Fix Housing First Homebuyer Tax Credit Act

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to further expand the home buyer tax credit.

A robust home buyer tax credit will spur consumer demand and help to stop the fall in home values, which continues to affect millions of Americans. This decline is destroying the savings and net worth of Americans, whose homes are their most valuable asset. Many now have mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 created a tax credit for first-time home buyers of $7,500 through June of 2009. However, taxpayers were required to repay the tax credit in equal installments over 15 years, which greatly reduced its effectiveness. The 2009 Stimulus bill waived the repayment requirement for purchases made in 2009, increased the value of the credit to $8,000, and extended eligibility for purchases made through November of 2009.

Further improvements are necessary, in my judgment, to bring about a recovery in the housing market that will ultimately contribute to the turnaround of the broader economy. First, this bill would amend the Stimulus bill and raise the value to $15,000, or 10 percent of the value of the home, whichever is less.

Second, this bill would make the home buyer tax credit available to any individual who purchases a home, not just first-time home buyers. Doing so would stimulate demand for the entire range of homes on the market.

Finally, this bill would remove the income eligibility threshold. Again, doing so would stimulate demand for the entire range of homes on the market. Currently, the credit is reduced for individuals with modified adjusted gross income, AGI, of more than $75,000, $150,000 for joint filers, and is zero for those individuals with modified AGI in excess of $95,000, $170,000 for joint filers.

The need for a robust home buyer tax credit is clear. According to the National Association of Realtors, pending home sales hit a record low in January 2009. The Pending Home Sales Index, which measures the number of sales contracts signed each month, fell 7.7 percent to 80.4, the lowest mark since 2001 when tracking began.

At the same time, the housing affordability index rose 13.6 percentage points to a record high of 166.8. A value of 100 means that a family with the country's median income has exactly enough income to qualify for a mortgage on a median-priced existing single-family home. The higher the index, the better housing affordability is for buyers.

These two figures, taken together, demonstrate that a robust home buyer tax credit is needed to spur demand from Americans that are hesitant to buy homes for fear that prices will not stabilize.

Recent reports indicate a 13-month supply of unsold new homes, compared with a 4-month supply under more normal circumstances. Add to that a continually increasing number of foreclosed homes. According to the RealtyTrac 2008 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report, a total of 3.2 million foreclosure filings--default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions--were reported on 2.3 million U.S. properties during 2008, an 81 percent increase in total properties from 2007 and a 225 percent increase in total properties from 2006.

Jobs across all industries have been lost as a result of the housing crisis. According to a March 2, 2009, op-ed in the Washington Post by Robert J. Samuelson, ``Since late 2007, housing-related jobs-- carpenters, real estate agents, appraisers--have dropped by 1 million, a quarter of all lost jobs.''

I applaud the efforts of Senator Johnny Isakson, who has been the leader on this issue in the Senate. I cosponsored his legislation in the 110th Congress to create a home buyer tax credit. In the 111th Congress, I supported his amendment to the Stimulus bill to make improvements to the credit and I have decided to join him as a cosponsor of S. 253, which seeks to make further improvements.

The bill I am introducing is different from S. 253 in three main ways. First, my bill would improve the home buyer credit using the 2009 Stimulus bill as a starting point. Second, my bill would increase the value of the credit to $15,000, or 10 percent of the home value, whichever is less, whereas S. 253 would increase the credit amount to 10 percent of the home price capped at 3.5 percent of Federal Housing Administration loan limits. These limits are geographically dependent and would yield a credit ranging between approximately $10,000 and $22,000. Finally, my bill would remove income limitations on the credit, whereas S. 253 limits the credit for individuals earning up to $125,000, or $250,000 in the case of a joint return.

I believe it is important for both bills to be pending so that additional ideas can be debated. To that end, I look forward to working with Senator Isakson to build consensus and support for further improvements. As long as forecasts predict that home prices are falling and that the economy will remain weak, a large fraction of potential homebuyers may choose to remain on the sidelines without a robust tax credit in place.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, or the legislation introduced by Senator Isakson, to make further improvements to the home buyer tax credit.

Mr. President, American taxpayers face another Federal income tax deadline. The date of April 15 stabs fear, anxiety, and unease into the hearts of millions of Americans. Every year during ``tax season,'' millions of Americans spend their evenings pouring over page after page of IRS instructions, going through their records looking for information and struggling to find and fill out all the appropriate forms on their Federal tax returns. Americans are intimidated by the sheer number of different tax forms and their instructions, many of which they may be unsure whether they need to file. Given the approximately 582 possible forms, not to mention the instructions that accompany them, simply trying to determine which form to file can in itself be a daunting and overwhelming task. According to the 2008 annual report to Congress, released on January 7, 2009 by the National Taxpayer Advocate for the IRS, U.S. taxpayers and businesses spend about 7.6 billion hours a year complying with the filing requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. This figure does not include the millions of additional hours that taxpayers must spend when they are required to respond to an IRS notice or audit. Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations which fill over 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 7.1 million words in 2005. By contrast, the Pledge of Allegiance has only 31 words, the Gettysburg Address has 267 words, the Declaration of Independence has about 1,300 words, and the Bible has only about 1,773,000 words.

The majority of taxpayers still face filing tax forms that are far too complicated and take far too long to complete. According to the IRS's most available data, the average time burden for all taxpayers filing a 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ in 2006 was 26.4 hours, with an average cost of $207 per return. Taxpayers filing 1040 forms had an average burden of approximately 34 hours. Moreover, this complexity is getting worse each year. According to the estimated preparation time listed on the forms by the IRS, the 1999 Form 1040 was estimated to take 12 hours and 51 minutes to complete. Thus, the time it now takes to fill out these tax forms has more than doubled over an eight year period.

It is no wonder that more than 80 percent of individual taxpayers pay transaction fees to help file tax returns. Well over half of all taxpayers, 61 percent according to a recent survey, now hire an outside professional to prepare their tax returns for them. However, the fact that only about 35 percent of individuals itemize their deductions shows that a significant percentage of our taxpaying population believes that the tax system is too

complex for them to deal with. We all understand that paying taxes will never be something we enjoy, but neither should it be cruel and unusual punishment. Further, the pace of change to the Internal Revenue Code is brisk. Since the beginning of 2001, there have been more than 3,250 changes to the tax code, an average of more than one a day, including more than 500 changes in 2008 alone. And we are far from being finished. Year after year, we continue to ask the same question--isn't there a better way?

My flat tax legislation would make filing a tax return a manageable chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. My flat tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present tax code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would institute a simple, flat 20 percent tax rate for all individuals and businesses. This proposal is not cast in stone, but is intended to move the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity, fairness, and economic growth.

My flat tax plan would eliminate the kinds of frustrations I have outlined above for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations and instructions and delete most of the 7.1 million words in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead of billions of hours of non-productive time spent in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard- sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity or for more time with their families, instead of pouring over tax tables, schedules, and regulations.

My flat tax proposal is dramatic, but so are its advantages: a taxation system that is simple, fair, and designed to maximize prosperity for all Americans. A summary of the key advantages are:

A 10-line postcard filing would replace the myriad forms and attachments currently required, thus saving Americans up to 7.6 billion hours they currently spend every year in tax compliance.

The flat tax would eliminate the lion's share of IRS rules, regulations and requirements, which have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 7.1 million words currently. It would also allow us to slash the mammoth IRS bureaucracy of approximately 87,000 employees, creating opportunities to put their expertise to use elsewhere in the government or in private industry.

Economists estimate a growth due to a flat tax of over $2 trillion in national wealth over 7 years, representing an increase of approximately $7,500 in personal wealth for every man, woman and child in America. This growth would also lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs.

Investment decisions would be made on the basis of productivity rather than simply for tax avoidance, thus leading to even greater economic expansion.

Economic forecasts indicate that interest rates would fall substantially, by as much as two points, as the flat tax removes many of the current disincentives to savings.

Americans would be able to save or invest the $265 billion they currently spend every year in tax compliance.

As tax loopholes are eliminated and the tax code is simplified, there will be far less opportunity for tax avoidance and fraud. Currently, the IRS is estimating a tax gap of $300 billion a year.

Simplification of the tax code will allow us to save significantly on the $10 billion annual budget currently allocated to the Internal Revenue Service.

The most dramatic way to illustrate the flat tax is to consider that the income tax form for the flat tax is printed on a postcard--it will allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10- line postcard. This postcard will take 15 minutes to fill out..

This is a win-win situation for America because it lowers the tax burden on the taxpayers in the lower brackets. For example in the 2006 tax year, the standard deduction is $5,150 for a single taxpayer, $7,550 for a head of household and $10,300 for a married couple filing jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is $3,300. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does not itemize deductions would pay taxes on all income over $23,500--that is personal exemptions of $13,200 and a standard deduction of $10,300. By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would receive a personal exemption of $30,000, and would pay tax on income over that amount.

The tax loopholes enable write-offs of some $393 billion a year. What is eliminated under the flat tax are the loopholes, the deductions in this complicated code which can be deciphered, interpreted, and found really only by the $500-an-hour lawyers. That money is lost to the taxpayers. $120 billion would be saved by the elimination of fraud because of the simplicity of the Tax Code, the taxpayer being able to find out exactly what they owe.

This bill is modeled after a proposal organized and written by two very distinguished law professors from Stanford University, Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka. Their model was first introduced in the Congress in the fall of 1994 by Majority Leader Richard Armey. I introduced the flat tax bill--the first one in the Senate--on March 2, 1995, Senate bill 488. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced my legislation in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation-adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances. I re-reintroduced the bill on April 15, 1999, Tax Day, in a bill denominated as S. 822. I then introduced my flat tax legislation as an amendment to S. 1429, the Tax Reconciliation bill; the amendment was not adopted. During the 108th Congress, I introduced my flat tax legislation once again on April 11, 2003. On May 14, 2003, I offered an amendment to the Tax Reconciliation legislation urging the Senate to hold hearings and consider legislation providing for a flat tax; this amendment passed by a vote of 70 to 30 on May 15, 2003. I then testified on this issue at a subsequent hearing held by the Joint Economic Committee on November 5, 2003. On April 15, 2005 and again on April 10, 2007, I again reintroduced my flat tax legislation in a bill denominated as S. 812 and S. 1081 respectively.

Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing our nation's tax code and the policies which underlie it. I began the study of the complexities of the tax code over 40 years ago as a law student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operation for Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to some. Einstein himself is quoted as saying ``the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.''

The Hall-Rabushka model envisioned a flat tax with no deductions whatsoever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to $100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also political practicality. With those two deductions maintained, passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them, probably impossible.

In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19 percent rate, is

based on a well-documented model founded on reliable governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19 percent to 20 percent to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage interest and charitable deductions.

This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source, so that there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains, gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the tax code can become a powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the standard of living for all Americans.

The key advantages of this flat tax plan are threefold: First, it will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and corporate taxpayers, and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and savings accounts.

Professors Hall and Rabushka have projected that within seven years of enactment, this type of a flat tax would produce a 6 percent increase in output from increased total work in the U.S. economy and increased capital formation. The economic growth would mean a $7,500 increase in the personal income of all Americans. No one likes to pay taxes. But Americans will be much more willing to pay their taxes under a system that they believe is fair, a system that they can understand, and a system that they recognize promotes rather than prevents growth and prosperity. My flat tax legislation will afford Americans such a tax system.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my flat tax postcard, a variety of specific cases that illustrate the fairness and simplicity of this flat tax, and an example flat tax table be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation to make various improvements to VA rural health care. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Max Baucus and Mark Begich. The legislation is designed to bring more doctors into small communities; promote the use of volunteer counselors to help with mental health issues; expand telemedicine services; and create incentives for VA's community partners to provide high quality services to veterans.

As the drawdown of forces in Iraq begins, VA must be prepared to meet the health care needs of veterans upon their return.

Many veterans live in small towns and communities. This includes a large number of Guard members and Reservists who have served in such an integral role in Iraq and Afghanistan. Members of the Guard and Reserve face challenges that are different than those faced by their active duty counterparts, who return to military bases with the support of their unit and programs geared toward re-acclimating them to life outside of the combat zone. When members of the Guard or Reserves return home, they often are isolated from their units, leaving them to reintegrate back into their communities without a strong VA or DoD presence or support system.

When health care is needed, a rural community may not have providers who offer mental health services, such as group counseling, and may not be familiar with treating combat-related disorders.

I believe strongly that there is an obligation to care for all veterans in need, regardless of where they live. We must ensure that adequate resources are available to serve those who live in rural communities, and that VA works closely with local health care providers to help meet the need for care. It is critical that VA reach out to veterans living in rural communities so that they receive the care they need. Every resource must be united in the effort to care for wounded warriors, whether in a community hospital or VA clinic. When there is no VA presence in a community, VA may need to pay community providers for the reasonable costs of care.

Last month, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on health care for veterans in rural areas. We heard from the chief executive officer of a community hospital, from a former director of a rural health clinic, and from outreach organizations who work to bridge the gap between VA and community health care systems. These witnesses testified about how hard it is for veterans who live in rural areas to find health care in the communities where they live, and about how difficult it is for community hospitals and clinics to provide quality services with the limited resources available to them.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs staff also conducted an oversight visit to Hawaii and saw firsthand the needs of veterans living in rural communities on the neighbor islands. Many of those veterans find it hard to access VA health care because of travel restrictions and a shortage of services in their communities. Committee staff found that technology was not being used to bridge this gap; indeed, the use of telemedicine is actually declining in Hawaii.

The legislation we are introducing today would help address the needs of veterans living in rural communities in a number of ways.

First, the bill would bring more doctors to targeted communities by repaying their student loans while they work for VA. Currently, VA's loan repayment program is capped at an amount that is less than \1/3\ the average cost of medical school. This bill would remove the cap, allowing VA to offer full loan repayment so as to provide a much more effective recruitment tool.

In addition, this bill would encourage VA and HHS to use the National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program to recruit physicians for VA facilities located in underserved areas. The National Health Service Corps pays for medical school up front in exchange for a doctor's agreement to work in an underserved area after graduation.

To address the shortage of mental health providers in many communities, this legislation would also allow VA to shorten the credentialing and privileging process for licensed volunteer counselors who could provide mental health services to our veterans.

The legislation would also create a pilot program to place VA doctors in community hospitals so as to enable them to provide more continuous care for veterans. Under this pilot, VA doctors working in communities without a VA hospital would be able to follow their patients when admitted to the local hospital. Participating VA doctors would earn additional compensation for assuming these responsibilities, thereby creating financial incentives for doctors to stay within VA. Since many non-VA hospitals do not have mental health providers or other providers experienced in the treatment of conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder that disproportionately affect veterans, this would also bring needed expertise into other care communities.

This bill would also allow VA to monitor the quality of care provided in non-VA facilities. Currently, there is no way for VA to do such quality assurance in a systematic way. This bill would encourage VA's community partners to participate in quality programs like peer review, or to seek accreditation by an outside organization.

This bill also would bring new technologies to rural communities. By modifying VA's internal mechanism for distributing funds, the legislation would provide incentives for VA hospitals and clinics to use telehealth technologies. VA currently bases the distribution of funds to its facilities on workload and does not currently count all telehealth visits in a facility's workload. By requiring VA to give hospitals and clinics credit for telehealth

visits, this bill will promote the natural expansion of these services to our veterans.

Finally, for those veterans who must travel by air to obtain their health care--because of their health status, geography or other barriers--this bill would allow VA to pay beneficiary travel benefits for airfare to those veterans who cannot afford it. In recognition of the cost of airfare, a different income eligibility standard from that used for ground transportation would be used in connection with reimbursement of the costs of air travel.

I urge our colleagues to work with me and the other members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to improve access to health care for veterans who live in rural areas.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act to help agencies fix the broken recruitment and hiring process in the Federal Government. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend Senator Voinovich in this effort.

The Federal Government is the largest employer in the U.S., but every day talented people interested in Federal service walk away because the hiring process is longer and more complicated than that of other employers. Too many Federal agencies have built entry barriers for new workers, done too little to recruit the right candidates, and invented an evaluation process that discourages qualified candidates.

In the private sector, many employers post job vacancies through a variety of online and other venues and require only a resume and cover letter to apply. Applying to the federal government should be similarly accessible and easy. However, agencies often require substantial essays and other documentation at the initial application stage.

Agencies need to adapt, just as the private sector has, to take advantage of modern technology to boost recruitment efforts and streamline the hiring process to make it more user friendly. Inexpensive outlets such as social networking sites offer agencies an opportunity to expand their profile and post job opportunities without emptying their wallets. It is easier than it was in the past to submit and track application materials during the application process. Agencies should accept candidate-friendly applications such as resumes and cover letters for the initial application and ask for additional information only as needed. Likewise, technology makes it possible to provide automated information to candidates, so candidates should receive timely and informative feedback about the application process.

Additionally, more employees with advanced and technical skills are needed in the modern federal workforce, so more pipelines into colleges and technical schools need to be developed to recruit candidates from diverse backgrounds.

Last year, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, where witnesses testified to the need for reforms in the hiring process. The Government Accountability Office testified to the broad failures of agencies to address such problems as passive recruitment strategies, unclear job vacancy announcements, and imprecise candidate assessment tools. Witnesses testified that young people are greatly interested in Federal Government service, but agencies need to meet them where they are. Developing broader recruitment strategies, using online resources and streamlining the hiring process are essential to attracting the next generation of Federal employees.

In response to the hearing, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, developed the End-to-End Hiring Roadmap initiative that provides agencies a streamlined 80-day model from the time a manager seeks to fill a position to the time an offer is made. This initiative addresses strategic workforce planning, targeted recruitment, clear job announcements, and hiring flexibilities. The initiative also advocates accepting resumes and cover letters over the lengthy and onerous knowledge, skills, and abilities essays, KSAs, required for many Federal jobs.

This initiative includes many positive steps, but many agencies are not adopting them. OPM does not have the authority to require agencies to do so. Congress must step in.

The Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act requires agencies to develop strategic workforce plans, including hiring projections and critical skills gaps analyses of the workforce; post brief, clear job announcements in plain writing; Allow submission of resumes and cover letters and no longer require KSAs; provide timely notification to applicants of the status of their application; take no more than 80 days from the time a manager decides to fill a vacancy to the time an offer is made; keep an inventory of all applicants who elect to be considered for other Federal vacancies; and measure the effectiveness of hiring efforts and reforms.

Agencies must make reforming the recruitment and hiring process a top priority, and this bill furthers the discussion. The Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act will require agencies to abandon their stale recruitment and hiring processes and develop streamlined hiring practices that attract high-quality candidates. The future of the Federal workforce is depending on it.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Airline Personnel Training Enhancement Act of 2009 and to ask for Senators' support for this important measure to improve safety in the air and on the ground.

The story of this legislation begins with a tragedy. On November 11, 2006, Paul and Renee Gonzales were driving back from a soccer tournament with four of their daughters. They were roughly 1 hour from their home in Las Vegas, NM, when they saw Dana Papst's vehicle. Papst had been driving on the wrong side of I-25 for about 5 miles before his car collided with the Gonzales's minivan at 60 to 75 miles per hour. Five of the six members of the Gonzales family were killed. Papst later died at the hospital.

I cannot say for certain whether this tragedy could have been prevented by a change in laws. But I do know this: A few hours before Dana Papst took six lives, including his own, he was flying back to Albuquerque after a business trip. On that flight, he was noticeably intoxicated. Yet he was served alcohol by airline personnel. When his truck collided with the Gonzales's minivan, his blood-alcohol level was four times the legal limit.

When I heard about Dana Papst and the Gonzales family, I began to look for legislation that could prevent tragedies like this in the future. I learned that under existing law, Papst should not have been served alcohol on his flight. In fact, somebody as drunk as Papst never should have been allowed on that flight. But airlines are not required to teach their personnel how to handle an intoxicated passenger.

To address this problem, I introduced the Airline Personnel Training Enhancement Act in the other body during the last Congress. I am introducing it again today.

This legislation requires air carriers to train their employees on recognizing and dealing with drunk or disruptive passengers. This training will help employees make informed decisions when allowing people to board flights, when deciding whether a passenger should be served alcohol, and when dealing with belligerent passengers. Many States require people who serve alcohol in restaurants and bars to be properly trained. This legislation simply closes a large and potentially deadly loophole. I hope it will lead to fewer deaths on our roads.

New Mexico, like so many other States, has too many crosses on its highways, too many stories of loss and regret. Drunk driving claimed 155 New Mexico lives the year Paul and Renee Gonzales were killed. It claimed 188 the year before, and 211 the year before that. We have the power to help reduce these numbers. I hope we will use it.

But my legislation is not just about drunk driving. As I began to study the training of airline personnel, I discovered a large and frightening threat to the traveling public. Outbursts by belligerent passengers are more and more common. But airline personnel are rarely trained on how to handle these situations.

Incidents of ``air rage'' increased 400 percent since 2000. There are an estimated 10,000 cases each year in the United States alone. Airline security experts estimate that alcohol is the underlying cause of the majority of incidents. These incidents can pose a serious threat to passengers and personnel. In some cases, flights have been diverted from their destination in order to land where threatening passengers could be arrested.

Airline personnel are on the front line for ensuring flight safety. Gate attendants are in the best position to keep drunk or belligerent passengers off flights. Today, flight attendants are often the only personnel capable of maintaining order in a plane's cabin.

Before 9/11, a flight's captain or co-pilot would leave the cockpit to assist the flight crew when a passenger made threats or became abusive. Today, the cockpit door is locked for safety. Flight attendants have more responsibility for keeping passengers safe.

Unfortunately, airlines do not have to give their employees the skills to meet their responsibilities. One study found that ``the lack of attention paid by the aviation community to the importance of the flight attendant's role in a commercial flight has led to recurring instances of abuse of cabin crew by passengers and the inability of the cabin crew to restrain violent passenger[s]. . . .''

The Airline Personnel Training Enhancement Act will help remedy this unsafe and unacceptable situation. This legislation is supported by the Association of Flight Attendants and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It is also a commonsense response to a serious problem. It will make our skies and our roads safer. I hope Senators will support it.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and partner in Federal workforce issues, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, to introduce the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act of 2009.

When we discuss hiring, we discuss a process that affects every individual employed by the government today. Making the right hiring decisions affects the current workforce's ability to continue doing their jobs. It also is the same process these employees must go through when pursuing new opportunities within the Government, including promotions.

Additionally, we need to convey to the thousands of men and women at all stages of their career that the Federal Government is more than just an employer, but a place where Americans can utilize and grow their skills in service to their Nation.

As the old cliche goes, ``You never get a second chance to make a first impression.'' We need to convey to these Americans that the Federal Government wants them. If we do not, someone else will.

The Baby Boomers are retiring at a time when needs and demands on Government continue to grow. The Office of Personnel Management has identified certain areas of critical hiring importance: air traffic controllers, border patrol officers, engineers, food inspectors, human resources specialists, nurses, visa examiners, patent examiners, scientists, veterinarians, accountants, and acquisition professionals. In addition, the Partnership for Public Service has estimated the Federal Government will lose approximately 530,000 employees over the next 5 years, including many mission critical jobs.

We know the challenges confronting the Federal Government. Now we must make sure our processes result in hiring the right person, at the right place, at the right time, to get the job done.

Over and over, we hear of the problems in the Federal hiring process. It takes too long; it is too burdensome, and so forth. The quality of technology has improved, but our processes have not. This does nothing to dispel any preconceived notions that the Federal Government is nothing but a bureaucratic system.

Accordingly, Senator Akaka and I are introducing legislation to streamline the hiring process. The Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act brings together commonsense solutions to a government-wide management challenge. Our legislation would require job announcements to be written in plain language; guarantee agencies provide feedback to applicants at a minimum of four key points during the process; and ensure individual hiring decisions are made within 80 days or less. In addition, our legislation would require agencies to improve their workforce planning and make hiring projections available to the public.

Too often, we have heard that processes exist for what I believe to be unacceptable reasons, such as, that is how it always has been done. But to be an employer of choice, the government must understand what the competition is doing and adapt to the changing environment. This legislation is an important first step in meeting that goal.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss S. 253, a bill introduced by Senator Johnny Isakson to expand the home buyer tax credit. I support this legislation and have asked to be added as a cosponsor.

A robust home buyer tax credit will spur consumer demand and help to stop the fall in home values, which continues to affect millions of Americans. This decline is destroying the savings and net worth of Americans, whose homes are their most valuable asset. Many now have mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 created a tax credit for first-time home buyers of $7,500 through June of 2009. However, taxpayers were required to repay the tax credit in equal installments over 15 years, which greatly reduced its effectiveness. The 2009 Stimulus bill waived the repayment requirement for purchases made in 2009, increased the value of the credit to $8,000, and extended eligibility for purchases made through November of 2009.

Further improvements are necessary, in my judgement, to bring about a recovery in the housing market that will ultimately contribute to the turnaround of the broader economy. First, S. 253 would increase the value of the credit to 10 percent of the home price capped at 3.5 percent of Federal Housing Administration loan limits. These limits are geographically dependent and would yield a credit ranging between approximately $10,000 and $22,000.

Second, S. 253 would make the home buyer tax credit available to any individual who purchases a home, not just first-time home buyers. Doing so would stimulate demand for the entire range of homes on the market.

Finally, S. 253 would increase the income eligibility threshold to individuals earning up to $125,000, or $250,000 in the case of a joint return. Currently, the credit is reduced for individuals with modified adjusted gross income, AGI, of more than $75,000--$150,000 for joint filers--and is zero for those individuals with modified AGI in excess of $95,000--$170,000 for joint filers. Again, doing so would stimulate demand for the entire range of homes on the market.

The need for a robust home buyer tax credit is clear. According to the National Association of Realtors, pending home sales hit a record low in January 2009. The pending home sales index, which measures the number of sales contracts signed each month, fell 7.7 percent to 80.4, the lowest mark since 2001 when tracking began.

At the same time, the housing affordability index rose 13.6 percentage points to a record high of 166.8. A value of 100 means that a family with the country's median income has exactly enough income to qualify for a mortgage on a median-priced existing single-family home. The higher the index, the better housing affordability is for buyers.

These two figures, taken together, demonstrate that a robust home buyer tax credit is needed to spur demand from Americans that are hesitant to buy homes for fear that prices will not stabilize.