Emergency Biodiesel Tax Incentive Extension Act of 2010

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request but I will wait until a Member from the other side is here to make it. As a predicate to that, I will make a statement on my reason for doing so.

As the majority continues to struggle in an attempt to pass another massive deficit spending bill through Congress, biodiesel plants in Iowa and throughout the country continue to lay off workers because the Democratically controlled Congress has not extended the biodiesel tax credit. This is a simple and noncontroversial tax extension that will likely reinstate 20,000 jobs nationwide and about 2,000 jobs in my State of Iowa all by itself. These jobs have fallen victim to a tactic used by the Democratic leadership to hold this popular and noncontroversial tax provision hostage to out-of-control deficit spending in Washington.

This past February, I worked out a bipartisan deal with Chairman Baucus to extend the expired tax provision, including the biodiesel tax credit. However, the Senate Democratic leadership decided to put partisanship ahead of job security for thousands of workers in the biodiesel industry. I am here again to try to put thousands of workers back to work, American workers, in the process of producing a clean and renewable fuel. We already stripped out and passed the so-called doctor fix from the larger extenders bill last week. We should do the same with the biodiesel tax credit right now.

Also there is a difference between the biodiesel tax credit and the other tax provisions in the tax extenders bill. The failure to extend the biodiesel tax credit before it expires has ground the industry to a halt, because biodiesel is now more expensive than gasoline and gas stations know they can't sell it. So, of course, naturally, they don't buy it. Therefore, biodiesel producers have stopped producing it because they have nobody to sell it to. While the other tax provisions are important, they are not as time sensitive as biodiesel, because they are not transactional tax incentives like the biodiesel tax credit but instead are based on the taxable year.

I am going to reserve my unanimous consent request until the Senator from Michigan returns. I will go to other remarks I want to make at this point.

I see the Senator has returned so I will make my unanimous consent request at this point.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4853

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4853, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 3440, to extend the biodiesel fuel tax credit, be inserted; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, I have a further unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4853; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and that an amendment at the desk, which is the text of S. 3421, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this morning we saw yet another replay of a dialog between some of my friends on the other side and some on my side of the aisle. It kind of goes like this. Republicans make a proposal to make a pending Democratic leadership proposal such as the extenders bill deficit neutral. The Democratic leadership marshals the votes and defeats the deficit-neutral proposal on a largely party-line basis. After the vote, debate ensues. My friends on the other side define the proposal that they defeat in an incorrect way. They define it as a proposal to carry out the policy of a fiscally responsible manner as opposition to the underlying policy in the proposal. Republicans counter that the Republican deficit-neutral proposal carries most, if not all, of the policy contained in the Democratic leadership's proposal.

When the smoke clears, the true differences between the two sides' approaches become very clear. My friends on the other side want to add to the deficit to carry out the underlying initiative--be it an extension of unemployment benefits or a lot of other things in the bill. On this side, we want deficit neutrality at a minimum by rolling back future bloated spending. The Democratic leadership wants to keep in place the future bloated spending. Tax increases are OK, if they are offset. Bring on hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increase, whether they hit individuals, small businesses, or what have you. As an example, the latest tax is due to hit next week. Next Tuesday, July 1, users of tanning bed services will face a new 10-percent tanning bed excise tax. God help us if someone proposes to make the government even a little bit leaner. That proposal will be met with a brick wall of resistance, even if it is a proposal to roll back future unobligated, unallocated stimulus spending, which stimulus spending has not accomplished what it was intended to accomplish, keeping unemployment under 8 percent.

The upshot is this: For my friends in the Democratic leadership, keeping the spending spigot all the way open trumps deficit reduction. Keep the spending going, in other words. Worry about our deficit sometime down the road. Let our grandchildren worry about it.

On the Republican side, we want to trim the spending and save some taxpayers money by managing priorities. That is a worthwhile debate. It is an intellectually honest debate. It is the kind of debate that can inform fiscal policy judgments. But my friends in the Democratic leadership are not content to have the debate on that basis. Instead, we have seen a pattern where they want to change the subject. Instead of focusing on the present and the future, my friends on the other side want to revisit the past. In veering away from current choices and future fiscal consequences, my friends on the other side take the discussion in a whole different direction. My friends on the other side claim they cannot deal with these problems in a fiscally responsible manner because of Republicans. Republicans only left them with fiscal problems.

People watching C-SPAN witnessed this back and forth last Thursday, and around lunchtime the Senate voted on Senator Thune's alternative to the Democratic leadership's extender bill. The Thune amendment took the exact opposite approach to the Democratic leadership's substitute. It cut taxes by $26 billion by extending current law. It cut spending by over $100 billion and reduced the deficit by $68 billion. Those are not this Senator's numbers. They come from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last version of the Democratic leadership's extender substitute would have increased direct spending by about $105 billion through the year 2020, and raised revenues by about $50

billion over that period, resulting in a net deficit increase of about $55 billion. As an aside, last Friday Chairman Baucus and I prevailed on the leadership to clear the deficit-neutral bill that extended the so-called Medicare doctor fix. That action will cut those numbers a little bit.

On the larger bill, however, the contrast could not be clearer. The Republican Conference, along with one member of the Democratic caucus, voted to change the bottom line fiscal effects of the Democratic leadership's extender substitute. If Senator Thune had prevailed, his amendment would have reduced the deficit by $13 billion more than the amount the Democratic leadership's extender substitute would have added to the deficit. The Thune amendment reached this better fiscal result by simple common sense of restraining Federal spending. All but one Member of the Democratic caucus then in attendance, 57 Senators, voted against the Thune amendment. One of the Senators who voted for the Thune amendment came to the Senate floor to highlight the differences between the Democratic caucus and the Republican Conference in the approach to this extenders bill.

A Member of the Democratic leadership also made some comments on the current fiscal problems. Instead of focusing on the question of whether to offset the policy or not, that Member decided to change the subject. As we saw this morning, that Member of the Democratic leadership wanted to go back several years and talk about fiscal history.

This morning, like last week, there was a lot of revision or perhaps editing of the recent budget history. I expect more of it from some on the other side.

The President signaled as much in an interview with George Stephanopoulos a few months ago. I agree with the President that there is a lot of revisionism in the debate.

The revisionist history basically boils down to two conclusions: One, that all of the ``good'' fiscal history of the 1990s was derived from a partisan tax increase bill of 1993; and, two, that all of the ``bad'' fiscal history of this decade to date is attributable to the bipartisan tax relief plans.

Not surprisingly, nearly all of the revisionists who spoke generally oppose tax relief and--do you know what--support tax increases. The same crew generally supports spending increases and opposes spending cuts.

In the debate so far, many on this side have pointed out some key undeniable facts. The stimulus bill passed by the Senate, with interest included, increases the deficit by over $1 trillion. The stimulus bill was a heavy stew of spending increases and refundable tax credits, seasoned with small pieces of tax relief.

The bill passed by the Senate had new temporary spending that, if made permanent, will burden future budget deficits by over $2.5 trillion. That is not Senate Republicans adding that up. It is the official congressional scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan as they are. In fact, the deficit effects of the stimulus bill passed a year ago March--passed within a short time after the Democrats assumed full control of the Federal Government--roughly exceeded the deficit impact of the 8 years of bipartisan tax relief.

All of this occurred in an environment where the automatic economic stabilizers, thankfully, kicked in to help the most unfortunate in America with unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other benefits.

That antirecessionary spending, together with lower tax receipts, and the TARP activities, has set a fiscal table of a deficit of $1.4 trillion for the fiscal year that ended several months ago. That is the highest deficit, as a percentage of the economy, in post-World War II history.

It is not a pretty fiscal picture, and it is going to get a lot uglier with the budget put forward by the President this year. It is the same result under the budget crafted last year by the Democratic leadership.

So for the folks who see this bill as an opportunity to ``recover'' America with government taking a larger share of the economy over the long term, I say congratulations. America has been recovered with a vast expansion of government and the American People have a lot of red ink to look forward to.

Members who voted for the budget and the fiscal policy envisioned in it put us on the path to a bigger role for the government. But supporters of that fiscal policy need to own up to the fiscal course they are charting.

That is where the revisionist history comes from. From the perspective of those on our side, it seems to be a strategy to divert, through a twisted blame game, from the facts before us. How is the history revised? Let's take each conclusion one by one.

The first conclusion is that all of the ``good'' fiscal history was derived from the 1993 tax increase. To test that assertion, all you have to do is take a look at data from the Clinton administration.

The much-ballyhooed 1993 partisan tax increase accounts for 13 percent of the deficit reduction in the 1990s--13 percent. That 13 percent figure was calculated by the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget.

The biggest source of deficit reduction, 35 percent, came from a reduction in defense spending. Of course, that fiscal benefit originated from President Reagan's stare-down of the Communist regime in Russia. The same folks on that side who opposed President Reagan's defense buildup take credit for the fiscal benefit of the ``peace dividend.''

The next biggest source of deficit reduction, 32 percent, came from other revenue.

Basically, this was the fiscal benefit from pro-growth policies, like the bipartisan capital gains tax cut in 1997, and the freetrade agreements President Clinton, with Republican votes, established.

The savings from the policies I have pointed out translated to interest savings. Interest savings account for 15 percent of the deficit reduction.

Now, for all the chest-thumping about the 1990s, the chest-thumpers, who push for big social spending, didn't bring much to the deficit reduction table in the 1990s. Their contribution was 5 percent.

What is more, the fiscal revisionist historians in this body tend to forget who the players were. They are correct that there was a Democratic President in the White House. But they conveniently forget that Republicans controlled the Congress for the period where the deficit came down and turned to surplus.

They tend to forget they fought the principle of a balanced budget that was the centerpiece of Republican fiscal policy.

Remember the government shutdown of late 1995, my friends on the Democratic side? Remember what that was about? It was about a plan to balance the budget. We are constantly reminded of the political price paid by the other side for the record tax increase they put in the law in 1993. Republicans paid a political price for forcing the balanced budget issue in 1996. But, in 1997, President Clinton agreed. Recall as well all through the 1990s what the year-end battles were about.

On one side, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration pushed for more spending. On the other side, congressional Republicans were pushing for tax relief.

In the end, both sides compromised. That is the real fiscal history of the 1990s.

Let's turn to the other conclusion of the revisionist fiscal historians. That conclusion is that, in this decade, all fiscal problems are attributable to the widespread tax relief enacted in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2006.

In 2001, President Bush came into office. He inherited an economy that was careening downhill. Investment started to go flat in 2000. The tech-fueled stock market bubble was bursting. After that came the economic shocks of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Add in the corporate scandals to that economic environment.

And it is true, as fiscal year 2001 came to close, the projected surplus turned to a deficit. But it is wrong to attribute the entire deficit occurring during this period to the bipartisan tax relief. According to CBO, the bipartisan tax relief is responsible for only 25 percent of the deficit change, while 44 percent is attributable to higher spending, and 31 percent is attributable to economic and technical changes.

At just the right time, the 2001 tax relief plan started to kick in. As the

tax relief hit its full force in 2003, the deficits grew smaller. This pattern continued up through 2007.

If my comments were meant to be partisan shots, I could say this favorable fiscal path from 2003 to 2007 was the only period, aside from 6 months in 2001, where Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress. But, unlike the fiscal history revisionists, I am not trying to make any partisan points, I am just trying to get to the fiscal facts.

There is also data that compares the tax receipts for 4 years after the much-ballyhooed 1993 tax increase and the 4-year period after the 2003 tax cuts. I have a chart that tracks those trends.

In 1993, the Clinton tax increase brought in more revenue as compared to the 2003 tax cut. That trend reversed as both policies moved along.

Over the first few years, the extra revenue went up over time relative to the flat line of the 1993 tax increase.

So, let's get the fiscal history right.

The progrowth tax and trade policies of the 1990s, along with the ``peace dividend,'' had a lot more to do with the deficit reduction in the 1990s than the 1993 tax increase. In this decade, deficits went down after the tax relief plans were put in full effect.

No economist I am aware of would link the bursting of the housing bubble with the bipartisan tax relief plans of 2001 and 2003.

Likewise, I know of no economic research that concludes that the bipartisan tax relief of 2001 and 2003 caused the financial meltdown of September and October 2008. I have a chart that shows what the President inherited from a Democratic Congress and a Republican President.

As I said, from the period of 2003 through 2007, after the bipartisan tax relief program was in full effect, the general pattern was this: revenues went up and deficits went down.

That is the past. We need to make sure we understand it. But what is most important is the future. People in our States send us here to deal with future policy. They don't send us here to flog one another, like partisan cartoon cut-out characters, over past policies. They don't send us here to endlessly point fingers of blame.

The substitute before us takes us in the direction of more deficits and debt. The Thune amendment, which was rejected by most of the Democratic Caucus, would have put us on a path in the opposite fiscal direction. My friends on the other side fool no one if they pretend that the fiscal choices made by the Democratic leadership and the President over the last year have nothing to do with this rapidly rising debt.

President Obama rightly focused us on the future with his eloquence during the campaign. I would like to paraphrase a quote from the President's nomination acceptance speech: We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not grasping at the ideas of the past.

President Obama was right.

We need a President, and, I would add, Congressmen and Senators who can face the threats of the future. Grasping at ideas of the past or playing the partisan blame game will not deal with the threats to our fiscal future.

It is not too late to correct the excesses of the stimulus bill or the bloated appropriations bills that will come. The Senate missed an opportunity with a partisan rejection of Senator Thune's alternative.

We took a small, bipartisan step last Friday. The Senate unanimously approved a paid-for Medicare doc fix bill, led by my friend, Chairman Baucus. That was the way we need to go.

There are more bipartisan fiscally responsible efforts underway. Senator McCaskill's and Senator Sessions' amendment, which calls for a timeout on the exponentially rising levels of appropriations spending, is a good start. The President called on the Democratic leadership to do something similar.

That is what the American people want and need. There is a way to reach a real bipartisan compromise. It is right in front of the Democratic leadership. Efforts to change the subject and blame Republican Congresses of many years ago won't answer the questions about what needs to be done now.

Efforts to blame every fiscal problem on a Republican President who retired a year and a half ago is no answer. It is a strategy that avoids responsibility for the trillions of new spending that the Democratic leadership and this President have muscled through with large majorities. It is time to match the power with responsibility. The American People expect no less.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to increase tax fairness for America's primary and secondary school teachers.

Our public school teachers are some of the unheralded heroes of our society. These women and men dedicate their careers to educating the young people of America. School teachers labor in often difficult and even dangerous circumstances. In most places, including in my home state of Utah, the salary of the average public school teacher is significantly below the national average.

For a variety of economic and organizational reasons, schools across the nation are experiencing difficulties in recruiting teachers-- especially in the fields of math and science. There are at least two sources to this problem. First, schools are experiencing high levels of turnover related to retirement, relocation, and attrition. Second, there is an insufficient supply of new qualified math and science teachers coming in to the schools to compensate for the turnover.

As a result of these factors, 31 percent of secondary schools across the nation report difficulties in filling math and science faculty positions. This teacher recruitment problem is especially troubling because it disproportionately affects small schools in urban and rural areas, especially those with limited access to funding.

Unfortunately, the problems of retention and recruitment of public school teachers are exacerbated by the unfair tax treatment these professionals currently receive under our tax law. Specifically, teachers are greatly disadvantaged by the lack of deductibility of the total amount of out-of-pocket costs of classroom materials that practically all teachers find themselves supplying, as well as by the inability to deduct their professional development expenses. Let me explain.

As with many other professionals, most elementary and secondary school teachers regularly incur expenses to keep themselves current in their fields of knowledge. These include subscriptions to journals and other periodicals as well as the cost of courses and seminars designed to improve their knowledge or teaching skills. For example, in order to be certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, NBPTS, a teacher must pay a fee of $2,500. Expenditures like these are necessary to keep our teachers up to date on the latest ideas, techniques, and trends so that they can provide our children with the best education possible.

Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves spending not insignificant amounts of money to provide basic classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material teachers need to adequately present their lessons. New teachers in their first and second years are especially susceptible to a large financial burden as they must start from scratch in establishing a curriculum and classroom for their students.

I realize that employees in many fields incur expenses for professional development and out-of-pocket expenses. In many cases, however, these costs are reimbursed by the employer. This is seldom the case with school teachers. Other professionals who are self-employed are generally able to fully deduct these types of expenses.

Under the current tax law, unreimbursed expenses for all employees are deductible generally, but only as miscellaneous itemized deductions. However, there are two practical hurdles that effectively make these expenses non-deductible for most teachers. The first hurdle is that the total amount of a taxpayer's deductible miscellaneous deductions must exceed 2 percent of gross income before they begin to be deductible.

The second hurdle is that the amount in excess of the 2 percent floor, if any, combined with all other deductions of the taxpayer, must exceed the standard deduction before the teacher can itemize. Only about one-third of taxpayers have enough deductions to itemize. The unfortunate effect of these two limitations is that, as a practical matter, only a small proportion of teachers are able to deduct their professional development and out-of-pocket supplies expenses.

Let me illustrate this unfair situation with an example. Let us consider the case of a first-year teacher in Utah, whom we will refer to as Michelle. Michelle is newly married. She and her husband together expect to earn $48,000 this year. As a brand-new teacher, Michelle has none of the classroom decorations, materials, or curriculum aides that veteran teachers have accumulated. In an effort to quickly collect some necessary items for her classroom, a new teacher like Michelle will probably spend close to $1,500 of her own money. She will not be reimbursed for any of these expenses by the school district.

Under current law, Michelle's expenditures are deductible, subject to the two limitations I mentioned. The first limitation is that her expenses must exceed 2 percent of her and her husband's joint income before they begin to be deductible. Two percent of $48,000 is $960. Thus, only $540 of her $1,500 total expense is potentially deductible-- that portion that exceeds $960.

As a married taxpayer, Michelle's standard deduction this year is $11,400. Her total itemized deductions, including the $540 in qualified miscellaneous deductions for her professional expenses and out-of- pocket classroom supplies, will fall far short of the standard deduction threshold. Therefore, not even the $540 of the original $1,500 in out-of-pocket costs is deductible for Michelle. What the first limitation did not block, the second one did, and Michelle gets no deduction at all for these expenses under the current law.

The entry-level employees in the teaching field are the first- and second-year teachers like Michelle, who receive the lowest relative salary and yet often incur the greatest school-related expenses. These expenses place a heavy burden on our teachers and can act as a significant barrier to entry to the teaching profession. Many of these new teachers are renting and fresh out of college, and are thus very unlikely to be able to itemize their deductions. Therefore, without the ability to itemize, the teachers with the greatest need of tax relief are the ones least likely to receive it.

This problem is not isolated to first-year teachers. Veteran educators, like Kristen Adamson, also an elementary school teacher in Utah, have also expressed their concerns about this tax inequity. Kristen is preparing for a class of 35 fifth-graders next year--the most she's ever had. She, like most teachers, feels that it is her duty to provide all of her students with the materials they will need to successfully complete their school work. There are few careers that I know of in which employees take similar initiative.

This year, due to limited state funding, Kristen will be forced to choose between a class set of colored pencils or a class set of crayons. Whatever the district does not provide, Kristen will be forced to purchase herself. Further, the school district provides only one

notebook per student, but her pupils require a minimum of four each to organize their work. With 35 students, these costs can add up very quickly. Kristen typically does not have enough deductions to itemize and therefore, like most teachers, will receive little or no tax relief.

As you can see, public school educators are at a marked disadvantage under the current tax law, and they deserve better treatment. Not only is the situation morally unacceptable, it is aggravating to our teacher retention and recruitment problems.

I have been fighting to pass legislation that will help alleviate this long-standing problem for almost a decade. In 2001, I first introduced the Tax Equity for School Teachers Act. This legislation would have provided an unlimited tax deduction for the out-of-pocket expenses school teachers incur to acquire necessary training and materials.

Rather than being available only to those who are able to itemize their deductions, this bill would have made these expenses ``above-the- line'' deductions, meaning they would be deductible whether or not the teacher itemized on their tax return.

Unfortunately, only a part of this bill was enacted. The 2001 tax act included an above the-line deduction for $250 for the costs of classroom expenses. While this was a step in the right direction, it was essentially a symbolic gesture as teachers typically spend far more than $250 on school-related expenses. This deduction has expired and has been renewed several times, but it expired again at the end of last year. It is not clear when Congress is going to extend it.

The bill I am introducing today would do three things. First, it would reinstate the above-the-line deduction for teachers' out-of- pocket expenses for classroom supplies, make it permanent, and remove the $250 cap. Second, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the professional development expenses for school teachers. Finally, to assist in the recruitment of teachers in the most-needed fields, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the cost of professionals in the fields of math, science, and technology to certify to become public school teachers.

Under my bill, first-year teacher Michelle would be allowed to deduct all $1,500 of her professional development and classroom supplies expenses, whether she itemized or not. Similarly, Kristen would be able to deduct all of the expenses she incurred to provide materials for her students. This would help provide tax equity and a measure of much- needed tax relief for scores of underpaid professionals. It would also help retain current public school teachers and attract new ones to the field.

Some might argue that such a generous deduction would be giving teachers preferential treatment. I disagree. Most organizations provide training and supplies for their employees that are fully deductible to the organization and non-taxable to the employee. Yet, public teachers pay for training out of their own pocket, as is the case with NBPTS certification.

Others may question the wisdom of my bill granting an unlimited tax deduction. Why not place a limit or cap on the amount that may be deducted, some might ask. Again, I respectfully disagree with such critics. It is important to keep in mind the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit. My bill calls for tax deductions, which essentially act as a cost-sharing arrangement between the teacher and the government. Deductions reduce the amount of income that is subject to tax. A credit, on the other hand, is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of tax that is due.

With a tax deduction, a public school teacher is not receiving a cash subsidy or reimbursement for his or her expenses. Rather, he or she is merely obtaining a reduction in the amount of income that is taxed. Thus, the most benefit a teacher would receive under my bill would be a 35 percent reduction in the cost of professional development, supplies, or certification expenses. For the vast majority of teachers, the amount would be far less than 35 percent, because they are in lower tax brackets. This means that the teacher is still responsible for paying for the biggest portion of these costs. In other words, this bill does not provide an incentive for teachers to spend unnecessary funds; it simply provides a discount for teachers who use their common sense and spend their money appropriately. If anything, this deduction is not generous enough, but it would go a long way toward providing help for these dedicated professionals.

Support for mathematics and science education at all levels is necessary to improve the global competitiveness of the United States in science and energy technology. I endorse the efforts of some of my colleagues to encourage more of our best and brightest students who choose these fields of study. Sup ort for qualified STEM teachers, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, is equally important. If we are successful in increasing the supply of STEM students, we will need to take drastic measures to increase the already strained supply of STEM teachers. This bill would provide incentives for these professionals to enter the teaching profession by allowing expenses in connection with teacher licensing and certification to be fully deductible, above the line, the same as professional development and supplies expenses of teaching professionals.

This bill would provide modest tax relief for teachers who, for too long, have been treated unfairly under our tax laws. It would alleviate significant barriers to entry to the teaching profession and would help solve some of our teacher recruitment and retention problems. Our teachers deserve whatever help we can provide. It is time that Congress recognized this unfairness and corrected it. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 and to recognize the original cosponsors of the bill: Senator Warner, Senator Graham, Senator Snowe, Senator Sanders, Senator Brown of Massachusetts, Senator Merkley, Senator Stabenow, Senator Dodd, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Carper, Senator Pryor and Senator Harkin. This innovative legislation will save consumers money, create American skilled labor jobs, and reduce home energy consumption.

If enacted, HOME STAR will build on existing policies and initiatives that have already proved effective. The program is supported by a broad coalition of over 600 groups including construction contractors, building products and mechanical manufacturers, retail sales businesses, environmental groups and labor advocates.

HOME STAR will provide point-of-sale instant savings to encourage homeowners to install residential energy upgrades such as air sealing, insulation, and high efficiency furnaces and water heaters.

HOME STAR incorporates a two-tiered approach that will offer flexibility to homeowners when choosing efficiency improvements to install. Under the Silver Star program, rebates averaging $1,000 will be offered for the installation of each eligible energy-saving measure such as new insulation and high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, up to maximum of $3,000 per home. Under the Gold Star program, there will be performance-based grants of $3,000 for a 20 percent reduction in home energy consumption and $1,000 for each additional 5 percent of verified energy reduction as determined by a comparison of the energy consumption of the home before and after the retrofit.

In addition to the short-term rebate programs in Home Star, our revised bill includes longer term efficiency tax policies to maintain the momentum for energy efficient home retrofits. These performance- based energy improvement tax credits will encourage the continuation of Gold Star-type whole home retrofits.

HOME STAR will create American jobs in the construction industry, which has lost 1.6 million jobs since December 2007, with unemployment rates topping 25 percent in some regions. HOME STAR leverages private investment to create a strong market for home energy retrofits, and will put hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans back to work as well as stimulating demand for building materials produced by American factories.

Finally, HOME STAR will reduce home energy consumption and dependence on foreign oil. HOME STAR helps Americans pay for cost-effective home improvements, create permanent reductions in household energy bills, and reduce our national carbon footprint. Residential energy efficiency improvements covered by the HOME STAR program reduce energy waste in most homes by 20 to 40 percent. When combined with low-interest financing, these retrofits can be cash-flow positive upon project completion. An initiative with a potential to retrofit over 3 million homes, HOME STAR will achieve significant reductions in building- related greenhouse gas emissions while generating long-term energy savings for American consumers and reducing energy usage by an amount equal to four 300 megawatt power plants.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would transfer administrative jurisdiction of the Valles Caldera National Preserve from the Valles Caldera Trust to the National Park Service. I am pleased that my colleague from New Mexico, Tom Udall, is cosponsoring the bill.

Between the New Mexico communities of Jemez Springs and Los Alamos, lies the Valle Grande, a magnificent valley surrounded by foothills and forested mountains. When standing in this valley, visitors begin to realize they are actually inside a larger bowl-shaped formation. This is the Valles Caldera--one of only three supervolcanoes in the United States. The oldest of the three--having formed 1.25 million years ago-- the Valles Caldera is also the smallest. Yet the caldera rim spans more than 100,000 acres in area whose violent eruption created a volcanic ash plume that stretched from northern Utah to central Kansas. Because of its relatively small size as compared to the two other supervolcanoes in the U.S.--Yellowstone, WY, and Long Valley, CA, the Valles Caldera provides visitors with excellent opportunities to learn about large volcanic eruptions and their impacts on surrounding landscapes while they stand in a single space to experience one of the world's best examples of an intact resurgent caldera. In 1975, the Valles Caldera received formal recognition as an outstanding and nationally significant geologic resource when it was designated a National Natural Landmark.

As is the case in many parts of New Mexico, the geologic history of the Valles Caldera is inextricably linked to our State's cultural history. For example, the people of Jemez Pueblo chose the area as the best site to establish their community. The Valles Caldera and the adjacent Jemez Mountains provided the Pueblo with an ample food and water supply, natural defenses, and weapon-making materials present in the many obsidian quarries found in the area. In fact, the obsidian was of such high quality that spearheads made from these quarries have been discovered as far away as eastern Mississippi and northern Mexico. Needless to say, the Valles Caldera and the peaks that formed within it are sacred and highly revered by Jemez Pueblo and many other nearby tribes and pueblos.

The volcanic ash dispersed by the volcano's eruption also had a lasting impact on the history of migration and settlement by Ancestral Puebloan people in the region. As the ash and pumice settled, it formed layers of sediment, and over time, rivers helped to carve these layers into deep canyons. Archeologists have found evidence of nomadic tribes following large mammals into the region, and Ancestral Puebloans built homes alongside and into the soft canyon walls. Many of these awe- inspiring settlements are protected in Bandelier National Monument, where the National Park Service educates visitors about how the unique volcanic history of the Valles Caldera made these settlements possible.

There is no question that this area is worthy of Federal protection, and efforts to preserve this area were proposed as early as 1899. However, it was only ten years ago that the Federal government was finally able to acquire this property for the American people. At that time, Senator Domenici and I were successful in passing the Valles Caldera Preservation Act which authorized the acquisition of the property and established an experimental framework for the management of the Preserve for a period of 20 years. The legislation established the Valles Caldera Trust, composed of a nine-member board of trustees, whose members are appointed by the President and have particular expertise in fields important to the management of the Preserve. The bill also directed the Trust to manage the Preserve in a manner that would achieve financial self-sustainability after fifteen years. Five years thereafter, the Trust would be Although the individual members have done their best to fulfill the original legislative directives, time has shown in my opinion that this management framework is not the best suited for the long-term management of the Preserve.

Part of the experimental management framework was a requirement that the Valles Caldera Trust manage the Preserve in a manner that would achieve financial self-sustainability while providing for public access and protection of the Preserve's natural and cultural resources. This has proved to be a virtually impossible mandate to satisfy. Since its inception, the Preserve has not received adequate funding under the current arrangement and is unlikely to in the foreseeable future. In addition, most members of the board and outside observers believe the Trust will be unable to achieve the financial self-sustainability requirements called for by the original Act. The Trust has also indicated an infusion of approximately $15 million may be necessary to complete construction and deferred maintenance costs on the Preserve. I do not believe this funding will be forthcoming under the current management and budgetary framework. Moreover, much of the funding responsibility has been laid on the shoulders of Congress to provide the necessary annual funding that is not included in the President's annual budget. This arrangement is not sustainable in my opinion, and the existing statutory termination of the trust is looming.

With that said, the trust and its executive staff have made valuable progress in various areas of management. One prime example is the science and education program established by the Trust. Through the scientific activities on the preserve, the trust has been able to adapt its management based on the ecological demands of the caldera. The trust has promoted the scientific research of flora and fauna on the preserve and the impacts of climate change in the Jemez Mountains to cite a few of their ongoing activities. It is my belief that the transition in management should allow for the retention of the best management practices that the Trust has achieved.

Many New Mexicans have told me that they would like the preserve to be managed by an agency that will expand visitation and recreational opportunities while also ensuring the protection of the preserve's unique resources. Simply put, while my constituents eagerly want more access, they have stated clearly and directly--``Don't overrun it.''

I believe the National Park Service is best suited to manage the preserve while ensuring its long-term conservation.

The National Park Service's mission supports the activities called for most by my constituents, including expanded recreational opportunities, scientific study, and the interpretation of the natural and cultural resources in the preserve. As I discussed earlier, the Preserve provides a world-class opportunity for the interpretation of the geologic history of this unique area and of the fascinating geologic and cultural history that binds the Valles

Caldera and Bandelier National Monument.

Under our proposed legislation, management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve will be transferred to the National Park Service to be administered as a unit of the National Park System. The bill directs the Park Service to manage the Preserve to protect and preserve its natural and cultural resources, including its nationally significant geologic resources. Hunting and fishing would continue to be allowed, and grazing would also continue to be permitted. The National Park Service would also be directed to establish a science and education program utilizing the best practices created by the trust, as I discussed earlier.

The legislation would maintain the existing character of the preserve while strengthening protections for tribal, cultural, and religious sites and providing access by pueblos to the preserve. In addition, in consultation with the surrounding pueblos, restrictions will be put in place on the development and motorized vehicle use on the sacred volcanic domes within the preserve, similar to the current restrictions on Redondo Peak, the highest peak within the preserve.

I would like to emphasize that in no way is this legislation a criticism of the good work and valuable accomplishments made by the Board Members of the Valles Caldera Trust and the preserve staff. However, I believe having the preserve managed by the National Park Service--an agency with a mission protecting natural, historic, and cultural resources while also providing for public enjoyment of those resources--is more appropriate for the long-term future of the Valles Caldera. In my view, the desire for increased public access, balanced with the need to protect and interpret the Preserve's unique cultural and natural resources, would be best served by National Park Service management of the preserve.

It is my strong belief that transferring management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve to the National Park Service will be the best way to ensure the protection and enjoyment of the preserve over the long term. I urge my colleagues to support the bill as it is considered in the Senate.

The Los Alamos County Council and Los Alamos Chamber of Commerce have submitted resolutions in support of National Park Service management of the preserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these resolutions be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thank my colleague for his courtesy in allowing me to return to the Chamber and also indicate that this particular provision on biodiesel, which I strongly support, is in the underlying jobs bill. We hope to have this passed in a couple of days. We will have another opportunity to vote on this shortly. As a result of that, I object.

Reserving the right to object, I again say to my colleague, we will have an opportunity to address this. We had two opportunities last week to address it and did not get the votes. Hopefully, in the next couple days, we will be able to resolve these issues. I object.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Republican time has now ended.

We have 15 minutes to wrap up. Is that my understanding?

First, as a courtesy to my colleagues, I will offer a unanimous consent request at the beginning of our comments, and this relates to the nearly 1 million people who have lost their jobs who have now lost their unemployment benefits because of the inability to move this forward in terms of extending unemployment benefits through the end of November.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3520

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3520, the Unemployment Extension Act of 2010, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to now speak both in response to some of what my friends on the other side of the aisle have said and also to talk about why we are here this evening, why we started this whole discussion this evening.

I remember when we, in fact, balanced the budget. We passed a balanced budget under President Clinton. I was against deficits then when I voted, for the first time in 30 years, to balance the budget. I was against deficits when I supported a different way to go with the largest surpluses created by the policies of President Clinton, when I said just focusing on the wealthy in this country and tax benefits for the wealthy not only was not fair, but it was going to balloon the deficit; that not paying for two wars was going to balloon the deficit; that not paying for really any major policy during the 8 years of the Bush administration would balloon the deficit. I was against deficits at that time as well, and I am still against deficits.

When we talk about what happened in the last 8 years, it is not to go back, but it is to learn from what did not work for the American people. One of my friends on the other side of the aisle said they were for private-sector jobs and we were for public-sector jobs. Well, the reality is, during the last 8 years, when deficits did not matter--I will never forget the former Vice President saying deficits did not matter. When they were trying to pass their policies that affected the wealthiest in the country, at the expense of the middle class, deficits did not matter.

But we lost 6 million private-sector jobs during that time--6 million manufacturing jobs--when there was a focus on cheap products instead of American jobs. We lost jobs. Well, deficits mattered to me at that time too, as well as deficits in jobs, which is the main engine of our economy: middle class jobs.

Well, it is true. When we came into the majority and President Obama came into office, after that time of losing 750,000 jobs a month, we took a different tack. We did. We said: Do you

know what. Instead of focusing on big bailouts for Wall Street, and losing 8 million jobs because of that, or people losing their pensions or 401(k)s, we think we ought to have a different set of priorities. We think we ought to focus on the middle class in this country and working people and people who spend all their lives playing by the rules who are saying: What about us?

So we did something different. We put in an investment jobs plan that our colleagues have spent the last year and a half trying to talk down, trying to make sure it did not work. But we put in place a jobs plan to begin to turn things around. And that 750,000 jobs that were lost a month that President Obama inherited went down to zero by the end of the year.

As shown on this chart, this is where we were on jobs in the Bush administration. If their approach had worked, I would say great. If people in my State had not been hit by an economic tsunami during this time, I would say great. I would be out here promoting it. I would be promoting what they are talking about--if it had worked for the majority of Americans. The problem is it did not work.

Now, people listening I know get very confused because there are all kinds of back and forth and different versions of what happened in history. I would ask people just to think about their own lives.

As shown on this chart, it did not work here, starting in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. I can tell you, in my State, where we lost a million jobs, these policies did not work. So we tried something else, when we started focusing on people, investing in innovation, partnering with manufacturers--private-sector jobs.

Yesterday, I went to a facility groundbreaking for a battery manufacturing plant. We have 16 different battery manufacturing facilities in Michigan now because of the Recovery Act that are creating private-sector jobs. The manufacturing tax credit we put in for alternative energies is creating private-sector jobs. Now, they are not as fast as we want. They are not as fast as we need. But we are beginning to turn this huge economic ship around. The ship that was going down, down, down--we are beginning to turn it around. We are beginning to turn it around.

My colleagues say we should help people who are out of work by taking money away from this. Let's stop this. Let's take money away from creating jobs to help people out of work.

Well, that does not make any sense. What we have said is we want to continue this. That is why we are saying no to the proposals. That is why I objected to proposals tonight on the floor that sound great on the surface. They sound great. Well, why not just pay for it? Well, you are talking about taking money away from jobs in order to be able to put it into something that is desperately needed as well--both are needed--helping people who are out of work.

We say no. Keep investing. Keep moving it forward, and at the same time--at the same time--let's help people who are out of work in the same way every President--Republican and Democrat--for decades has done; that is, we call it an emergency. It is an emergency in this country when over 15 million people are out of work. And the reality is, from an economic standpoint, we will never get out of a deficit with over 15 million people not working and contributing to the tax base and contributing to the economy, buying things as consumers. We will never get out of debt.

So, yes, we do have a different view. We do. We have a view that worked under President Clinton when 22 million jobs were created. We have that same view now, that same view that says we are going to move ourselves out of this by investing in the middle class of this country, working people. We are going to invest in innovation. We are going to partner with our businesses. They are competing with countries around the world right now to create good private-sector jobs.

And, yes, to support small business, we have done more in tax policies related to small business, and we intend to do even more than I think at any other time I can think of in terms of support for small business. All of that is true.

Mr. President, in order for my colleague from Pennsylvania to speak, will you please tell me when there is 5 minutes left of our time. I do not want to lose the opportunity for the Senator from Pennsylvania to be able to speak.

Before the 5 minutes?

Mr. President, I thank you very much.

Let me conclude by saying we are moving in the right direction, but we inherited a huge hole. By the way, the folks who created the hole want us to give them more shovels to go back and create another hole, a deeper hole. We are saying, do you know what. Take away the shovels. Take them away. We need to fill in the hole, not dig a deeper one.

So that is what we have been doing. But here is the reality. It was six people out of work for every one job. Now it is five. OK, it is moving in the right direction. We have a long ways to go. But five people are looking and trying to find every one job. That is what this debate is all about.

Millions of people--most of them worked all their lives, never been out of work in their entire life and are humiliated at the idea they have to ask for help from anybody--find themselves in a position where they are going to lose their house, they are not going to be able to care for their kids, unless we give them the dignity of temporary help. That is all this is, the dignity of temporary help, and the dignity of saying, yes, this is an emergency; yes, we are not changing the rules just for you. We are not going to have a different set of rules for the wealthy in this country and separate rules for somebody who is out of work who is 55 years old who has worked all their life.

That is what this is about, and it is my great pleasure tonight, as we end, and as we continue to fight for these Americans, to turn our final 5 minutes over to the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has been a real champion standing up for working families in this country.

Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

On that note, I will simply say again that we are here and we will continue to be here fighting on behalf of people who are counting on us to do the right thing. We remember what it is like for too many families right now whose breadwinner cannot bring home any bread because there is no job. We want to remember them and we want to help them and support them as they are looking for work, as all Americans want to be able to have a job and the dignity of work, and that is what we are fighting for.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express support for S. 3307, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, and to introduce two pieces of legislation that I hope will be included in the final reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act that is passed by this body.

I commend Chairman Lincoln and Ranking Member Chambliss for their successful efforts to produce a bipartisan and fully paid for Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill--a bill that won unanimous support in the Agriculture Committee where it passed this past March.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is critically important to the health, well-being, and even education of our nation's children. It seeks to confront the challenges of hunger and obesity that are increasingly pervasive in our youth. Specifically, the act reauthorizes our nation's major Federal child nutrition programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, including the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, WIC, the Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Service Program.

Totaling $4.5 billion in additional funding over the next 10 years, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act is the largest new investment in child nutrition programs since their inception--and it is completely paid for by off-sets in other USDA programs. This added funding will allow for an increase in reimbursement rates for school meals, which is an important provision since current reimbursement rates fall short of the funding schools need in order to provide nutritious meals with fresh fruits and vegetables to students. The bill also makes mandatory the funding authorized in the Child Nutrition Act to help schools establish school gardens and source local foods through ``farm to cafeteria'' efforts.

Beyond funding, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act makes enrollment into the free school meals program automatic for foster children and for students already enrolled in Medicaid. The bill further promotes the establishment of school wellness policies, and allows the USDA to set school nutrition standards for all foods, including those sold a la carte, in vending machines and during special events such as afterschool sports.

While this bill, combined with the President's request of $10 billion for child nutrition programs over the next 10 years, represents a huge step toward a healthier population of young people, I believe there is room for even more improvement. To this end, I am today introducing the Child Nutrition Enhancement Act, and the Ensuring All Students Year- Round, EASY, Access to Meals and Snacks Act. These two bills will help schools ramp up their nutrition and health programs, and ensure that kids have access to food, even on weekends and holidays when they cannot get meals at school. These bills also enjoy House support, with Representatives Polis and Larsen already having introduced companions in that chamber.

The Child Nutrition Enhancement Act would expand the Team Nutrition Networks program, a USDA program that provides grants to school districts to support State Wellness and Nutrition Networks in schools that conduct nutrition education and enhance school wellness. To allow this expansion, the bill includes mandatory funding at a level of 1 cent per reimbursable meal through National School Lunch Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program, totaling approximately $70 million per year. Such funding would be used for State staff and programs, formula-based grants and USDA administration.

The Ensuring All Students Year-round Access to Meals and Snacks Act would allow local government agencies and private nonprofit organizations to feed children meals and snacks 365 days-a-year through the Summer Food Service Program, whether it be after school, on weekends and school holidays, or during the summer. School supplemental food providers find that children often go hungry on weekends and school holidays because their main source of nutrition is the free school lunch program. This bill would allow food service programs to fill in the gaps on holidays and weekends when kids are likely to miss meals, and ease the administrative burden of food service programs by allowing year round meals and snacks through the Summer Food Service Program, rather the current requirement to switch back and forth between the Summer Food Service Program and other child nutrition programs such as the Child and Adult Care Food Program.

With September 30th as the looming deadline for reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, I call on my colleagues and the leadership in the Senate to expedite the debate and passage of the Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act. I look forward to working with the Agriculture Committee and the Senate leadership to include the Child Nutrition Enhancement Act, and the EASY Access to Meals and Snacks Act in the final bill, and to complete the legislative process for this important reauthorization.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Bingaman in introducing a bill to designate the Valles Caldera National Preserve as a unit of the National Park System. Known as the Valle Grande, this icon of the Jemez Mountains is one of the largest volcanic calderas in the world. The vast grass-filled valleys, forested hillsides, and numerous volcanic peaks make the Valles Caldera a treasure to New Mexico, and a landscape of national significance millions of years in the making.

Volcanic activity began in the Jemez Mountains about 10 million years ago. This activity reached a climax about 1.5 million years ago with a series of explosive rhyolitic eruptions that dropped hundreds of meters of volcanic ash for miles surrounding the caldera, and gave the surrounding area its distinctive landscapes of pink and white tuff overlaying the black basalts of the Rio Grande Rift. In the millennia following the Caldera's explosive creation, natural processes of erosion and weathering carved vibrant canyons and left pinion topped mesa stretching like fingers away from the massive caldera. As the great valley was drained of magma, and later a caldera lake, it filled with the diversity of plants and wildlife that makes the area so valuable to biologists and ecologists today. With such resources and natural beauty, it is no wonder that for millennia people have also been an integral part Valle Grande.

For generations innumerable, the Valles Caldera has been a part of life for the Pueblo Tribes of northern New Mexico. Today, the caldera continues to have important cultural and religious significance, something that must and will be respected and protected as the preserve moves into the management of the National Park Service.

In recent centuries, the Valles Caldera has been often in private ownership beginning with Spanish settlers who introduced livestock to the grassy valleys that continue to fatten elk and cattle in the summer months. Recognizing the unique national significance of the caldera, the Federal Government finally purchased the area in 2000 through the Valles Caldera Preservation Act, which I was proud to help shepherd through Congress with Senator Bingaman and then-Senator Domenici. The subsequent creation of the Valles Caldera National Preserve included the creation of a board of directors and the Valles Caldera Trust to manage the area. The legislation also included mandates for stakeholder involvement and eventual financial self-sufficiency of the preserve.

As Senator Bingaman and I take steps today to begin a transition of the Valles Caldera into the National Park System, I want to applaud the decade of work that both the Board of Trustees and the Valles Caldera Trust have dedicated to the preserve. I especially want to highlight the contributions of individual employees who have been on the ground in the caldera, day after day, developing research programs that utilize the unmatched natural resources of the caldera, managing cattle grazing and expanding the livestock program to include cutting edge scientific research, and extending educational opportunities in the caldera to students from across state and the country.

With the heavy mandate of self-sufficiency looming and the annual struggle to get sufficient funding for the caldera, Senator Bingaman and I are proposing a new direction forward. As a new unit of the National Park Service, the National Preserve will have a sustainable future with greater access to the public.

Since 1939, the National Park Service has conducted numerous studies of the Valles Caldera. In each, the Park Service consistently deemed the area of significant national value because of its unique and unaltered geology, and its singular setting, which are conducive to public recreation, reflection, education, and research. With this legislation the Secretary of Interior is directed to continue the longstanding grazing, education, and hunting programs that so many New Mexicans value as a once-ina-lifetime opportunity. By utilizing the resources and skills within the National Park Service, I believe the Valles Caldera National Preserve will continue to prosper as a natural wonder full of significant geology, ecology, history, and culture.

The Valle Grande is truly that: a great valley that so very many New Mexicans value and feel connected to. The future of the preserve is of utmost importance to us in New Mexico, and also has significance nationally. I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman and all of the stakeholders who care about the future of this preserve to ensure that this legislation emerges from the legislative process with improvements that are supported by my colleagues in the Senate and-- most importantly--by the people of New Mexico.