This package, however, includes long-term extensions for tax credits that make distributed green energy technologies affordable for American businesses and families. The investment tax credit, which gives businesses a 30-percent tax credit for investing in solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean energy equipment, is extended for a full 8 years. So, too, is the residential energy efficiency property credit, which gives families a 30-percent tax credit for the cost of installing solar equipment at their residences. That is an 8-year extension of that provision, which is very good news for many Americans. For both of these tax incentives, the bill expands the classes of qualifying equipment. This means businesses and families will have added flexibility in choosing the energy-saving technologies that make the most sense for them. Both credits are expanded to include small wind technologies that are used for onsite energy production, and geothermal heat pumps, which can use the Earth as either a heat source, when operating in heating mode, or a heat sink, when operating in cooling mode. There are already more than 1 million geothermal heat pumps installed in the United States, and those who have installed them can save up to 70 percent annually on their utility bills. So when this bill becomes law, families will be able to choose among installing solar technology, small wind technology, and geothermal heat pumps in their homes, and the 30 percent tax credit will be available for any of those installations. In case of solar electric investments, we greatly improve the incentive by removing the current $2,000 credit cap. The bill also expands the business credit to include combined heat and power systems, which use a heat engine or power station to simultaneously generate both electricity and useful heat. Businesses that install these systems are able to get both heat and electricity from the same source, which decreases both energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions. The benefits of these investments, these incentives, go far beyond energy independence, greenhouse gas reduction, and energy cost savings. They will enable U.S. firms of all sizes to add a great many ``green'' jobs on American soil. The Navigant Consulting organization recently put out a report estimating that the 8-year extension of the solar credit that I have just talked about will create 1.2 million employment opportunities in this country, including 440,000 permanent jobs, and $232 billion in domestic investment. Solar energy is already an important economic engine in my State of New Mexico. I am very pleased this extension is anticipated to add an additional 12,000 direct jobs in my State and 7,000 indirect jobs. Shifting to the need to reduce demand for petroleum, the bill creates a new plug-in electric drive vehicle credit. We are hopeful that plug- in electric vehicles will come to the market next year and that the Government will help individuals purchase these vehicles through tax credits. This bill provides those tax credits will start at $2,500, and they will climb as high as $7,500, depending upon the battery capacity of the particular vehicle. For commercial vehicles, the bill adds incentives for idling reduction units, which provides an alternative source of power used to heat, cool, or provide electricity to the cab or other parts of the truck. There are more than 200,000 trucks carrying refrigerated cargo around this country any day. The fleet owners will be incentivized to install advanced insulation on those trucks that can dramatically reduce the amount of gasoline those trucks consume trying to keep that cargo cool. So this is a very important provision. Finally, the bill addresses our conservation and efficiency needs. It extends credits for energy-efficient improvements to new and existing homes and commercial buildings. Because energy used to heat and cool residential and commercial buildings accounts for nearly 40 percent of U.S. energy consumption--and nearly as much of our carbon dioxide emissions--these tax incentives are especially important. Owners of existing homes will be able to claim a tax credit of up to 10 percent of the combined costs from all qualified electric efficiency improvements, such as installing insulation in their homes, replacing windows, water heaters, and high-efficiency cooling and heating equipment. For new homes, there is a $2,000 tax credit for a home builder who constructs a qualified new energy-efficient home, certified to achieve a 50-percent reduction in energy usage. With new homes likely to remain part of our Nation's housing stock for more than 60 years, we need to make sure that builders have the right incentives to make energy efficiency a top priority. Owners of commercial buildings will continue to be able to deduct up to $1.80 per square foot of building floor area if they achieve a 50-percent energy savings target through energy reductions for the building's HVAC and interior lighting system. With this addition to the provisions related to energy, American businesses are counting on Congress to enact this package because it contains an extension of the R&D development tax credit. It contains important tax relief for American families. It patches the alternative minimum tax to prevent it from engulfing millions of additional hard- working families. It lowers the income threshold for the $1,000 child tax credit from $12,000 to $8,500. That change alone enables 25,000 New Mexico children to newly qualify and an additional 94,000 to receive a larger credit than under prior law. It extends the qualified tuition deduction for higher education expenses. That is a deduction of up to $4,000 that helps more than 4.4 million middle-class families meet the cost of sending their children to college. Finally, the bill includes the secure world schools provisions and the payment in lieu of taxes provisions. These are extremely important for Western States in particular but for virtually all of our States. As to the payment in lieu of taxes, let me talk specifically about that issue. We increase funding for payment in lieu of taxes in the current fiscal year. We fully fund the program for 4 years. These Federal payments are essential to local governments, including many in my State, in order to offset the losses and property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands located within their boundaries. This funding is long overdue, and it is more desperately needed now than ever before. Passage of this legislation, this energy incentives package, will demonstrate to the American people that we are willing to shift our tax priorities in a new direction toward a national energy policy that promotes diversified domestic sources of clean energy. It furthers the significant progress we made in recent years with respect to promoting investment in efficiency and the renewable energy technologies that can help grow our economy. And beyond energy issues, it addresses key concerns of American families, businesses, and municipalities. I applaud the various Senators who have had a major part in the development of this legislation, particularly Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, but also our leadership, both the Democratic and Republican leaders, for bringing us together around this package. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today to express my sadness regarding the tragedy this week involving officials with the International Boundary and Water Commission, IBWC. On Monday, an airplane carrying U.S. Commissioner Carlos Marin; Mexican Commissioner Arturo Herrera; and also Jake Brisbin, Jr., Executive Director of the Rio Grande Council of Governments; and Matthew Peter Juneau, the pilot, was reported as missing when it failed to arrive at its destination of Presidio, TX. Wreckage of that aircraft was located yesterday, and it was confirmed that there were no survivors. I offer my condolences to the family members of all of the individuals who were on the aircraft. I would like to say a few words in particular about Commissioner Marin, who I had the pleasure of working with on a range of IBWC matters in New Mexico. Commissioner Marin was appointed to his position by President Bush in December 2006 after 27 years of service to the Commission. Previous to that, he worked with the Bureau of Reclamation after receiving a bachelor's degree in civil, engineering. He took over the IBWC at a tumultuous time, and quickly gained the respect of his colleagues and employees with calm and steady leadership of the agency. He was a problem-solver, focused on the IBWC's mission, and someone who was always readily accessible to my staff and me. Recently, my staff worked with him on the management plan for the Rio Grande in southern New Mexico. Commissioner Marin was instrumental in moving this project along after an impasse of many years. We will miss his effective leadership and his warm personality. My sympathies go out to his wife Rosa and two adult children.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, one of the credit crunch's most unfair-- but least-discussed--impacts is its severe curtailment of municipalities' ability to raise capital for critical infrastructure projects. Because municipalities did not engage in the financial ``innovation'' that led to this situation, they are merely innocent bystanders swept up in a national crisis. Congress must take swift action to mitigate the credit crunch's impact on U.S. municipalities. To do so, I rise today to introduce the Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2008. By relaxing outdated restrictions that prevent banks from acquiring municipal debt, the Act will significantly enhance demand for municipal bonds, thus aiding municipalities across the Nation-- particularly those in small and rural communities--in financing essential infrastructure projects. I thank my friend from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, a colleague on the Finance Committee, for joining me in introducing this bipartisan legislation. Federal policy has long recognized the critical role of municipal bonds in enabling communities to undertake critical investments. But the liquidity crisis has dried up available capital for bonds, both municipal and corporate, at a time when the municipal bond market is already reeling from other setbacks. The auction-rate security market's collapse, which forced municipal issuers to refinance or convert more than $80 billion of their total $166 billion in such securities, has already cost municipalities more than $1 billion, thus pushing new municipal bond issuance out of reach for many municipalities. Meanwhile, when the Nation's two largest bond insurers were downgraded earlier this year, the underlying municipal bonds saw a corresponding downgrade--a penalty for merely being ``wrapped'' in the downgraded firm's insurance. Taken together, these forces have driven yields on benchmark, 30-year tax-exempt debt to their highest levels since July 2004. These high rates have dramatically increased costs for municipalities facing interest payments on outstanding floating-rate municipal bonds, while making it more costly for municipalities to issue new debt. In the first half of 2008, long-term municipal issuance dropped 4.1 percent over the prior year, and a further drop is predicted in the second half; for new issuances, the interest costs have vastly increased. Given the credit crunch's severity, full recovery is probably a long way off. The timing could not be less opportune--the financial slowdown will cause municipal budget deficits to balloon, just when the need for infrastructure enhancements could not be more apparent. Our bill, which largely mirrors a companion already introduced in the House by Chairman Frank and Chairman Neal of the House Ways and Means Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, would stimulate demand--and therefore lower borrowing costs for issuing municipalities--by relaxing restrictions on banks' ability to participate in the municipal bond market. To understand the proposed changes, it is useful to briefly review the tax code's current rules regarding banks' holding of municipal debt. Prior to 1986, banks were generally permitted to deduct the full interest costs they incurred unless a borrowing was incurred or continued to purchase or hold such bonds. Consequently, banks made up a significant share of the demand for municipal debt. But the 1986 tax reform eliminated this deduction for banks by requiring a pro-rata interest expense disallowance, with a limited ``qualified small issuer'' exception that permits banks to deduct 80 percent of the cost of purchasing and carrying bonds of governmental entities that issue $10 million or less in municipal bonds in any calendar year. This exception was added because small issuers' infrequent and small borrowing amounts make it too costly for them to sell debt in the national capital markets, leaving private placements with local banks the most feasible and cost-effective alternative. To increase demand for municipal debt, the bill makes two modifications to these limitations. First, it would raise the bank qualified limit for small issuers from $10 million to $30 million, and then index the new limit for inflation. Municipalities that issue between $10 million and $30 million will thus be able to raise capital through private placements. Because private placements generally carry no underwriting fees and require no offering document, the up-front issuing costs to municipalities are far lower than issuing debt on the public markets. More critically, interest payments are far lower: Interest on such ``bank qualified'' debt averages 40 basis points, 0.40 percent, less than interest on nonbank qualified debt. Failing to raise the bank-qualified level from the amount set in 1986 has real consequences for American communities. For instance, many small hospitals and healthcare facilities, even in small population States, cannot take advantage of today's small-issuer exception because they borrow through statewide authorities that issue bonds on behalf of multiple institutions, thereby exceeding the $10 million limit. In my home state, the New Mexico Hospital Equipment Loan Council tells me that if the $10 million limit had instead been $30 million, then many hospitals in our state's rural communities would have been able to secure funding to acquire additional hospital equipment, among them, Sierra Vista Hospital in Truth or Consequences; the Prairie Meadows assisted living facility in Clovis; and the Las Cruces Mental Health Center in Las Cruces. For each of these entities, the prospective borrower was instead forced to seek alternative, higher-cost capital options--or could not secure funding to complete the transaction. As another example, the City of Las Cruces would benefit from this bill. The city has had five debt issues in the last 5 years that exceeded $10 million. The financial advisor under contract to the City estimates that the difference in rates, with a higher limit on bank qualified debt, would be about 20 basis points--a savings that would be passed on to the taxpayers and rate payers in our community. Second, as concerns municipalities that issue more than $30 million in debt annually, the bill would allow financial institutions to hold up to 2 percent of their total assets in such debt, without disallowing a proportional amount of their interest expense deduction. This change is intended to restore bank demand and provide some stability by bringing this group of institutional investors back into the municipal market. Nonfinancial companies already benefit from this safe harbor, so in this regard, the bill creates parity. Many larger municipal infrastructure projects have costs in excess of $30 million, and bank investment can only help these critical projects succeed. Finally, it bears mentioning that this bill offers at least two collateral benefits. First, enabling local governments to undertake additional infrastructure investments will help to stimulate our challenged economy. Second, by enabling banks to acquire municipal bonds--the safest class of security--the bill will enhance the stability of banks at a time that they face considerable financial pressure. I am pleased that this bill has been endorsed by a number of organizations, including the National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors; National Association of Counties; Government Finance Officers Association; International City/County Management Association; National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers; National Association of State Treasurers; Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities; Education Finance Council; and National Association of Health and Educational Facilities Finance Authorities. I hope my colleagues will join with Senator Crapo and me in working to enhance liquidity in the municipal bond market. Our bill will go a long way toward ensuring that our cities, towns, counties, utility districts, and school districts can secure affordable financing to undertake the infrastructure projects that our communities sorely need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, one of the credit crunch's most unfair-- but least-discussed--impacts is its severe curtailment of municipalities' ability to raise capital for critical infrastructure projects. Because municipalities did not engage in the financial ``innovation'' that led to this situation, they are merely innocent bystanders swept up in a national crisis. Congress must take swift action to mitigate the credit crunch's impact on U.S. municipalities. To do so, I rise today to introduce the Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2008. By relaxing outdated restrictions that prevent banks from acquiring municipal debt, the Act will significantly enhance demand for municipal bonds, thus aiding municipalities across the Nation-- particularly those in small and rural communities--in financing essential infrastructure projects. I thank my friend from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, a colleague on the Finance Committee, for joining me in introducing this bipartisan legislation. Federal policy has long recognized the critical role of municipal bonds in enabling communities to undertake critical investments. But the liquidity crisis has dried up available capital for bonds, both municipal and corporate, at a time when the municipal bond market is already reeling from other setbacks. The auction-rate security market's collapse, which forced municipal issuers to refinance or convert more than $80 billion of their total $166 billion in such securities, has already cost municipalities more than $1 billion, thus pushing new municipal bond issuance out of reach for many municipalities. Meanwhile, when the Nation's two largest bond insurers were downgraded earlier this year, the underlying municipal bonds saw a corresponding downgrade--a penalty for merely being ``wrapped'' in the downgraded firm's insurance. Taken together, these forces have driven yields on benchmark, 30-year tax-exempt debt to their highest levels since July 2004. These high rates have dramatically increased costs for municipalities facing interest payments on outstanding floating-rate municipal bonds, while making it more costly for municipalities to issue new debt. In the first half of 2008, long-term municipal issuance dropped 4.1 percent over the prior year, and a further drop is predicted in the second half; for new issuances, the interest costs have vastly increased. Given the credit crunch's severity, full recovery is probably a long way off. The timing could not be less opportune--the financial slowdown will cause municipal budget deficits to balloon, just when the need for infrastructure enhancements could not be more apparent. Our bill, which largely mirrors a companion already introduced in the House by Chairman Frank and Chairman Neal of the House Ways and Means Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, would stimulate demand--and therefore lower borrowing costs for issuing municipalities--by relaxing restrictions on banks' ability to participate in the municipal bond market. To understand the proposed changes, it is useful to briefly review the tax code's current rules regarding banks' holding of municipal debt. Prior to 1986, banks were generally permitted to deduct the full interest costs they incurred unless a borrowing was incurred or continued to purchase or hold such bonds. Consequently, banks made up a significant share of the demand for municipal debt. But the 1986 tax reform eliminated this deduction for banks by requiring a pro-rata interest expense disallowance, with a limited ``qualified small issuer'' exception that permits banks to deduct 80 percent of the cost of purchasing and carrying bonds of governmental entities that issue $10 million or less in municipal bonds in any calendar year. This exception was added because small issuers' infrequent and small borrowing amounts make it too costly for them to sell debt in the national capital markets, leaving private placements with local banks the most feasible and cost-effective alternative. To increase demand for municipal debt, the bill makes two modifications to these limitations. First, it would raise the bank qualified limit for small issuers from $10 million to $30 million, and then index the new limit for inflation. Municipalities that issue between $10 million and $30 million will thus be able to raise capital through private placements. Because private placements generally carry no underwriting fees and require no offering document, the up-front issuing costs to municipalities are far lower than issuing debt on the public markets. More critically, interest payments are far lower: Interest on such ``bank qualified'' debt averages 40 basis points, 0.40 percent, less than interest on nonbank qualified debt. Failing to raise the bank-qualified level from the amount set in 1986 has real consequences for American communities. For instance, many small hospitals and healthcare facilities, even in small population States, cannot take advantage of today's small-issuer exception because they borrow through statewide authorities that issue bonds on behalf of multiple institutions, thereby exceeding the $10 million limit. In my home state, the New Mexico Hospital Equipment Loan Council tells me that if the $10 million limit had instead been $30 million, then many hospitals in our state's rural communities would have been able to secure funding to acquire additional hospital equipment, among them, Sierra Vista Hospital in Truth or Consequences; the Prairie Meadows assisted living facility in Clovis; and the Las Cruces Mental Health Center in Las Cruces. For each of these entities, the prospective borrower was instead forced to seek alternative, higher-cost capital options--or could not secure funding to complete the transaction. As another example, the City of Las Cruces would benefit from this bill. The city has had five debt issues in the last 5 years that exceeded $10 million. The financial advisor under contract to the City estimates that the difference in rates, with a higher limit on bank qualified debt, would be about 20 basis points--a savings that would be passed on to the taxpayers and rate payers in our community. Second, as concerns municipalities that issue more than $30 million in debt annually, the bill would allow financial institutions to hold up to 2 percent of their total assets in such debt, without disallowing a proportional amount of their interest expense deduction. This change is intended to restore bank demand and provide some stability by bringing this group of institutional investors back into the municipal market. Nonfinancial companies already benefit from this safe harbor, so in this regard, the bill creates parity. Many larger municipal infrastructure projects have costs in excess of $30 million, and bank investment can only help these critical projects succeed. Finally, it bears mentioning that this bill offers at least two collateral benefits. First, enabling local governments to undertake additional infrastructure investments will help to stimulate our challenged economy. Second, by enabling banks to acquire municipal bonds--the safest class of security--the bill will enhance the stability of banks at a time that they face considerable financial pressure. I am pleased that this bill has been endorsed by a number of organizations, including the National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors; National Association of Counties; Government Finance Officers Association; International City/County Management Association; National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers; National Association of State Treasurers; Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities; Education Finance Council; and National Association of Health and Educational Facilities Finance Authorities. I hope my colleagues will join with Senator Crapo and me in working to enhance liquidity in the municipal bond market. Our bill will go a long way toward ensuring that our cities, towns, counties, utility districts, and school districts can secure affordable financing to undertake the infrastructure projects that our communities sorely need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak very briefly to express my sadness on the death of Philip Clapp, who was the president and chief executive officer of the National Environmental Trust, from its founding in 1994 until it merged with the Pew Charitable Trusts this year, and who served as the deputy managing director of the Environmental Group of the Pew Charitable Trusts. There are few of us in the Senate who have not had contact with Philip and seen the effectiveness of his advocacy on environmental and energy issues. He formerly served on Tim Wirth's staff when Tim served as a colleague of ours in the House of Representatives. Under his guidance, the National Environmental Trust was one of the major nongovernmental organizations that contributed to international summits and agreements on climate change-related issues. I wish to express my condolences to his family and to his many colleagues here and abroad who will greatly miss him and his leadership on these issues.

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, September 23, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to examine why diesel fuel prices have been so high, and what can be done to address the situation. 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, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 12 noon, in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the Business Meeting is to consider pending legislation. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836. Subcommittee on Energy

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 Energy Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 2:30, in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on recent analyses of the role of speculative investment in energy markets. 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 Gina weinstock@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Angela Becker-Dippmann at (202) 224-5269 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Thursday, September 11, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an energy summit has been scheduled under the auspices of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The summit will be held on Friday, September 12, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. The purpose of the summit is to consider how to achieve a more secure, reliable, sustainable, and affordable energy future for the American people. All Senators are invited to attend and present their views and recommendations. A limited number of experts will also be invited to participate and make oral statements. In addition, anyone wishing to submit written statements for the record may send them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to rosemarie_calabro@energy .senate.gov. For further information, please contact Deborah Estes at (202) 224- 5360, Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756, or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039. committee on energy and natural resources Mr. President, I would like to announce for the Information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the current state of vehicles powered by the electric grid and the prospects for wider deployment in the near future. 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 rachel_pasternack@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact Mike Carr at (202) 224-8164 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Kennedy and Sanders, to introduce the Time for Innovation Matters in Education, or TIME Act, of 2008. This bill would improve and expand students' instructional time, while ensuring rigorous standards, as a means to help close the academic achievement gap that exists for so many of our disadvantaged students. The fundamental principle underlying this bill is that the amount of instructional time provided by the vast majority of school calendars is simply inadequate for today's students and teachers. Teachers need more time to plan and deliver instruction, and students need more time for 21st century learning. The demands on 21st century learners reflect the rapid increase in technological advances that we have all experienced in the last 30 or 40 years. Twenty first century learning demands an increase in the rigor of mathematics and science education, and the acquisition of subject area knowledge in areas that simply did not exist years ago, such as computer literacy. These increased demands should not be met at the expense of ignoring other subjects such as social studies, art, and physical education. Yet, these other areas are often ignored to allow for time for some of the major academic subjects. That is the consequence of failing to match the gradual increase in educational demands with a corresponding increase in instructional time. Instead, here we are in the 21st century, continuing to adhere to a school calendar that was established over 100 years ago, and which was designed to accommodate a predominantly agricultural society. In nearly every State, the school calendar is based on approximately 180 or fewer instructional days, or on approximately 1000 instructional hours, per school year. This means that American students are spending fewer than 20 percent of their waking hours in school. In the recent National Research Council report entitled, How People Learn, the authors comment on the importance of being realistic about the amount of time it takes to learn complex subject matter. Simply put, they note that ``significant learning takes major investments of time.'' The TIME Act is an initial investment that will provide teachers and students with the expanded opportunities they need to achieve high quality instruction and learning. We know that time needs are significant if our students are to achieve a 21st century education. Although all students are likely to benefit from expanded learning time, we must prioritize these opportunities for students who are most at risk for poor academic achievement. International reports like the PISA study demonstrate that although American students, as a group, have poor academic achievement relative to students in other industrialized nations, this disparity is most pronounced for students that are overrepresented among our Nation's poor. In fact, the 2006 PISA report shows that achievement scores for White, non-Hispanic students meet or exceed average scores reported across participating nations, whereas the average scores for Black or Hispanic students are well below that average. Likewise, although research has demonstrated that all students are at risk for losing educational gains during the extended summer breaks that are currently the norm for most schools, children from low income households experience significantly greater achievement losses during summer breaks because they lack opportunities to attend the quality summer programs available to their less disadvantaged peers. Each year, this disparity contributes to the growing achievement gap. Researchers have shown us that these out-of-school experiences account for most of the achievement difference observed by 9th grade, which in turn influences when and whether students will graduate from high school and attend postsecondary school. Investing in more time during the school year can help to diminish these achievement gaps, improve graduation rates, and make a lasting difference in these students' lives. But effective expanded learning opportunities require more than just more time. The time must be well spent. Students must be appropriately engaged in their learning, and teachers must have the training and support to use the longer school time effectively. Researchers have identified that expanded learning time benefits teachers, by providing more opportunities for cooperative planning and more time to individualize instruction. Involved students and teachers are critical to successful expanded learning time programs, and both benefit from effective programming. States have begun to explore expanded learning programs, and have demonstrated their effectiveness. In Massachusetts, 10 schools converted their calendars to expand the mandatory number of school days and the number of hours within a school day. Outcomes include not only increased student achievement, but greater school satisfaction among parents, teachers, and students. In my own State of New Mexico, expanded learning initiatives have been pursued, in the form of longer school days or additional school days throughout the year. Early reports demonstrate increased achievement in math and reading, beyond grade-level expectations. Unfortunately, the funds available for these initiatives are limited to voluntary participation. We must make these programs become a regular part of the school day for all students and teachers, particularly those who are greatest risk for academic failure. Most districts and State educational agencies do not have the capacity or infrastructure to guide, support, and fund expanded learning day programs, but good models for turning around low- performing schools do exist. Federal support can be used to build States' and schools' capacity based on evidence from such models. Towards this goal, the TIME Act will: provide incentives for States and local educational agencies to develop plans for research-based, sustainable, and replicable expanded learning programs, for high- priority schools, with a focus on increasing rigorous and varied instructional opportunities for students and teachers; allow local educational agencies to determine appropriate objectives of their extended learning programs, such as increasing math and science scores for all students, enhance art or physical education, or increase academic English proficiency for English language learners; encourage States to take a leadership role and deliver technical assistance to schools that implement such programs; encourage schools to form partnerships with organizations that have successful track records in supporting or delivering effective expanded learning programs; and promote research on expanded learning program implementation, through local, State, and national data collection efforts. The results of these evaluations can inform best practices for future delivery of expanded learning models to additional schools. I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy for his leadership on this legislation, and for his ongoing commitment to enhancing educational opportunities for all Americans; particularly our most disadvantaged youths. Moreover, Senator Kennedy's State of Massachusetts is a leader in school-wide expanded learning initiatives. Massachusetts has demonstrated that expanded learning enhances students' success, and it has done so in formerly struggling schools in some of the State's poorest school districts. The TIME Act expands upon these models of success by promoting similar initiatives across the country. I hope that this legislation will be incorporated into reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Like my colleagues Senator Kennedy and Sanders, I believe that all students deserve the time needed for a quality education. I also believe that all schools should expand well beyond their current limited calendar, especially if America is to maintain and increase its competitive edge in the global economy. We must invest in a systematic approach to improving schools so that every child graduates prepared for success. The TIME Act is an initial investment toward this goal.