[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 9, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2780-S2811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




NEW DIRECTION FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND CONSUMER 
PROTECTION ACT AND THE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION TAX ACT 
                                OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3221, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3221) moving the United States toward greater 
     energy independence and security, developing innovative new 
     technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, 
     protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy 
     production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, and to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax 
     incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy 
     conservation.

  Pending:

       Dodd/Shelby amendment No. 4387, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Sanders modified amendment No. 4401 (to amendment No. 
     4387), to establish a maximum rate of interest for loans 
     insured under title II of the National Housing Act.
       Cardin/Ensign amendment No. 4421 (to amendment No. 4387), 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit 
     against income tax for the purchase of a principal residence 
     by a first-time home buyer.
       Ensign amendment No. 4419 (to amendment No. 4387), to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the limited 
     continuation of clean energy production incentives and 
     incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to prevent a 
     downturn in these sectors that would result from a lapse in 
     the tax law.
       Alexander amendment No. 4429 (to amendment No. 4419), to 
     provide a longer extension of the renewable energy production 
     tax credit and to encourage all emerging renewable sources of 
     electricity.
       Nelson (FL)/Coleman amendment No. 4423 (to amendment No. 
     4387), to provide for the penalty-free use of retirement 
     funds to provide foreclosure recovery relief for individuals 
     with mortgages on their principal residences.
       Lincoln amendment No. 4382 (to amendment No. 4387), to 
     provide an incentive to employers to offer group legal plans 
     that provide a benefit for real estate and foreclosure 
     review.
       Lincoln (for Snowe) amendment No. 4433 (to amendment No. 
     4387), to modify the increase in volume cap for housing bonds 
     in 2008.
       Landrieu amendment No. 4404 (to amendment No. 4387), to 
     amend the provisions relating to qualified mortgage bonds to 
     include relief for persons in areas affected by Hurricanes 
     Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
       Sanders amendment No. 4384 (to amendment No. 4387), to 
     provide an increase in specially adapted housing benefits for 
     disabled veterans.
       Murray amendment No. 4478 (to amendment No. 4387), to 
     increase funding for housing counseling with an offset.
       Mikulski amendment No. 4494 (to amendment No. 4478), to 
     make additional funds available to the Neighborhood 
     Reinvestment Corporation to increase legal assistance 
     available to homeowners at risk of foreclosure and assistance 
     to community organizations working to preserve home ownership 
     and prevent foreclosure, with an offset.

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


   Congratulating Tennessee Volunteers and the University of Memphis

  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise today, while business is slow in 
the Senate, to send my strong congratulations to the University of 
Tennessee Lady Vols who again excelled and set an example for our 
country in the way they conducted themselves.
  Pat Summitt has a tremendous legacy in our State. She is someone who 
not only is an outstanding coach and has won eight national 
championships, but she also teaches players life examples and ways to 
be successful later in life. Our students who play on the Lady Vols 
team are steeped and focused on academics and being successful later in 
life. The way she has led the Vols and led our State by her actions and 
the way this team has excelled is something to be congratulated and 
certainly makes all of us in Tennessee and in our country proud.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S2780, April 9, 2008, the Record reads: . . . Pat Summit 
. . .
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . Pat Summitt 
. . .


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  I also extend my congratulations to the University of Memphis. 
Memphis has also done an outstanding job. Coach John Calapiari has been 
a great addition to our State. While they fell short earlier this week 
in reaching the national championship, they still raised our excitement 
level in Tennessee and our tremendous respect for the University of 
Memphis and what they have accomplished. I am sure at some point in the 
near future they will achieve the ultimate goal they have of winning 
the national championship. My hat is off to both of these outstanding 
coaches, to both of these teams and programs which focus on student 
excellence and making sure players are prepared for life. I join 
Tennesseans all across the State in congratulating them and telling 
them how proud we are of all of them.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, last Saturday, I held two town meetings 
in Vermont on the collapse of the middle class, and both of them were 
very well attended. Our guest speaker was Elizabeth Warren, who is a 
professor of law at Harvard Law School and one of the leading writers 
in this county on economic matters.
  In preparation for that meeting, I sent out an e-mail on my Web site 
just asking people in Vermont to tell me their personal experiences 
regarding what is happening to the middle class. We have done that in 
the past and, frankly, I expected we would get a couple dozen 
responses. What happened was really astounding to me and speaks about 
what is going on in the economy in this country today. Over a period of 
a few days, we have now had some 500 responses, mostly from Vermont, 
but also I do a national radio show, and we made a similar request 
nationally, and we have had some from out of State. They are mostly 
from Vermont, some from out of State, but a total of some 500 
responses.
  What was absolutely astounding was the nature of these responses. 
They were so powerful, so overwhelming, that, in fact, they were 
sometimes difficult to read. Person after person wrote with amazing 
honesty and with an articulateness which comes from telling the truth. 
They were not giving a great speech, as we often do here in the Senate, 
talking about everything under the Sun. They were talking from their 
own hearts. They were talking about what it means to be trying to raise 
kids, trying to send your kids to college, trying to pay your fuel 
bills, fill up your gas tank when you get to work--amazing stories. We 
are going to post many of them on our Web site.
  What I want to do this morning, because I think it is terribly 
important that the Senate hears from ordinary people to get a sense of 
what is really going on in America, the struggles people are having--
maybe it is a good idea we hear from the people rather than just 
campaign contributors, rather than just lobbyists. The language I heard 
that came to my Web site was extraordinary. So what I want to do this 
morning--I have the feeling I will be doing it more than once--is just 
have you listen to what people have to say, reading exactly the words 
they have written to me.
  Let me begin by reading an e-mail that came from a small town in 
northern Vermont. I am going to do my best to disguise the identities 
of the writers. But this is from a small town near the Canadian border. 
This is what this writer says.:

       My family has been squeezed for years now. My husband and I 
     have two children. My husband works full time and has a 
     degree. He works 60 miles away from home, and has tried to 
     find a new job closer but has been unable to do so. I tried 
     for 2 years to find a job, when I could not find a job I went 
     back to school. I am hoping that my degree will help our 
     family.

[[Page S2781]]

       The price of gas and oil now consumes 30% of our disposable 
     income. We have cut back on groceries, and recently was only 
     able to get groceries because my parents were nice enough to 
     give us money. We are going to buy a woodstove because we are 
     afraid we will not be able to afford oil next year. We do not 
     qualify for LIHEAP. My husband got a raise last year that 
     disappeared on Jan. 1st when the cost of our health insurance 
     increased. We have to have reduced cost lunch for our 
     children, we cannot afford to put our children on his health 
     insurance plan, and luckily they are on Dr. Dynasaur--

  Which is the SCHIP program in Vermont--

     but now we have to pay a premium where we didn't last year.
       We have stopped doing any fun things. We have not been able 
     to go out to eat in a long time, or to bring the kids to see 
     a movie. There are no treats. I am praying that after I 
     graduate I will be able to find a job to help my family out. 
     Of course when I go back to work both my husband and I will 
     have to start paying our student loans, and this payment will 
     amount to about $500 per month. But what other option do we 
     have? I couldn't find work. He can't find a better job closer 
     to home.
       Both my husband and I have degrees, we did everything 
     right, we are not doing better than our parents when they 
     were our age.
       If it wasn't for our parents we would be worse off. Our 
     parents have helped us with oil. My parents gave us $600 last 
     year to pay for our oil, my husband's parents helped us with 
     car repairs so we wouldn't go into debt. My parents have 
     given us grocery money and bought our kids school clothes. I 
     don't know what we would do without our parents.
       This is demoralizing, my husband keeps asking when will we 
     be able to actually afford to support our own family? I'm not 
     sure what the answer is.
       Thank you for listening.

  That is a letter from a woman in northern Vermont.
  This is a letter from a woman in north central Vermont whose job, it 
turns out, was outsourced. This is what she writes:

       My husband and I are in our mid-fifties. At this time of 
     our lives we should be at our peak earning power, putting 
     money away for our retirement. Two years ago, we were, but 
     now we are making about $42,000 between us and struggling 
     through this Vermont winter.
       I was an international IT manager, making a nice salary 
     then. I spent 14 years getting my AS, BS and then my Masters 
     degree from Champlain College.

  Which is a college in Burlington, VT.

       We were comfortable, and able to go on a nice vacation 
     every couple of years. Then the company I worked for for 18 
     years outsourced its entire IT operation to India. I received 
     a layoff package, but at my age it took me a while to find a 
     job for one third of my previous salary, and that job is not 
     even in my field--I am an accounting technician now.
       My husband was laid off from a job as an electrician's 
     assistant and he is now working in a hardware store. He makes 
     $3 less per hour now.
       Both of our moms are near 80 and live with us. We also help 
     to take care of our next-door neighbor, who is 83. We are 
     struggling to keep up with our bills. Fortunately when we 
     refinanced our home several years ago, we took a fixed 
     rate mortgage. Even so, our heating, gas and even grocery 
     costs are rising so quickly and our salaries are not.
       When I was younger, I found it easier to regroup from a 
     loss like this, but then everyone wanted to hire me when I 
     was younger. I thought the government was ``of the people, by 
     the people and for the people,'' but it seems to me that it's 
     mostly ``of the people, by the lobbyists and for the rich.'' 
     By the time we get to retirement, maybe when we're 70 at this 
     rate, Social Security and Medicare will be gone and we'll be 
     on our own. I feel as though our government has sold us out 
     and even if we elect a new President who cares for the 
     people, it will take too long to recover for us to reach a 
     comfortable place again.
       Thank you for listening Senator Sanders.

  This is a very brief e-mail that we received from a small town in 
central Vermont:

       Between my retirement & SS [Social Security], I get a grand 
     total of $804 a month. My last oil delivery was over $600 for 
     the month of March.
       That's my story--and I'm stuck with it.
       Thank you, Senator, for trying to ``make it better.''

  This is from the wife of a logger in northern Vermont. A lot of 
people in the State of Vermont earn their money in the woods. They go 
out and they cut trees.

       This is the toughest time I have seen since I was a child. 
     My husband is a self employed logger and has an excavation 
     business. The way the economy is has really hit in both of 
     his employment very hard. The price of logs have dropped 
     drastically and no one is building.
       He has extremely high blood pressure but some how we can't 
     receive any help. We do have catamount blue health insurance 
     that we pay $250.00 a month for but that does not cover some 
     of his medicine nor does it cover all hospital bills. We have 
     exhausted any savings we had but still have a small IRA but 
     cannot touch that with out being penalized. We have had to 
     refinance our home of 34 years and I have just started a job 
     but it requires me to travel 35 miles one way to work and 
     with the price of gas it is almost a hopeless case.
       I'm sure there are other people in worse shape than us, but 
     I have to wonder why the government is not helping the 
     working person? The only thing I guess a working person has 
     is pride.
       Is it worth it?????? I'm really beginning to wonder!

  This is from a 57-year-old working widow, again from the central 
Vermont area. This is what she says:

       I have no--

  Underline ``no''--

     disposable income. Like many Vermonters I drive a long way to 
     my job and consider myself lucky to have one and like most 
     jobs in Vermont it does not pay as well as the same job in 
     other areas of the country. My roundtrip mileage is 60 miles 
     per day. I invested in an America made hybrid in 2004 which 
     gets between 25 to 30 mpg [miles per gallon]. Also, the 
     organization I work for does not reimburse me at the federal 
     rate for the miles charged to them. I have to have more and 
     more money each week to pay for that week's gas and then wait 
     to be reimbursed. It really is a tough squeeze and some of my 
     co-workers are in tighter spots.
       I was fortunate to have locked in fuel oil last Spring at 
     $2.46/gallon for 800 gallons. This is to supplement wood 
     burning. However, I fell on the ice in December and hurt my 
     shoulder which makes lifting wood difficult therefore I 
     turned the thermostat back to 60 and live that way. Now the 
     thermostat is back to 50 and the burner only comes on to heat 
     hot water. I stopped using hot water to wash my clothes over 
     a year ago and just use cold water. I don't notice a 
     difference.
       I have not had a vacation except a long weekend in years. 
     At 57 and a widow and a woman, I can look forward to living 
     in poverty. I am thankful for the things I have and pray that 
     I can hold onto them. I have first hand experience that there 
     are many, many Vermonters that have much less and are falling 
     through the cracks. They do not have enough food to eat and 
     are ``too rich'' for fuel programs.
       I have a friend who is legally blind and lives on less than 
     $800 per month. She lives in Senior housing so her rent is 
     subsidized but she still has to pay for utilities and food. 
     How does she buy food and clothing on this pathetic amount of 
     money?
       How can we be the richest nation in the world and allow 
     this to happen?
       I vote. I give to charities when I can albeit small amounts 
     but how can I move mountains? I pray for peace and justice 
     because I don't know what else to do and I am thankful for 
     what I have and for what I am able to do.
       I appreciate your keeping important issues before the 
     public.

  As I said, these are stories from Vermont. But we have received 
similar-type stories from all over America. Let me conclude with four 
stories from families in States other than Vermont.
  This is from a young man in Tulsa, OK:

       Thank you so much for allowing me to tell the story of how 
     our family is being squeezed by the current economic 
     conditions in our country. . . .
       In December of 2000, I started work for my current company 
     at the ``bottom rung of the ladder.'' I was changing careers 
     yet again and the old saying ``you can't start at the top'' 
     certainly applied. I have since worked my way up from a 
     starting position, part time at $7.65 an hour, through 3 
     promotions and into a management position in the mid $30k a 
     year salary range. That used to be an ok salary here in 
     Oklahoma. Not anymore.
       The rising cost of fuel, food, utilities and other 
     necessities has turned my ``ok'' salary into a near poverty-
     level experience for my family. In addition to the above 
     mentioned costs, I experienced a $102 per month increase in 
     my portion of the premium for my ``employer provided'' family 
     health coverage.
       I don't get it. I work hard, every day. I show up on time 
     every day, give it everything I have and never back off and 
     somehow everything except my salary is going up at an 
     alarming rate. My parents taught me that no matter what, if 
     we worked hard enough and never gave up, we'd get somewhere. 
     It seems these days, that doesn't hold true anymore.
       Please encourage your colleagues in D.C. to do something, 
     and hurry. I am doing all I can and it just isn't enough.

  This one is from a young engineer in Gladstone, OR:

       I am a 26-year-old college graduate with a master's degree 
     in mechanical engineering. I have been working for two years 
     as an engineer in the Portland, OR metropolitan area, and 
     though I consider my compensation for my job to be 
     appropriate for my level of education and expertise (about 
     $60,000 a year), I am still struggling to make ends meet in 
     this economy.
       Despite the fact that my home mortgage payment has remained 
     stable, I am finding that the average price of energy and 
     commodities has increased such that I can no longer afford to 
     contribute to my 401(k) retirement plan, and I am living 
     month-to-

[[Page S2782]]

     month with only about $200 in savings. I pay about $300 for 
     gasoline, $200 for heat, $100 for electricity, and about $400 
     for food every month. This is fully twice as much as I was 
     paying for the same expenses just 2 short years ago. Ouch!
       My situation is ironic and a bit frustrating. Whereas I now 
     make over four times what I made as a graduate student, I 
     live with the same quality of life as I did in college. I 
     cannot afford vacations or extravagant purchases, and I am 
     burdened as so many people are these days with a persistent 
     worry about getting sick or injured and stuck with a medical 
     bill that I cannot afford.
       I realize that I am nobody special in terms of how hard I 
     work or how much I pay for food and gas or how ``sad'' my 
     story is, and that is why I write to you. I am moved by the 
     stories of how these middle-class families are surviving, and 
     I can sympathize with them in terms of some of the financial 
     worry they are experiencing. It is hard for me, it must be 
     incredibly difficult for them.
       Thank you for your time and thank you for your service as a 
     U.S. Senator, and thank you for providing a forum like this.

  This is from a 30-year-old man from the Pacific Northwest who feels 
the American dream has failed him. This is what he writes:

       I was raised in extreme poverty. My mom had a 9th grade 
     education and my father dropped out in 6th grade. My brother, 
     3 years my senior, dropped out of high school in 1996, the 
     year I graduated. I never knew a house; we grew up in one and 
     two bedroom apartments. I also never knew I was raised in 
     poverty until adulthood--when I tried to transcend this state 
     of economic marginalization.
       I was the first of my family to graduate high school. Four 
     years later I entered junior college; transferred to a 
     private four-year institution and earned both an 
     undergraduate and graduate degree. I also earned $70,000 in 
     student loan debt. At that point, I had never earned more 
     than $7,000 in my life.
       Three years after college, I purchased my first home. You 
     guessed it--my loan was predatory and was one of those ARMs. 
     This was the first home ever purchased in the Ryan family. As 
     you know, to truly gain a firm stance in the middle class, 
     one must own property.
       I earned $50,000 in 1997, more money than I've ever known. 
     Yet I still have to charge my groceries or medications. My 
     ARM matured and my mortgage raised $300 over night. The first 
     home in my family is likely to go back to the bank and I'm 
     falling short of the finish line in the race out of poverty.
       I'm now in credit card debt just to buy the essentials and 
     my student loan debt haunts me most days of my life. I feel 
     disillusioned by the ``American dream and the American middle 
     class.'' If you graduate, if you go to college, if you . . . 
     then you will rise above the poverty line. Let me tell you, 
     Mr. Sanders, I feel more impoverished today than I ever have. 
     Why? Because when I was poor, I didn't have nearly $100,000 
     of debt; essentially making me indentured to my country. That 
     isn't freedom.

  Finally, an e-mail from a woman in California in a city near San 
Francisco. This is the last letter:

       Both my husband and I have faced significant pay cuts the 
     last year. We feel grateful to still have jobs, however. Many 
     of our friends our age have no jobs and have been out of work 
     for many months with no prospects in sight.
       We have 3 children and live in the high-cost San Francisco 
     Bay Area, where we were born. A combined income of $100,000 
     to $150,000 doesn't go very far at all here when a modest 
     townhouse costs almost $600,000 and everything else is 
     proportionately more expensive. (The difference in the cost 
     of living across the country is never taken into account by 
     politicians planning tax breaks and should be . . . )
       Our oldest daughter completed 2 years in Ameri-Corps after 
     graduating from the University of Vermont where she got a 
     Bachelor's degree in environmental science and conservation 
     biology. Some of her student loans were forgiven by Ameri-
     Corps, but not many. Now she works for an environmental 
     consulting firm in Boston but her wages are so low she can 
     barely support herself and we are still paying $350 per month 
     on her student loans that remain. We will owe $350 a month on 
     those loans for the next 30 years--she has close to $70,000 
     left to pay off.
       My husband is almost 61 and I am 52. We have nothing saved 
     for retirement. One small IRA we have will be cashed out this 
     year to pay for a new roof on our townhouse. We can barely 
     meet our mortgage payments, property taxes and pay our bills. 
     We live month to month.
       Over the past year we have cut out many of the extras we 
     used to consider necessities. My husband felt extremely 
     guilty running up a charge card to buy much needed clothes 
     for himself for work. He had not bought clothes for himself 
     in about 5 years.
       Our home is now worth less than the loans we have on it. 
     There is no money to replace our old rug, (or even have it 
     professionally shampooed), no money to fix our broken clothes 
     dryer, no money to repair our bathroom sink, no money to take 
     even a modest vacation for a few days. The list goes on and 
     on.
       We no longer have what we once considered a middle-class 
     standard of living. Now we are nearing retirement years 
     realizing we will have to work (if we have jobs) until we 
     die. How could we ever exist on Social Security alone in this 
     area? It would be impossible since we will not have our home 
     even close to paid off.
       I have never felt so despondent about the state of our life 
     and our family's prospects for the future. We have slid down 
     the economic ladder one rung at a time. I used to believe if 
     we worked hard enough we would be rewarded for our work--but 
     no longer believe that. We are working harder than ever and 
     now make far less money. I see no improvement in our 
     financial well-being in the future whatsoever.
       I am beyond anger. I have no more tears. I only have two 
     questions that no one seems to be able to answer.

  Mr. President, I think it is appropriate to end on this note, and 
this is what she says:

       I have only two questions that no one seems to be able to 
     answer. Is everyone in Washington so far removed from the 
     plight of our country's middle class that they cannot see 
     what we are going through? Or do they see and simply not 
     care?

  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and bring up the DeMint amendment No. 4474.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, if I may, I will mention a few things 
about the amendment. I am, obviously, disappointed that a germane 
amendment cannot even be brought up in this debate. A part of this 
housing package is a $4 billion title III section that we are referring 
to as community development block grants. Many people here support 
those.
  I wish to make clear to my colleagues this is not a normal block 
grant. What it is--in the name of helping homeowners who have lost 
their homes, this $4 billion goes to selected areas of the country 
where there has been the highest concentration of foreclosures. What it 
actually does is use taxpayer dollars to buy homes from banks. The 
banks have taken these homes from former homeowners. This money doesn't 
help the people who have lost their homes. It takes taxpayer money from 
all over the country and bales out the banks that now hold this. What 
we are going to end up with is this money that goes through States down 
to local communities, through the block grant process, to local 
communities themselves or through an intermediary who is actually 
buying private property now owned by the banks, and we are spending 
money to fix those homes up and then to sell them, the local 
communities--we are helping to make them property owners.
  The bill, as written, does not prevent them from keeping the property 
as rental property. This will not only spend $4 billion, it will not 
necessarily do it in an equitable way around the country. It doesn't 
help homeowners who have lost their homes. In fact, it may hurt the 
homeowners who don't get the benefit of Government money to fix up 
their homes. They don't get bailed out if they cannot make their 
payments. What we are faced with is the Government fixing up a home. We 
are giving someone a tax credit to buy that home but not the one for 
sale next to it.
  We know this process of how block grants work, and these have been 
deemed one of the least-effective programs by the General Accounting 
Office and other Government agencies that looked at this. We are going 
to funnel money from here to the States, to the local communities, to 
the banks, and the transactional costs to move these homes and to fix 
them up is going to probably be more than any value from it. We put 
responsible homeowners at a disadvantage in this package.
  I encourage my colleagues to look at this whole bill. First of all, 
look at the process. If we cannot have a germane amendment 
postcloture--which was promised when this bill was brought

[[Page S2783]]

up--and we cannot strike a large provision such as this, which is 
clearly not in the interest of those who are hurting; it is obviously 
bailing out banks who have made bad loans, what this will ultimately do 
is encourage banks to foreclose on homes they might not have because 
they know they are going to get the Government to buy that home if they 
take it from the homeowner.
  The perverse incentives built into this plan need to be thought 
through. There is no way this will work to help those who have been 
hurt. It is throwing the money into the wrong places and making 
homeowners out of local communities in an inequitable way in this 
country.
  It is unfortunate we are not allowed to up bring this amendment and 
vote on it in a fair and open process. Nevertheless, I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak, and I appreciate the chairman's indulgence today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from South 
Carolina, I appreciate his generous comments. We have reached a point 
where, obviously, we are trying to complete this product. We have been 
at this for over a week. There are a lot of good ideas, while I 
disagree with his conclusion on his own amendment. What we are trying 
to do, at the behest of the leadership, is accomplish as much as we 
can, where we can, and move forward. I have said this so many times, 
but if I were writing this on my own, it would look different. We live 
and work in an institution where we have to deal with 99 colleagues, 
and 435 in the other body, and an administration down the road. We are 
trying to package these ideas in a way that would win a majority of 
support here and will be accommodated in the other body and to receive 
the ultimate approval of the White House. It is an arduous journey and 
complicated and an emotionally charged set of issues. It is no easy 
path. While I, for one, have a number of ideas that have been offered 
by people I support--in fact, my own idea was rejected. As a principal 
negotiator, I wasn't able to convince my colleagues on the other side 
to take an idea that I might point out the Wall Street Journal this 
morning said the administration is moving closer and closer to. It is a 
very valid point that the Senator raised, and I agree a lot of what we 
are talking about is dealing with the effects of foreclosure. Whether 
you like the idea, we are dealing with after the fact. I would prefer 
to deal with an effort--and there are some provisions that deal with 
this--to keep people out of foreclosure.
  But with a major thrust we ought to be talking about--and the 
administration, through the FHA Secure program, which they are opening, 
will do a large part of that--we are heading in the right direction.
  On the CDBG, there are legitimate criticisms about that money. This 
program is very differently designed. We keep it far more targeted, 
with more accountability required. One of the values is the following. 
We are oversupplied in housing. The marketplace is not doing as well in 
resolving this issue because supply and demand is not working as it 
normally does because of the abundance of housing out there and the 
unavailability of capital to move a lot of it.
  Our concern was, of course, not only to clean up the properties but 
to clean up the properties and move them because you get a declining 
value in neighborhoods with foreclosed properties. So that hard working 
neighbor my friend talked about who is sitting there going, wait a 
minute, I have done everything right here and I read all the documents 
and I made a responsible loan and here you are taking care of the 
property next door and someone is getting a break with the Government's 
help and I am not getting much out of it. Why are my tax dollars being 
used for that purpose?
  My answer to his constituents, and to mine, is I understand what you 
are saying, but I am concerned because if the value of your property, 
which you have maintained and done everything right with, is declining 
by 1 percent immediately when the next-door neighbor's property or one 
down the block is foreclosed on, to allow that to deteriorate affects 
you directly. We know crime rates go up 2 percent and values, by as 
much as $2,000 to $5,000, go down that day on that property, and it 
will continue to decline as that neighborhood further deteriorates. So 
there is a direct correlation between trying to help the property get 
back on its feet, to make it marketable and able to be sold because the 
neighborhood will be adversely affected if we don't do that.
  The community block grant program of $4 billion in this bill is 
targeted. It is right that it is after the fact. We ought to, ideally, 
figure out a way to keep a person out of foreclosure in the first 
place. In this bill, we don't do a lot about that. We do it with 
mortgage revenue bond proposals and with the counseling in the bill 
that does help.
  Clearly, as the Presiding Officer and I heard at a hearing in his 
State in Philadelphia--we heard from people directly how counseling can 
make a difference. So there are some provisions which do minimize 
foreclosure.

  In the absence of doing more, we need to ask ourselves: Can we do 
something when these properties do fall into that situation? That is 
why this Community Development Block Grant Program has value beyond 
putting tax money into a community, but making a difference possibly 
for those other homeowners who otherwise have watched everything they 
saved and worked for--their single source of wealth creation is in that 
house, and that equity they built up by being responsible over the 
years to protect themselves in retirement or to assist their child get 
a college education, to take care of that unforeseen problem that can 
happen with a health care crisis, that equity can make all the 
difference in the world--and through no fault of their own, they 
watched almost instantaneously that hard-earned equity decline rapidly 
because of what happened here.
  Part of the goal here--and I cannot admit it is going to work in 
every case--is to make sure that homeowner is getting some protection. 
They ought to get something back for their tax dollars, and this is an 
indirect way to help them get back on their feet.
  My colleague raised a legitimate point. If it is a great idea, why 
can't we vote on it? We have reached a point where we want to move on 
and complete the legislation. There are a lot of ideas we want to bring 
up. The general thought was to see if we couldn't complete this work 
and move on to a conclusion. I appreciate my colleague's comments. I 
thank him for his indulgence and consideration as well.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment NO. 4400

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside and call up amendment No. 4400.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. I object.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the chairman. I understand they desire no further 
votes on this amendment.
  I ask to speak on the subject matter of my amendment, knowing that it 
will not get a vote--which is disturbing on such an issue as the one we 
have in front of us.
  We are talking about housing. For years we have spent a tremendous 
amount of money on homelessness in this country. What this amendment 
would do, frankly, is help us know what to do on homelessness. It would 
cause us to take an in-depth look at our current state of homelessness 
in hopes of providing constructive solutions to that problem.
  We have spent billions of dollars every year for Federal housing 
programs, but homelessness rates have remained constant for decades. In 
other words, it doesn't matter how much money we have spent, we have 
not seen a decline in homelessness. We ought to be about asking the 
question: What is wrong? We continue to spend more money. Yet we make 
no impact on the rate of homelessness.
  A number of reviews have found Federal housing programs are 
ineffective and misspend too much money on nonhousing assistance, are 
not sufficiently

[[Page S2784]]

allocated or distributed, and are subject to tens of millions of 
dollars of waste and fraud. The waste and fraud actually has been 
documented. HUD's ability to effectively carry out its mission is so 
impaired that these shortcomings should be addressed if we ever hope to 
eliminate homelessness in our country.
  In the past year alone the inspector general of the department found 
nearly $1 billion--let me restate that--one thousand million dollars in 
waste in HUD alone. That is their own inspector general. There is 
nothing in this bill that addresses this issue.
  This amendment was designed for us to look at that. HUD also reported 
$1.5 billion, of which over 80 percent were overpayments in terms of 
improper payments.
  The charge on the Congress is to manage the programs effectively. We 
have a bill before us, and we have an amendment that will help us do 
that. To me, it is disconcerting in the fact that we are not going to 
even take up and look at $2.25 billion worth of waste every year.
  I have sympathies with the chairman and his ranking member in that 
they do not want other amendment votes. But this is an amendment we are 
going to see again. We are going to see it on an appropriations bill 
the next time we have one with anything to do with housing.
  Here are the following criminal activities found at the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development: 2,684 arrests with the fraud, 1,338 
indictments, and 1,055 convictions.
  We are going to pass a housing bill, and we are not going to address 
these issues? We are not even going to vote on them, even though we 
have 1,055 convictions and 1,338 indictments on fraud and overpayment 
and corruption within the Department of Housing and Urban Development?
  In efforts to remedy the housing problems, Congress has allocated $4 
billion to HUD's community development block grants. One of the 
vehicles HUD uses to combat homelessness is this CDBG program. An OMB 
analysis determined that the CDBG grants were ineffective in 
accomplishing what they intended to accomplish.
  The conclusion stated that major problems, including the lack of a 
clear purpose and an annual and long-term outcome measure--in other 
words, there is no metric to see if the money we are spending is doing 
any good. There is no requirement on us, either through this bill or 
any other bill, that there be a measurement to say we will spend money 
to help homelessness but look to see if that is effective. None of that 
is available. It is not available. Also, it was noted they did not 
target funds to the areas of greatest need. They went to the areas of 
greatest political influence, not the areas of greatest homelessness. 
And the inability to produce transparent information.
  The whole idea behind this amendment would help HUD and Congress 
address those very issues. It also will help us know what to do about 
it, if we actually find them.
  The average age of the world's democracies is 200 years. That is the 
average. They are not conquered. They die from within. They die over 
lose fiscal policy. Those are not my words. That is a paraphrase of the 
Scottish historian as he looked at the Athenian Empire and wrote about 
it about the time our country was being founded. I daresay I have great 
concerns for us as a free country when we will allow $2.25 billion a 
year to be defrauded out of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, and then we will not allow an amendment that doesn't 
change it. It just says let's look at it and find out where it is and 
what we can do about it. We are not going to allow it on a housing 
bill.
  It is interesting where we have come. We say we want to help the 
people who are in the midst of a housing emergency, in the midst of 
problems with their mortgages, in the midst of those who were either 
being gamed into a mortgage or stupidly going into a mortgage they 
couldn't afford, but at the same time we will not do the real work we 
are asked to do, which is to make sure the programs we do have, that 
are already authorized, already funded, are run efficiently. It is no 
wonder confidence in us is lacking.
  Here is $2.25 billion that we could address in this bill toward a 
solution--toward finding out how we at least eliminate 70 or 80 percent 
of that, and we will not even allow an amendment to address that.
  That is not a reflection on the chairman. I understand what he and 
the ranking member are trying to do to get this bill through. But this 
is not an amendment to which anybody should have any opposition. This 
is an amendment that should be accepted; to say, yes, we need to study 
this. We need to find it. Yet when we have asked for that it has been 
denied.
  My only thought is, either we do not want to look at the fraud and we 
do not want to look at the overpayments or we think it is just fine.
  That is what I am left with and that is what the American people are 
left with. Mr. President, $2.25 billion would do a lot to help a lot of 
people having trouble with their mortgages today. That $2.25 billion 
could come back in and, if directed in the proper way, could 
significantly increase the effort of holding onto the homes of 100,000 
people. Yet we are not going to look at it.
  There is no question we need to do more. Unfortunately, I am not 
going to be able to vote for this bill because we are going to give tax 
credit to builders who don't need to have a tax credit. We are going to 
give $4.5 billion more in CDBG block grant money that HUD already said 
hasn't been spent wisely to begin with. We already have $1 billion 
worth of fraud in it. I will not support the bill.
  I do support the right of the chairman in managing the bill in the 
way he is managing it at the present time, but I also will say this 
amendment will be back--as it should--not just for us, and not, as it 
should, just for the taxpayers but the real taxpayers who are going to 
pay back this $2.25 billion, which is our kids.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Vermont wants to be 
heard, but let me just say a few things to my friend from Oklahoma.
  First of all, I appreciate his comments about the importance of 
monitoring and overseeing the programs, the homeless programs in the 
McKinney-Vento legislation that goes back some time.
  He may not be aware of this, but I will raise it with him anyway.
  Senator Allard of Colorado and Senator Reed of Rhode Island have 
offered a piece of legislation to modernize and streamline the 
McKinney-Vento legislation. It passed out of the Banking Committee some 
months ago unanimously. I commend Senator Allard and Senator Reed for 
working together in a bipartisan fashion to come forward with the 
proposals dealing with homelessness.
  The bill--and it can be corrected--we brought up here to bring it up 
on the consent calendar with anyone who wanted to offer some amendments 
to it. It sounds as if my colleague from Oklahoma has an amendment that 
would be right on the subject matter of the Reed-Allard proposal. There 
has been a hold on the legislation to come forward with that bill, 
offered by our two colleagues from Colorado and Rhode Island, that 
specifically addresses the issues, although I am not suggesting exactly 
the amendment my colleague from Oklahoma has, but it would seem to me 
that would be an appropriate place to deal with homeless programs.
  We may have exact numbers--I tried to inquire here whether it is 1.8 
or 2.1. It is a lot of money, obviously, and I do not question that at 
all. But we do have a bill that is enjoying pretty board-based support 
here. Rarely, I might add, do we see that--it comes out of a committee 
of jurisdiction that authored and wrote this legislation, unanimously 
adopted by every Banking Committee member who had an opportunity to go 
through the hearings and watch all of it.
  I am more than prepared--I do not want to speak for Senators Allard 
and Reed--that bill could be done this evening, and possibly the 
amendment suggested by my friend from Oklahoma could be a part of that 
to go forward. He understands the situation Senator Shelby and I are 
in, in trying to get this particular bill done. If that hold could come 
off the legislation and someone sit down and try to work on

[[Page S2785]]

this provision, we might very well accommodate the very issue that goes 
to the heart of the homeless programs.
  So I raise that with him. It is S. 1518. It did come out I think 
several months ago.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first of all, I am the individual who has 
a hold on that bill because I think we need to have real property 
reform, and there is a bill that is coming out of the Homeland Security 
Committee that is a bipartisan bill authored by Senator Carper, with 
the cosponsorship of both Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, that 
has real property reform.
  As the Senator knows, McKinney-Vento places a limitation on all 
Federal properties before they can ever be disposed of. So the real 
property reform needs to go through at the same time the McKinney-Vento 
bill goes through so that we reform both of those, so that we still 
protect the rights of the homeless in this country but at the same time 
enable the agencies of the Federal Government to dispose of them. We 
now have 22,000 pieces of property the Federal Government does not want 
but we can't get rid of. So the reason that is being held up is we are 
trying to get those to move together and in tandem so that we can fix 
both problems at the same time.
  I would say this in response to the Senator. I understand how you 
have locked arms to move this bill, but what the American people are 
not going to understand is, if there is $2 billion worth of waste--and 
there is; the IG of HUD said it, there is no question about it, a 
billion dollars worth of fraud, a thousand convictions, another $1.2 
billion in overpayments to supposed landlords. There is no reason not 
to fix that right now. It can be fixed with this bill. This bill is 
going to get passed, it is going to get signed. Move it and fix it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Reclaiming my right on the floor, there is a vehicle moving 
including, possibly, the legislation that is coming from Senator Carper 
here. It seems to me that making a case for exactly why probably 
allowing that bill to come up, the very bill that Senator Allard and 
Senator Reed have drafted on homelessness that was unanimously adopted 
by the committee after significant work would be the right place--if 
people have ideas and suggestions on how to deal with Federal property 
or deal with allegations of fraud and the like, that is the vehicle.
  As my colleague from Oklahoma points out, he is the only member with 
a hold on that bill, so we are not going to be able to get to it, and 
the suggestion somehow that we are denying him an opportunity is really 
not the case. I am more than willing to entertain ideas and thoughts, 
and I do not want to speak for Senator Allard and Senator Reed--they 
are the authors of the legislation--but I am confident they would be 
more than willing to sit down and listen to the arguments and possibly 
include ideas in the legislation.
  Ninety-nine Members of this body have decided that this bill is a 
pretty good bill, and one Member has not. I respect that. You have the 
right to do that here. But I think the right to do that should also 
suggest that when you stand up and suggest we are not welcoming enough 
of an idea here in this bill, we might properly put our attention at 
the focus where it deserves to be, and that is on bipartisan 
legislation specifically dealing with the issue of homelessness, which 
includes various other ideas, and we can get that done.
  So I apologize to my colleague from Vermont, but I wanted to address 
that situation and the work of the committee, on which the Presiding 
Officer is a member, dealing with these issues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wanted to say a few words in support of 
the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act, an amendment to the housing bill 
offered by Senators Cantwell and Ensign. Before I begin, let me thank 
Senator Cantwell for her determined efforts to ensure that we don't 
stand by while our renewable energy industry and energy efficiency 
industry lose jobs due to expiring tax policy.
  In these times of economic uncertainty, while we work to create new 
jobs in the green economy of the future, we must also make sure we do 
not lose existing jobs in the small green economy we already have, and 
Senator Cantwell, along with many of my colleagues, has made that a 
priority. I thank her for that.
  The clean energy tax stimulus amendment which the Senate is expected 
to vote on later today and which is based on a stand-alone bill 
introduced last week, which I am strongly cosponsoring, extends 
financial incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency that 
would otherwise expire this year, and that is something we must make 
absolutely sure does not happen.
  More specifically, the amendment would extend for 1 year the current 
production tax credit--commonly called the PTC--which supports the 
generation of electricity from renewable energy such as wind, biomass, 
and geothermal. Additionally, the amendment would extend for 8 years 
the business investment tax credit which provides financial help for 
larger scale fuel cell and solar investments and the residential 
investment tax credit that helps homeowners by giving them the tax 
credit for up to 30 percent of the cost of a solar PV unit and up to 
$2,000 for the installation of solar hot water heaters.
  Finally, in terms of energy efficiency, the amendment we will vote on 
today would extend for 1 year the current credits for energy efficiency 
improvements for heating and cooling systems, windows, and other 
qualified residential property, and it also extends the tax credit for 
building homes that are energy efficient. In addition, the amendment 
extends tax credits for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances.
  As you know, wind energy is the fastest growing source of energy 
throughout to entire world. Unfortunately, in our country today, the 
wind industry is seeing a dropoff in investment which will quickly lead 
to the loss of thousands of jobs. This is totally absurd. The American 
people want to move to sustainable energy. They want to move to wind 
energy.
  There are businesses out there prepared to build and install wind 
turbines. Yet we are not providing them the help they need to help us 
deal with global warming and also to create many good-paying jobs. 
Every month that passes without a production tax credit extension 
diminishes the industry's capacity to create jobs, spur economic 
growth, and produce electricity that helps us reduce global warming. In 
fact, the American Wind Energy Association projects that the rate of 
growth in American wind power will decrease by more than 70 percent 
between this year and next in the absence of an extension of the 
production tax credit. This is totally absurd. All over the world, 
countries are growing good jobs in terms of wind, and we are on the 
verge of losing jobs despite the fact that the American people want to 
move us toward sustainable energy. What we are doing contrasts sharply 
with the current trend of dramatic wind power growth that could 
otherwise be expected to continue. People want sustainable energy, 
people want wind power, and here we are sitting back, not providing the 
help the people in the wind industry desperately need.
  If we do not extend the PTC, we will waste a tremendous opportunity 
to preserve existing jobs, create many thousands of new good-paying 
jobs this year alone, and build, in addition, another 5,000 megawatts 
of new wind energy, which will spur another $10 billion in economic 
activity.
  Let me say a few words about the solar tax credit. The investment tax 
credit is responsible for an estimated 6,000 high-quality jobs that 
were created in the solar sector in 2007 alone, and another 9,000 to 
12,000 are expected in 2008 if Congress sends the signal that this tax 
credit is here to stay. That is, of course, exactly what we must be 
doing.
  Without an extension of the ITC, some have estimated that we would 
lose over $8 billion in investments that would have been made, leading 
to a net loss of almost 40,000 jobs in the solar photovoltaic sector 
alone in 2009.
  The ITC has real implications also for utility-scale solar projects. 
I have talked to people in the solar thermal plant business, talked to 
some of the major utility companies. We have a potential in this 
country to produce an enormous amount of clean, relatively inexpensive 
electricity through solar thermal plants which are now beginning to 
move in the Mojave Desert, in

[[Page S2786]]

Nevada, in New Mexico, and Arizona. It turns out that based on the 
geography of the Southeast, there is enormous potential for dozens of 
solar thermal units that could produce a significant amount of 
electricity that our country needs. That electricity could be produced 
at a reasonable cost, in an effective way, emitting virtually no 
greenhouse gas emissions. It is sitting there waiting to happen, and 
our job has to be to help those people in the utilities that want to 
move forward. Without an extension of the ITC, these types of projects 
will be in jeopardy or, in fact, face a significant delay.

  Additionally, we are seeing a new solar powerplant located 70 miles 
southwest of Phoenix, AZ, and scheduled to go into operation by 2011 
which would not go on line without the benefits of the ITC. The 280-
megawatt facility is expected to generate revenue of over $4 billion, 
bringing over $1 billion in economic benefits to the State of Arizona 
and enough electricity to power 70,000 homes. The solar thermal unit 
being planned by Pacific Gas and Electric would provide electricity of 
553 megawatts for over 400,000 homes.
  All of this is sitting there waiting to happen, and all over the 
world people are wondering, What is the U.S. Congress doing to 
stimulate this type of activity? Today is our day.
  Let's take a quick look at the importance of extending the PTC and 
the ITC, but let's not forget that extending these credits has a ripple 
effect on other sectors of the economy. For example, the American 
Council on Renewable Energy estimates that for every job created in 
renewable manufacturing, there are an additional three high-quality 
jobs created to design, install, operate, and maintain the renewable 
energy infrastructure.
  So I think it is pretty clear that we must act today to, at the very 
least, extend some of the current renewable energy and energy-
efficiency tax credits. I myself hope we are going to go a lot further 
than this, but what we have to do is an absolute necessity.
  Let me conclude once again by thanking Senator Cantwell for her 
leadership on this issue. This is enormously important. The rest of the 
world is moving in order to deal with global warming, in order to 
create good-paying jobs. We have to pass this legislation today, and we 
have to go beyond that in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage our colleagues 
to support the passage, hopefully later today, of the Foreclosure 
Prevention Act of 2008, the legislation that has been on the Senate 
floor for the better part of a week now.
  I like to think of this legislation not in isolation but as the third 
piece, if you will, of a series of steps that have been taken to try to 
stabilize our economy, to restore confidence in our economy, and to 
infuse liquidity into our financial system.
  The first was really a series of steps taken by the Federal Reserve. 
The Federal Reserve has acted in an extraordinary way, not just in 
monetary policy and trying to lower the Fed funds rate but also in 
encouraging Federal banks to act and now investment banks to take 
advantage of the discount money, to borrow money when they need it, for 
the Federal Reserve to be willing to take and swap, if you will, highly 
liquid Treasury securities for very illiquid mortgage-backed securities 
that a lot of our banks are holding in their portfolios, allowing those 
swaps to take place to infuse liquidity into the banking system to 
encourage banks to begin lending money again.
  The Federal Reserve is involved, as we all know, with JPMorgan Chase 
to engineer their takeover of Bear Stearns to prevent it from going 
into bankruptcy and probably creating a domino effect that would have 
brought down other financial entities and maybe made a bad situation 
even worse.
  Those are some of the things the Federal Reserve has done. The 
Presiding Officer is different, he is not as old as me, but I have 
never seen the Federal Reserve take these kinds of steps as we enter 
into a period with this kind of uncertainty. But that is the first 
series of things that has been done, needed to be done, and is being 
done by the Federal Reserve. I applaud their action.
  The second piece is the stimulus package we voted on and debated here 
a month or two ago and passed. Sometimes when stimulus packages are 
agreed to by Congress and the President, it takes so long to debate the 
package that by the time the effect actually takes place, we are coming 
out of the recession and it can have the overstimulative effect 
providing inflationary pressures. In this case, I think what has 
happened is the Congress and the President agreed in a timely way on 
our stimulus package, and it will have a modest effect on our economy, 
probably in the second half of this year. Some have said it will raise 
gross domestic product by as much as 1.5 percent by the second half of 
the year. I think the most important thing that came out of the 
adoption of the stimulus package was to send a clear signal to people, 
taxpayers and others, businesses, that around here, when the chips are 
down, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the President can still 
agree on a series of actions to help boost the economy, to give the 
economy a little bit of a jump start.
  The third piece in this process is the legislation before us this 
week and last. I call it a housing recovery package. There are a number 
of elements to it that are meritorious. I wouldn't oversell this 
package. This by itself is not going to save the day and prevent all 
foreclosures and bring the housing market back overnight or within a 
couple of weeks or months. But it is a third of a series of steps that 
will be helpful. It is going to be followed within the next maybe 2 
months with a handful of other steps that I will talk about in a few 
minutes. Let me talk about some of the elements I think are most 
beneficial in this housing recovery package that is before us today. 
The centerpiece is FHA modernization.
  The Federal Housing Administration was created about 75 years ago. It 
was born during the Great Depression. Out of the FHA came the 
possibility for home ownership for a lot of people who otherwise would 
never have become home buyers. People wonder, where did we get the 30-
year fixed rate mortgages. They were a creation of FHA, a legacy of 
FHA. As recently as 6, 7, 8 years ago, probably 15 to 20 percent of 
mortgages were guaranteed or insured by the FHA, 15 to 20 percent. Last 
year the number was about 5 percent. We dropped, in roughly half a 
dozen years, from 15 to 20 percent of home mortgages insured by FHA to 
last year about 5 percent.
  Where did those mortgages go? Where did people go for financial help 
to buy a home? A lot of them went to places they should not have gone. 
A lot of them ended up being induced or seduced and convinced to use a 
different kind of a financing. They used exotic adjustable rate 
mortgages, some of them with no money down, no principal payments for 
an extended period of time. Some of these exotic adjustable rate 
mortgages called for very low interest, seductive teaser rates which 
may have been 2, 3, 4 percent at the beginning and would later go up by 
reset within a couple of years to be 7, 8, or 9 percent. A lot of folks 
ended up signing on to this deal and didn't realize there is a penalty 
for trying to refinance out of an adjustable rate mortgage, making it 
very difficult. I suppose the borrower and maybe the mortgage broker or 
the lending institution that was involved, everybody expected housing 
prices to continue to go up; they had for years. As long as housing 
prices continue to rise, everybody comes out of the hole. If somebody 
is unable to make payments, they sell the house, do it for profit and 
pay off their mortgage. Not many people thought about what happens if 
prices, instead of going up, all of a sudden come down. They have come 
down, and in some places they have come down a lot.
  Part of our legislation is designed to encourage people to take a 
second look at FHA. For folks, especially first-time home buyers or 
people who have less than perfect credit, the FHA in the past has been 
their avenue to become homeowners. We wanted to make sure it is an 
option that is there for the 21st century.
  Without getting into a whole lot of detail, let me say, of all the 
pieces that are part of this bill, the most important one is FHA 
modernization. I will mention a couple of those elements that I think 
are helpful. One of those takes the FHA loan limit starting at

[[Page S2787]]

the end of this year to $550,000. Instead of being $420,000, it takes 
it up to $550,000. In Delaware, you can get a perfectly good house for 
$420,000. In some places in New Jersey one can get a perfectly good 
house for $420,000. In some places in New Jersey you probably can't. A 
lot of places in California, Florida, Connecticut, home values are such 
that for $420,000, which is the FHA loan limit that will be in effect 
next January 1, you can buy a cottage, but if you want to think about 
buying a three-bedroom house with a garage and a bathroom, you can 
forget about buying anything close to that for $420,000. What we want 
to do is address the needs in high-cost housing areas so that FHA will 
still be relevant in those States, as well as in States that have more 
modest housing costs.

  The second element of this bill that is good is that the bill seeks 
to streamline the bureaucracy of FHA. We hear a good deal about that 
from banks and from realtors, that the bureaucracy is inappropriate for 
the 21st century. We have streamlined it. We do that in the context of 
this legislation.
  Another element that I believe is helpful is, we are going to make 
more available counseling assistance to people who need it as they are 
looking for a place to buy and to consider their options. There is a 
new pilot credit scoring program that will be created. It is designed 
to increase access to credit for borrowers who may have a history of 
making required payments on time but haven't established a sufficient 
credit rating to enable them to be considered as serious home buyers.
  Those are some of the pieces of the FHA modernization portion of this 
bill. It is maybe the most important thing we are going to do.
  A second important element of this bill deals with community 
development block grants. We appropriated this year around the country, 
I want to say, roughly $4 billion to communities, State and local 
governments, moneys they can use to help develop their communities. We 
want to make sure that some additional moneys--in this case, another 
roughly $4 billion--might be made available to State and local 
governments to help communities that have been hit hard by foreclosures 
and delinquencies. The money could be put to use in many communities 
around the country.
  A third element of this bill that I believe has merit deals with 
housing authorities. Housing authorities currently are able to issue 
tax-exempt revenue bonds. The proceeds of those tax-exempt revenue 
bonds are used in probably every State in the country to allow people 
to become first-time home buyers and to realize a low interest rate. 
They do this with moneys raised by tax-exempt revenue bonds. The 
proceeds of these same bonds can be used by housing authorities to 
build multifamily, affordable housing as well. The proceeds of these 
bonds cannot be used, though, to assist in refinancing of subprime 
loans. With this legislation, we say you can do that, too. State and 
local housing authorities can use the proceeds of these tax-exempt 
revenue bonds. In fact, we allow them to issue another $10 billion 
worth and a permissible use is to help folks to refinance out of these 
subprime loans that they have gotten themselves into.
  Another element of this bill is actually one offered by our colleague 
Senator Isakson from Georgia. He has been good enough to let me advise 
some changes in his earlier proposal. Let's use the situation here. We 
have 100 desks here, and we will assume for this example that these are 
not desks but homes in a community. Maybe there are two or three of 
these homes where the families have run into trouble and cannot keep up 
with the mortgage payments. The homes have gone into foreclosure and 
they are decaying, the grass is growing, the shrubbery is not cut, 
trash not removed. Those homes are destroyed and beginning to decay, 
and they bring down the value of the other homes in the community. 
Senator Isakson suggested that we allow a tax credit to be used for 
someone who will come in and buy a home in foreclosure and live there. 
He proposed that that person be provided by the U.S. Treasury a $5,000 
tax credit. To buy a foreclosed home and to agree to live there, $5,000 
for year 1, $5,000 for year 2, $5,000 for year 3, is a pretty expensive 
proposition. That would certainly get people's attention and encourage 
them to buy homes in foreclosure, but it is a serious hit on the 
Treasury.
  I urged him--I am sure others did as well--to make the proposal a 
little more modest. What he has done, I think prudently, is to say, in 
the same situation, a home in foreclosure, to encourage people to come 
in and buy homes in foreclosure so they don't bring down the values of 
other properties, that they will get a tax credit but year 1 is $3,500 
and year 2 is another $3,500; $7,000 in all as a tax credit from the 
Treasury to the person making that purchase. It is more modest. There 
is an impact on the Treasury, but it is not nearly as great as would 
otherwise have been the case. It is a good proposal.
  Another idea in this legislation that makes a lot of sense deals with 
people who are in some distress--maybe they have lost their job, they 
have sickness in the family, they are finding it difficult to pay their 
bills, they are getting behind on their mortgage payments. They are not 
sure what to do, and sometimes they end up turning to people who take 
advantage of them, shysters who take advantage of them. And rather than 
helping them with their problems, to work their way through it, they 
take advantage of the distressed homeowner.
  There are nonprofit entities. They work under a broad umbrella of 
something called the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. The 
shorthand title is NeighborWorks. And the idea there is to have these 
nonprofits provide counseling assistance. They are not trying to take 
advantage of home homeowners in distress. They want to help them find 
the best option for themselves and their family. We provided, I think 
through HUD's budget, about $200 million initially. That money has been 
used. Under this legislation we provide about another $100 million, 
maybe more. I think an amendment by Senator Murray would take that up a 
bit higher. The idea is to make sure that when people are in trouble 
and they turn to someone for help, they will turn to someone who is 
really going to help them. This is a good proposal as well.
  Senator Reed of Rhode Island has offered an amendment that has been 
made part of the package that seeks to address complex paper 
disclosure. When you buy a house, you have all these papers. You sit 
down with a realtor. It is pretty confusing stuff, even for people who 
are pretty smart. Senator Reed has come up with some suggestions that 
would protect a person who is going through the forms, trying to 
understand what they are signing on to. Without going into a lot of 
detail, his ideas have a great deal of merit and are part of the 
package and ought to be.
  As to another element of the package--I say this as a veteran who 
served in the Navy during the Vietnam war and came back; they had to 
protect us--to protect others who have served in our Armed Forces 
since, we have something called the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act.
  The idea is to try to make sure our soldiers and sailors--
particularly when they are deployed overseas--and their families are 
not taken advantage of. We have given them, if you will, a break in 
making sure they are not taken advantage of by those who are, for 
example, lenders who loaned money to them.
  Right now, the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act--say I am deployed to 
Iraq or Afghanistan. I come back from my year or 15-month deployment. 
My home cannot have been foreclosed on. My family and I live in the 
home, and we had a hard time making our mortgage payment. Maybe I gave 
up my regular civilian job and took a much lower paying job, was called 
up for Active Duty in the military, and I have been unable to keep up 
with my mortgage payments.
  Under the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act, my home could not be 
foreclosed on for at least 3 months while I am away and for 3 months 
from when I come back from that deployment. This legislation would 
extend that by an additional 6 months. I would be protected for 9 
months, my family would be protected for 9 months, after my return to, 
hopefully, get back on our feet to be able to meet our financial 
obligations.

[[Page S2788]]

  Also, this provision provides returning soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and marines with 1 year of relief from increases in mortgage interest 
rates. Where these adjustable rate mortgages are resetting, the 
military personnel get an extra year.
  The final part of this provision is that the Department of Defense is 
required to establish a counseling program to ensure veterans and 
active servicemembers can access assistance if they have seen financial 
difficulties. Again, the idea is for folks who are in distress--in this 
case, military personnel--who are homeowners, that they could actually 
get access to advice from people who have the best interests of the 
veterans at heart.
  Those are some of the provisions, not all of the provisions. There 
are other provisions dealing with standard property deductions and to 
allow folks who do not itemize to take a standard deduction--$500 for 
single filers, $1,000 for joint filers. It is in this legislation.
  There is an extension of net operating loss carry-back that will help 
some of the homebuilders who are in trouble. There were concerns 
raised. I think Senator Gregg raised the concern yesterday--and there 
are other concerns about it as well--that the cost to the Treasury is 
considerable. The cost over 10 years, I am told, is about $6 billion, 
so it is not inconsequential. But we also know among the companies that 
are undergoing real distress right now are those that build homes. This 
is designed to try to extend some relief to them.
  Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho and I have offered an amendment which has 
been accepted by both Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby on behalf of the 
majority and minority sides that tries to help homeowners who are in 
distress in another way. A lot of people do not know in this country we 
have something called the Federal Home Loan Banks. There are 12 of them 
across the country. Together they make up the Federal Home Loan Bank 
system. A primary job they have is to raise money they then turn around 
and lend to smaller financial institutions, principally for home 
ownership, to make home ownership more affordable.
  Delaware is in the Pittsburgh Federal Home Loan Bank region. A lot of 
financial institutions--banks, savings and loans--work with the Federal 
Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh. They get loans, if you will, below 
market-rate loans, from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh.
  But one of the requirements under Federal law is these Federal Home 
Loan Banks have to contribute 10 percent of their net income into an 
affordable housing fund. The affordable housing fund is used by local 
entities, local financial banks, local financial entities, banks, 
thrifts, in order to provide home ownership opportunities for, in a lot 
of cases, first-time home buyers or low-income home buyers. It is a 
good program. We use it a lot in my State. It is used to leverage money 
from State and local governments. It is used to leverage money from 
nonprofits, from for-profits, from banks. It is a real good thing.
  The problem with this affordable housing program fund is none of the 
moneys in this program can be used to help subsidize or refinance--
somebody who is in one of these adjustable rate mortgages that is 
resetting. They need to refinance and get out of it and maybe get into 
a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. This is affordable housing money. It is 
compiled. It is built up. It is about a third of a billion dollars this 
year. It cannot be used to help folks refinance out of a mortgage they 
have no business being in. This amendment that has been accepted will 
allow that to take place.
  My friend, Senator McCaskill of Missouri, along with Senator Kohl and 
myself, has offered an amendment. I understand it has been accepted, 
and we are grateful for that. That amendment seeks to protect folks who 
have taken advantage of reverse mortgages.

  One of the nice things about being a homeowner with equity in your 
home, in a lot of cases when you reach an older age and maybe your home 
is paid off, you ought to be able to live off the equity of your home 
for the rest of your life. In some cases, people who are in that 
situation do not get very good advice, and they are duped into making 
investments with the equity of their home in ways that really do not 
help the homeowner trying to live off the equity of their home for the 
rest of their life. It helps them less than maybe someone who is a 
scoundrel trying to take advantage of them.
  So Senator McCaskill's amendment, that Senator Kohl and I have joined 
in sponsoring, allows HUD to use a portion of the mortgage insurance 
premiums collected under this program to adequately fund counseling and 
disclosure activities. So the idea there is to make sure people have 
good advice. If you think about it, that is a theme of almost every 
element I have talked about in this bill. Many of the elements of this 
bill are designed to make sure that consumers, homeowners, purchasers 
have access to good advice, someone who is going to be there for them 
and not take advantage of them.
  I said this housing recovery package is the third step so far of 
three steps we need to take. The first step is action by the Federal 
Reserve; the second step, our stimulus package; the third step is our 
housing recovery package; a fourth step, that I hope will follow in the 
next month or two--certainly before we get to the Memorial Day recess--
is when the Senate Banking Committee takes up another measure that will 
consider a Hope proposal, one that Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank 
have been working on that has a lot of merit to help people, families 
whose mortgage is underwater; that is, they owe more than the value of 
their property, find a way to get out of that situation.
  The lenders, the investors, the homeowners themselves will probably 
take a little bit of a financial haircut, but by doing that they would 
be able to stay in their homes and maybe end up with a little bit of 
equity in their homes in the end.
  A number of us--Senator Martinez and I and Senator Schumer and 
Senator Jack Reed--have been very much interested, along with some of 
our colleagues, in trying to make sure we have a strong independent 
regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. 
That ought to be part of our next package. We need to license mortgage 
brokers to make sure they have the kind of training and the kind of 
regulatory structure under which to operate, to make sure the 
appraisals that are written on a lot of homes are actually worth the 
paper on which they are written.
  So there is a lot that can be done and should be done, and my hope is 
we will have the opportunity to take those up, have hearings as 
appropriate in the Banking Committee, and mark them up before the 
Memorial Day recess and literally have them on the Senate floor to 
debate by the Fourth of July. That would be good for our country, and 
that would be the fourth step, if you will, to help stabilize our 
economy, to begin to restore some confidence in our economy, especially 
in the housing sector of our economy, and to make sure we put some 
liquidity back into our financial system and our banking system where 
it is needed.
  But the last thing, and maybe the most helpful, it would do is to 
clearly demonstrate to folks around this country that this place still 
works, that Democrats and Republicans can find common ground, work with 
the administration, and do what is in the best interests of our 
country, our citizens, and our families.
  None of what is done in the legislation that is before us today is 
designed to reward bad behavior. For people who have been borrowers and 
bought homes as a speculator, where they were interested in buying it 
to watch the price go up, to simply flip it, flip the house, and take 
advantage of these exotic adjustable rate mortgages to do that, to work 
the system, and to look for some short-term profit, we are not 
interested in helping.
  With all due respect, we are not interested in borrowers who have 
misbehaved or mortgage brokers or investors who have misbehaved. That 
is not what this is about. This initiative is to restore confidence in 
the system, liquidity in the system, and to say to people: The system--
our legislative system, our political system--still works, and it works 
for the interests of people who need our help.
  That said, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment I 
have

[[Page S2789]]

offered with Senator Wicker from Mississippi. Our amendment is pending. 
It is germane. We hope to have a vote sometime soon on this amendment, 
if we can move past this present standstill.
  I want to just put up some numbers to try to explain our situation in 
Louisiana. I have used this chart before. This chart is the underlying 
reason for the bill that we are on because these are the top 10 
districts in the country, according to the official data, where these 
foreclosures are taking place.
  As you can see, there are about 40,000 distressed properties in and 
around Detroit; about 10,000 in Stockton, CA; 30,000 in Las Vegas; 
about 51,000 in San Bernardino, CA; about 23,000 in Sacramento; about 
27,000 around the Cleveland area--and it goes on. These are the top 10.
  Now, this data is readily available. I am sorry I do not have more 
than just the top 10. But I used this chart to make my point about our 
situation still in Louisiana and on the gulf coast.
  You can see, the percentage of households in Detroit is about 5 
percent; the same with Stockton, CA, and Las Vegas is 4 percent. That 
is a real crisis in those areas. It seems like a small percentage, but 
if you are in a neighborhood where there is a concentration of these 
kinds of homes, the problem is--and what we are trying to solve, those 
of us who are supporting this bill; and I am supporting this bill--to 
try to provide some additional community development block grant 
funding because not only are we trying to perhaps come up with State-
based local solutions that might help these particular families, but 
the real tragedy, in my mind, is those families around these homes who 
did absolutely nothing wrong. They took out a 30-year mortgage. They 
have paid their mortgage every month. They did not enter into any 
flimflam kind of agreement.
  But the problem is, as homes collapse around them and become vacant 
and are foreclosed on, these homeowners who did nothing wrong, who have 
most of their net worth tied up in the value of their home, are seeing, 
through no fault of their own, their property values plummeting.
  Now, if you are a young person, and you are a homeowner in this 
situation, you might have time to ride it out. But if you are a senior 
getting ready to retire, or if you are getting ready, in middle age, to 
send your two children to college and were hoping to refinance your 
home to do that and had planned for 20 years--this was your plan to 
send your kids to college. You did not get to go to college, but you 
have saved and scrimped and worked hard, and you were going to 
refinance your house to send your children to college. Guess what. Your 
kids do not go to college because your neighbor took out a subprime 
loan, and it is causing your property value to plummet.
  Now, I know the President does not understand why community 
development block grant moneys are important. He does not understand a 
lot of things. But some of us do understand why we need to help people 
in these neighborhoods.
  So I am just explaining that while the numbers are very high, and 
these percentages are startling, I want to show you what our numbers 
look like in Louisiana because if these look bad, ours are terrible.
  It is not because we had foreclosure problems. It is not because we 
have subprime--in fact, our State does not really have the same problem 
that California and Nevada are facing. But we had our own sets of 
catastrophes, and that, of course, was in the storms of a few years 
ago, Katrina and Rita, that hit the gulf coast--both just historic in 
their devastation.
  We are still having a housing crisis throughout the gulf coast, 
really from Alabama to the southern part of Texas, as people struggle 
with the impact of those storms. In New Orleans and Saint Bernard and 
in the southeastern portion of Louisiana, our situation was even 
further complicated when the Federal levees that should have held did 
not. They failed, and people who had never had an inch of water in 
their home had 14 feet and lost everything they had worked for their 
entire lives.
  So in St. Bernard Parish we see not 5 percent, not 4 percent but 54 
percent of the homes are empty or devastated. In Cameron, LA, not 4 
percent or 5 percent but 46 percent of the homes; in Plaquemines 
Parish, 44 percent; in Orleans Parish, 78,000, almost 80,000, out of 
only 122,000. That is an extremely high percentage almost 42 percent of 
households that are still damaged or destroyed.

  Now, what has been done to help these homeowners? Some have been able 
to collect their insurance, but very few people have collected all of 
what they thought they were due. Some have collected a modest grant we 
gave from this Congress of an average of $60,000. Some have received--
that is about the average for homeowners. But I would contend that a 
$60,000 to $75,000 to $85,000 grant and some insurance proceeds they 
were able to receive does not, by any means, get these homeowners back 
to where they need to be.
  So we have tried to pass additional legislation that might help and 
have been unable to move anything substantial through the Housing 
Committee. However, we now see an opportunity on this floor on a 
housing bill that is attempting to reach communities that are in 
distress--ours is in distress for a different reason, not, as I said, 
because of failure to pay or because of delinquency or foreclosure. We 
see an opportunity, by making a very modest change in the underlying 
bill, to help these homeowners. This would make it clear, with the 
amendment I offer with Senator Wicker--our amendment would simply say 
that in the community development block grant portion of this bill, 
that it be allowed to be used not just for homes that were foreclosed 
but for homes that were conveyed to local land banks.
  To deal with this situation, we have created in Louisiana--or are in 
the process of actually creating--parishwide authorities that are done 
at the local level; they are called land banks. They have other names 
for them, such as redevelopment authorities. They exist throughout the 
country. It is not anything new. But we are finding we may need to be 
supporting these kinds of land banks as properties are conveyed back to 
the Government--not in every case, but some people are making choices. 
They don't want to rebuild in that place; they would rather take their 
grant money and build somewhere else. That piece of property is then 
conveyed back to our State land bank, and our land bank is trying to 
move these properties back to local parish-based land banks so these 
neighborhoods can be redeveloped with some sort of rhyme and reason to 
them; so it is not hit or miss but that there is some sort of local 
planning. We are being required to build better and stronger and 
smarter. We are trying to actually live up to that challenge by being 
smart about the way we redevelop.
  I see the ranking member of the committee on the floor, the Senator 
from Alabama, who is familiar, of course, with some of the devastation 
that occurred because some of it, unfortunately, happened in Mobile--
not to the extent it happened in the southern part of Mississippi and 
Louisiana. But what I am saying to the Senator from Alabama is that 
with one modest change that actually is germane, according to the 
Chair, and does not cost anything, we would simply allow our portion of 
whatever comes to Louisiana and Mississippi--not a dime more than what 
is already in the bill--to be used for land banks associated with the 
redevelopment of these kinds of properties. I am afraid, if we don't 
make this change, it might put Mississippi and Louisiana and, frankly, 
Alabama and parts of Texas in the position of not being able to use 
their community development block grants for the problem they have.
  So in this whole country, some States have problem A. In other 
States, we have problem B. I am trying to make sure our problem is met 
with this amendment. It is not adding anything; it is an allowable use 
of our community development block grant, and it will go a long way to 
help.
  Now, we estimate--I don't know if the Senator from Alabama has these 
numbers--that for our State, based on the formula that is in the bill, 
Louisiana may get somewhere between $90 million and $100 million, but 
we don't know until that formula is promulgated by the Secretary of 
HUD, but we estimate that based on the formulas in the bill. So we want 
to make sure the $90 million or $100 million can actually

[[Page S2790]]

be used to help these homeowners because they are technically not in 
foreclosure. They are in various stages of legal status, but they are 
not necessarily in foreclosure.
  So that is the purpose of our community development block grant 
amendment. I would most certainly appreciate it if the leadership would 
take a look at it. Again, it is amendment No. 4447. It doesn't cost 
anything. It is scored at zero. I have a great partner in offering this 
amendment, the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Wicker. So that is the 
community development block grant amendment.
  I wish to take a moment to also talk about the mortgage revenue 
bonds, which is part of the financing part of this bill. As my 
colleagues know, this bill is basically made up of two different 
sections. One is a housing section and then one is a tax section. In 
the tax section of this bill, one of the ways the Finance Committee 
wants to try to alleviate some of the problems around the country is to 
allow the issuance of some additional mortgage revenue bonds. We have 
done this for years and years and years. Before I was a Senator, I was 
the State treasurer. I used to issue these bonds in my State. They are 
a very good tool to promote home ownership, which we believe in at home 
in Louisiana, and I am sure everyone else does as well. It gives 
opportunities to build affordable, low-income housing where there is a 
real need throughout the country, particularly now in the gulf coast.
  One of the things I am very concerned about--I don't know if the 
Senator from Alabama or the Senator from Utah, who is on the floor, 
experienced this in their States, but we have a real shortage of 
affordable housing for seniors, as more people want to live 
independently, but they don't necessarily want to live in a 2,000- or 
3,000-square-foot home by themselves. They would like to move somewhere 
closer to maybe where their family is, and they would like an 
affordable rental unit. Some people would like to buy a condo, but to 
people of a certain age bracket, a condo is not something they grew up 
with, so an affordable rental is a more comfortable situation for them. 
We can't find a lot of senior housing down in the gulf coast right now. 
Most everything we had was literally washed away or flooded or 
destroyed.
  So the great thing about this particular provision coming out of 
Finance is these revenue bonds could be used for this kind of building. 
Again, the other amendment I have, No. 4404, does not have a score. 
Actually, it has a minor score of $3 million. It is very minor compared 
to the other costs of this bill. It is de minimis, a $3 million cost. 
What it will do is it will allow us to be able to again use our bonding 
authority--not anything more, not anything additional, but to use our 
bonding authority to address the problem we have with these properties.

  I wish to show some pictures. This is a neighborhood--I am sorry I 
can't identify where this is, and it was some time ago. Most of this 
debris has been picked up throughout the gulf coast, but in many 
places, while the debris is gone, these structures remain as they are 
here: abandoned and destroyed until property owners figure out what 
they are going to do.
  Here is another picture we have used. I am not sure, again, where 
this is, but houses such as this are still throughout the gulf coast 
area; a lot of it has been cleaned up. Maybe this home has been gutted, 
but it is basically down to its 2 by 4s, and it is basically sitting 
there in neighborhood after neighborhood. This is actually a home in 
St. Bernard Parish in a community called Chalmette.
  I wish I had better pictures to show the blocks and blocks of 
devastation that still exist. When I say devastation--it is cleaned up, 
on many of the lots the grass is cut, but there are no homes there, 
there is no neighborhood there. The library is not yet back, the Post 
Office is not yet back, and people are still struggling to rebuild 
their neighborhoods.
  So I am imploring the leadership handling this bill to please take a 
look at amendment No. 4404. Please take a look at amendment No. 4447. 
The cost in one case is nothing. The cost in the other is a de minimis 
$3 million, but it will help tremendously to make this bill, we hope 
will pass, applicable to the situations in Alabama, Mississippi, 
Louisiana, and Texas, whose people are still struggling 2\1/2\ years 
after this devastation.
  Basically, that is the gist of my remarks. We have another amendment 
pending relative to the tax credit, but I will hold my remarks on that. 
But these two amendments we are hoping we can get included in any kind 
of modified package. Again, I have bipartisan support. It does not 
increase the cost of the bill, and it would go a great way to make sure 
this bill, if it does get passed--I know there is opposition in the 
House and I know the President is opposed to this bill, so this bill 
may never see the light of day. I am very clear about that. But if it 
does, at least let the people of Louisiana and Mississippi use the 
money that is being allocated to us anyway for the problem we have--not 
the problem everybody else has--because we simply have a different 
problem. I hope my colleagues would recognize our situation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this afternoon in the Senate, I wish to 
take a minute to commend the Senator from Louisiana for her work on 
these amendments and her concern for her people. Senator Dodd and I 
have talked to the Senator from Louisiana and others about our package. 
The Presiding Officer is a member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs Committee who knows we have done the best we can to craft a 
bill which is focused on bringing relief to those areas affected most 
by the growing rate of foreclosures. We realize this will not be a 
panacea, but it is a good first start. Because we were stalled, as the 
Presiding Officer knows, on the floor, and what we are trying to do is 
make a breakthrough. The success of this effort we have been working on 
for a second week now, I believe, will depend a great deal on whether 
the funds made available in this bill make it to their intended 
designation. We can help to ensure a degree of success by keeping it 
focused on the foreclosure market.
  The Presiding Officer talked about that, as did the Senator from 
Louisiana. Chairman Dodd and I worked closely with Senator Reid and 
Senator McConnell, our respected leaders, to draft a targeted bill 
designed to address the problems caused by the recent turmoil in the 
national housing markets. Our goal was to provide resources to deal 
with the recent foreclosures and try to prevent additional 
foreclosures. In other words, this bill was put together in the context 
of the current conditions of the national housing market.
  I recognize, as I said a minute ago, Senator Landrieu's concern and 
others' concern regarding the housing issues, particularly hers in 
Louisiana. I believe we need to address those, some of them, outside 
this particular legislation. I know the Presiding Officer right now is 
very involved in the Banking and Housing Committee, and we are going to 
continue to address this problem. I think we have to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.


          TESTIMONY OF GENERAL PETRAEUS AND AMBASSADOR CROCKER

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, a little over a year ago, I stood before 
the Senate and recited the words of Thomas Paine--who in his essay 
titled ``Chaos''--spoke about commitment and sacrifice to a noble cause 
when it appeared that all hope was lost. His words still resonate 
today:

       These are the times that try men's souls. The summer 
     soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink 
     from the service of his country; but he that stands it now 
     deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

  Paine wrote those words when it seemed the American Revolution was 
lost. However, their effect was to rally what remained of the 
Continental Army and ensure the success of Washington's raids on 
Trenton and Princeton.
  When I recited Paine's words, our Nation faced a dilemma. Despite the 
great heroism and noble sacrifice of our servicemembers, large portions 
of Iraq were under the control of al-Qaida. The mainstream media had 
concluded that, at best, our forces were locked in a stalemate. Many 
advocated that the only recourse was to bring the troops home and allow 
Iraq to fall in the abyss of an implosion.

[[Page S2791]]

  For some, including the senior Senator from Arizona and me, that was 
never an option. The knowledge, experience and, hopefully, wisdom that 
I have accumulated over the years in this august body allowed me to 
make only one conclusion: If we are not successful in this war the 
result will be catastrophic for our Nation, the Western world, and the 
Middle East. This enemy--and despite what some in the media would lead 
us to believe, our main adversary in Iraq is al-Qaida--will pursue us 
home. Imagine the horrors that will follow if al-Qaida, with 
reinvigorated resources provided by Iraq's oil wealth, were to defeat 
us in Iraq.
  However, one of the great historical truths of our Nation is that in 
our most dire hours, our military has continually provided us with 
leaders of great resolve and strategic brilliance. General David 
Petraeus amply fits that mold.
  The new strategy that General Petraeus proposed--in which he has so 
ably been assisted by Ambassador Crocker--is based on the classical 
counterinsurgency tenet of providing security to the population of a 
nation under attack.
  Why is this critical? By providing security to the Iraqi people, that 
Nation's citizens will develop a vested interest in the creation of 
institutions that will ensure their security for the future. Simply 
put, only in a secure environment can the majority of Iraqis earn a 
living, put food on the table, and provide a better life for their 
families.
  What once was theory is now becoming reality. The Iraqi people are 
seeing considerable results from General Petraeus's strategy and their 
actions and plans for the future increasingly reflect this new reality.
  How do we know this? Since the beginning of 2007, well over 100,000 
individuals have joined the Iraqi Army and security forces. This means 
that a total of 540,000 Iraqis now serve in that Nation's security 
forces. This includes the 91,641 individuals, who in little over a 
year, have joined the Sons of Iraq, the coalition of citizens that are 
tasked with providing security to their local communities. One should 
remember that 80 percent of the Sons of Iraq are Sunni Muslims. In 
addition, it should be noted that al-Qaida receives most of its support 
from the Sunni. Frankly, this alone is a major triumph.
  The Iraqi people are also providing us intelligence. One of the 
methods by which we find weapons and explosive caches is through tips 
from the local population. In 2006, Coalition forces found and cleared 
2,660 such weapons caches. In 2007, after the Petraeus strategy was 
implemented, that number increased to 6,963. What is even more 
impressive is that though we have just entered the fourth month of this 
year, Coalition forces have already seized more weapons caches than in 
all of 2006. Clearly, this increase in seizures would not be possible 
without greater support from the Iraqi population.
  In the area of ethno-sectarian violence, we have seen a dramatic 
reduction in deaths. When our new strategy was first implemented, there 
were more than 2,000 ethno-sectarian deaths a month in Iraq and over 
1,500 in Baghdad alone. Today, there are fewer than 250 ethno-sectarian 
deaths a month in all of Iraq.
  All of these events have occurred during the period of enhanced 
security brought about by General Petraeus's strategy. For example, 
shortly after the implementation of this strategy, there were greater 
then 1,400 weekly security incidents in Iraq. Today that number has 
dropped to less than half.
  In addition, the number of high profile attacks, which include car 
bombs, suicide car bombs and suicide vests--the preferred means of 
murder by al-Qaida--has also decreased by more than half from March 
2007 to the present day.
  Enhanced security has strengthened the foundations of political 
institutions and economic ventures. This is evidenced by a poll 
conducted by the Center for International Private Enterprise which was 
summarized by Ambassador Crocker in his testimony. That poll, which was 
conducted last month, concluded that 78 percent of Iraq's business 
owners ``expect the Iraqi economy to grow significantly in the next 2 
years.''
  Equally as impressive is the International Monetary Fund estimate 
that Iraq's gross domestic product will grow by 7 percent in real terms 
this year--7 percent. That rate of growth will only be matched by some 
Asian tiger economies and it is a level that I wish that the United 
States could enjoy.
  This economic growth and strengthening of political institutions is 
also evidenced by the fact that the United States will no longer fund 
major infrastructure projects. Ambassador Crocker reports the reason 
for this fundamental shift is that Iraq's economy is now earning 
sufficient funds for the Iraqi Government to independently build their 
own infrastructure.
  This does not mean that we should view this conflict through rose-
colored glasses. As evidenced by the events in Basra last week, there 
remain many challenges ahead. The fact is that the Iraqi operations in 
Basra were not properly planned. However, as General Petraeus said: ``. 
. . in the wake of recent operations, there were units and leaders 
found wanting in some cases . . . Nonetheless, the performance of many 
[Iraqi] units was solid, especially once they got their footing and 
gained a degree of confidence, and certain Iraqi elements proved quite 
capable . . .''
  In addition, it should be noted that in previous years no one would 
have dreamed that the Iraqi Government would have launched such an 
operation. Remember, the Prime Minister gave an order to the security 
forces. Those orders were executed. In Basra, the results were mixed. 
Some units did well; some did not. However, the fact that the 
Government thought they could execute this major operation 
independently is a positive development. As General Petraeus testified 
``operations in Basra highlight improvements in the ability of the 
Iraqi Security Forces to deploy substantial number of units, supplies 
and replacements on very short notice; they certainty could not have 
deployed a division's worth of Army and Police units a year ago.''
  Further progress is also being made by Iraq's political institutions. 
When our new strategy was first being implemented, there seemed to be 
an inextricable stalemate in Iraq's parliament. During my trip to Iraq 
in May 2007, Senator Smith and I spoke to senior members of the Iraqi 
Parliament and strongly urged them to pass legislation vital to the 
reconstruction and the establishment of effective political 
institutions. As with any democratic political process, it has been 
slow going. However, the Iraqi Parliament has recently passed important 
laws. These include a new pension law, de-Ba'athification reform, and a 
new Provincial Powers Law, that sets elections for this fall and 
defines the structure of power between the Iraqi Federal Government and 
its provinces. These are great strides forward, and all Americans 
should recognize our accomplishments in Iraq.
  I believe that Ambassador Crocker summed up the situation best when 
he said yesterday:

       Al-Qaida is in retreat in Iraq, but it is not yet defeated. 
     Al-Qaida's leaders are looking for every opportunity they can 
     to hang on. Osama bin Ladin has called Iraq ``the perfect 
     base,'' and it reminds us that a fundamental aim of al-Qaida 
     is to establish itself in the Arab world. It almost succeeded 
     in Iraq; we cannot allow it a second chance . . .
       . . . the world ultimately will judge us far more on the 
     basis of what will happen than what has happened. In the end, 
     how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important 
     than how we came. Our current course is hard, but it is 
     working. Progress is real, although still fragile. We need to 
     stay with it.

  Mr. President, the road has been long and hard. However, as I said 1 
year ago, the words of Thomas Paine remind us that great causes require 
sacrifice, that in any conflict there will be dark days, but if our 
cause is just and our will is strong, there is nothing that we cannot 
accomplish as a people. I suggest very strongly that our cause is just 
and our will is stronger than some in this body believe it to be.
  Mr. President, our forces have accomplished much. It is now our 
responsibility to sustain them until they achieve the victory which 
they deserve, and for which they are fighting.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S2792]]

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes in 
support of the Ensign-Cantwell amendment that I understand is to be 
offered to the pending legislation.
  I have long maintained that targeted tax incentives are an essential 
component of a new energy policy for our country. Accordingly, I look 
forward to voting for this amendment. Because of my longstanding 
commitment to fiscal responsibility, I want to also point out my 
disappointment that the amendment is not going to be paid for in this 
legislation.
  There is no denying that these incentives play a vital role in 
promoting clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency and, in turn, 
reducing our dependence on conventional fuels, promoting a more secure 
energy supply, and combating global warming.
  Secondarily, though also critically, these tax incentives create 
high-wage jobs and reduce consumer and business energy costs.
  In the 110th Congress, we have already tried three times, 
unsuccessfully, to extend these tax provisions. We cannot afford to 
wait any longer. Business decisions are not made overnight, and 
companies that invest in these technologies need to plan with 
certainty. But because of congressional inaction, companies are already 
putting on hold or canceling plans to create and expand investments 
that currently benefit from these tax incentives.
  It is because of this urgency that I plan to vote for the Cantwell-
Ensign amendment. But because the extensions are not paid for, I will 
cast my vote with less than full enthusiasm. This amendment will add to 
our unsustainable budget deficits. Already we send 9 cents out of every 
dollar we collect to pay interest on our national debt. There is no 
justification, other than politics, not to offset the amendment.
  My colleagues in the House have shown greater fiscal restraint than 
we have in the Senate. Because they are less willing to break from the 
pay-go rules that have been adopted in both Chambers, I doubt that the 
House will accept these extensions without some corresponding offsets. 
This leaves the administration with a key role to play in developing a 
compromise that will be acceptable to both Chambers and that will be 
signed by the President.
  President Bush has previously committed to support these tax 
incentives which were enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I can 
recall when he visited my home State of New Mexico to sign that 
legislation. The President praised the bill for recognizing ``that 
America is the world's leader in technology and that we've got to use 
technology to be the world's leader in energy conservation.''
  But while Congress has been working to ensure that America maintains 
this leadership role, the administration has been absent. They have 
rebuffed our requests to identify any acceptable offsets. Most 
recently, we were told by the Department of Treasury that the 
administration will not support the use of sufficient revenue raisers 
listed in its so-called blue book. Why? Because Treasury has reserved 
those offsets to pay for other priorities.
  I call upon the President and this administration to work with 
Congress in good faith to find a way to pay for these incentives. The 
time is far overdue to send the President a package to extend these tax 
provisions--a package that can pass the Congress and can be signed into 
law.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask I be allowed to speak in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator is recognized.


                              Health Care

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments today to 
talk about an important topic affecting individuals and families from 
all across the country, and that is the rising cost of health care. It 
is an issue that affects every individual, every family's pocketbook. 
It is an issue that is affecting our small businesses across the 
country as they try to keep up with the rising cost of health care.
  I thank my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, who last week 
spearheaded a discussion along with seven of my Senate colleagues on 
the conservative principles of health care reform. This is a discussion 
we plan to highlight over the next several weeks and which we will 
continue to focus on in the future.
  I had the privilege of visiting a number of hospitals around South 
Dakota over the March work period, to hear from providers on issues of 
concern to them and to discuss health care reform. I was primarily 
focused on small hospitals, critical access hospitals, providers that 
deliver health care services in very rural and remote areas of this 
country.
  My State of South Dakota has lots of land and not a big population 
base. Yet people's expectation out there is they will have access to 
high-quality health care. As I visited these hospitals and health care 
providers as I visited my State over the March work period, I heard 
lots of different messages, and one of them was we have to figure out a 
way to keep up with these rising costs. Fortunately, for many of the 
smaller hospitals in the rural areas that are critical access 
hospitals, they are able to get cost-based reimbursement, and that is 
something I think has led to the survival of lots of health care 
providers that otherwise would have had to close their doors.
  It is important the American people hear the message of choice and 
affordability championed by many Republicans in the health care debate. 
Unfortunately, we are up against an opposing message, which is one of a 
quick fix or universal plan that Washington will decide for everyone. 
This message too often sticks in the minds of the media, with health 
care trade associations, and with many of our constituents.
  The goal of universal coverage, or allowing every person in America 
the opportunity to afford health care insurance, is an important goal. 
How we work toward this goal is where the debate lies. That is where a 
Clinton or Obama health care plan differs strikingly from that offered 
by our colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain.
  I would like to focus today on one of the most basic principles which 
should guide all our health care reform proposals we debate in the 
coming years and that is to reject this movement toward more 
Government-run health insurance. Instead, we ought to make long-lasting 
reforms to both our tax system and the insurance market to increase 
access to privately owned health care coverage. That is private 
insurance you, the individual, can choose and you can keep from job to 
job.
  What we have today is already a mixture of Government-run insurance, 
including Medicare, which provides coverage to over 40 million seniors, 
and Medicaid, a program available to the poor and the disabled, and 
private insurance, usually offered through medium or large employers.
  Only about 7 percent of the population in this country actually 
purchase their insurance on their own directly from an insurance 
company. In lots of ways, the way people access health insurance today 
is very limiting when you consider the Government or your employer does 
not choose other important services in your life, such as the food you 
eat or the car or the home you buy.
  Rising health care costs are also a huge problem, not only for those 
who have private insurance but also for our Government programs. The 
Medicare trustees now report that into the future, the trust funds have 
over $36 trillion in long-term unfunded obligations. By that I mean 
benefits that are promised but not paid for, which amounts--if you can 
belief this--to 2\1/2\ times the size of the entire U.S. economy. Let 
me repeat that, $36 trillion in long-term unfunded liabilities or 2\1/
2\ times the entire U.S. economy.
  This is money somebody has to pay, and it is an added burden on 
future

[[Page S2793]]

generations and on our economy. Left unchecked, the Federal Government 
will be forced to cut benefits or substantially increase taxes. If 
there is one thing that should be obvious to all of us, it is that a 
system such as traditional Medicare or Medicaid is not sustainable 
financially. There are no natural incentives under these programs to 
control costs. It is not just the cost of these programs that presents 
a problem. While over 40 million seniors have Medicare coverage, most 
beneficiaries also have some form of supplemental coverage, or other 
insurance, that wraps around because traditional Medicare is not 
enough.
  In 2004, only 9.3 percent of Medicare beneficiaries relied solely on 
the traditional fee-for-service program, and over 60 percent had some 
form of private supplemental coverage.
  Also, for many providers in my State of South Dakota, Medicare's 
prices and regulations do not account for the challenges patients and 
providers face in rural areas. Once again, one size fits all, 
Government-run health insurance is neither financially sustainable nor 
is it even sufficient for those it is meant to help. For the next 
several weeks, the Senator from Louisiana, myself, and Senators DeMint, 
Burr, Coburn, Martinez, Isakson, and Corker will be talking about the 
alternatives that are out there to our current rules and regulations 
and how we can achieve affordable coverage for all Americans through 
expanding access to private insurance.
  While some of my colleagues in this body would like to expand 
Medicare to cover everyone to achieve the goal of universal coverage, 
or to expand Medicaid and SCHIP to cover many more Americans, I 
strongly oppose the expansion of Government insurance at the expense of 
choice, quality, and affordability.
  Frankly, I want much more for my constituents back home in South 
Dakota and others across the country. I don't want the next President 
to push through a health care plan that will put more families on 
Government insurance, simply so we can say we have provided coverage.
  As we were having the SCHIP debate last year, this point came up. 
Expanding SCHIP, which is essentially Medicaid in my State and in most 
other States, to families making as much as $80,000 per year, would 
have made it harder to attract good physicians to South Dakota, 
something we struggle with constantly in rural States. At a time when 
as many as 50 percent of physicians nationwide are limiting or dropping 
Medicaid patients because it simply does not cover their costs, why 
would we want to expand this program even further?
  There is a better way. In my State, most of the uninsured are 
employees of small businesses. These are individuals capable of owning 
their own insurance, but it is simply not affordable or is not offered 
through their place of employment. What Senator McCain has proposed--
and even one Senator from the other party, Senator Wyden from Oregon--
is to reform the tax incentives in place now that only benefit large 
employers, CEOs and their employees, in purchasing health insurance, 
and level the playing field for everyone else. This can be accomplished 
by eliminating the tax benefit employers receive when offering 
insurance to their employees, which equals more than $200 billion over 
1 year, and instead taking that money and offering it in the form of a 
tax credit or standard tax deduction to every American toward the 
purchase of health insurance.
  With a tax credit proposal, we would be able to give every American a 
credit--$2,000 for an individual or $4,500 or $5,000 for a family--
which is advanceable and refundable toward the purchase of insurance.
  You could still choose to get your insurance through your employer or 
keep it, if that is the best option for you. But for anyone else, they 
would also have a substantial tax benefit to be able to choose their 
own plan that fits their needs and which is not tied to their employer. 
This would allow individuals and families to keep their insurance when 
moving from job to job.
  By giving all Americans the option of a tax credit, we would empower 
millions of families who normally could not afford to buy insurance on 
their own to do so on the individual market, putting millions of 
consumers in the driver's seat, demanding more personalized, 
convenient, and affordable insurance plans. Right now, it is simply not 
possible for families or individuals in most States to afford their own 
insurance plan. But by redirecting this tax incentive and creating a 
more vibrant market, quality insurance plans will become more 
affordable and more accessible. This will drive down the cost of 
insurance for everyone.
  Finally, by giving individuals a tax credit toward the purchase of 
insurance, we allow people to choose their own health insurance and the 
type of plan they desire. They could choose the plan that fits their 
needs, rather than having their employer do it for them. In many cases, 
their employer is only going to offer a very limited number of 
options--perhaps doesn't know the health care needs from one person in 
the plan to the next. More people will know what they are purchasing 
and will know what their premiums are going toward each and every 
single month, making us all better consumers of health care services.
  Now, more than ever, words and phases such as Washington bureaucracy, 
Government-run health care, wage garnishment, and mandates describe the 
direction many in this Congress wish to take. I believe that is the 
wrong direction, and I will continue to support health care reforms 
which expand choices and which give people more freedom to access the 
health care that is right for them.
  This is a debate that needs to be joined in the days and weeks and 
months ahead. My hope is it will get underway this year. My expectation 
is anything done this year will probably be very incremental because I 
think the big, bold decisions that need to be made regarding America's 
health care system will probably, regrettably, get punted into next 
year, after the Presidential election. But the debate needs to begin.
  What I and my colleagues I mentioned have decided is, we need to 
start that dialog now. We need to get the American people engaged in 
this debate in a way that allows them to see what the options are, what 
the alternatives are, what their choices are. I believe a majority of 
constituents in my State of South Dakota, and I would daresay across 
this country, will chose a system that is based in the market, that 
gives them more choices, more alternatives, that creates competition--a 
competitive model, and, yes, that covers more Americans who, today, do 
not have access to health insurance.
  I believe that is a goal that is achievable. I believe the debate 
needs to start now. I also believe that whoever the next President of 
the United States is, needs to work together with this Congress, we 
need to work together as Democrats and Republicans on a health care 
plan that is based on these very simple principles.
  It is the principles that have served this country and this American 
economy so well for so many years--freedom, choice, competition, 
quality--that ought to be the model for the health care of the future. 
I look forward to continuing this discussion throughout the coming 
months.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota, 
Senator Thune, for his leadership this week and his remarks on this 
vital topic. As he said, a number of us have joined to forge and 
promote and advance this discussion; specifically, of course, Senator 
Thune, Senator Burr of North Carolina, Senator DeMint of South 
Carolina, Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, Senator Isakson of Georgia, 
Senator Martinez of Florida, and myself.
  As Senator Thune said, what we want to do is advance this debate and 
lay out the conservative model for dramatic, bold health care reform so 
we advance this debate and move toward that sort of needed reform.
  Senator Thune is right. There is huge consensus in America that our 
health care delivery system is broken. It needs dramatic action, 
emergency care, if you will. But for so long here in Washington, that 
was only heard one way, that somehow we needed to react with a bigger 
government program and a big government response.
  I think now the American people are more aware that we have a 
critical

[[Page S2794]]

choice, and Senator Thune has helped lay out that choice today. Is it 
big Government and a government program or is it more of a system 
dominated by private insurance, individual choice, empowering the 
patient, doctor-patient relationship, and that mantra Senator Thune 
mentioned?
  Of course, I agree with him and thank him for advancing this debate. 
We are going to continue this debate over the next several weeks. I 
know in the very near future Senator Isakson will be taking the floor 
and going to other venues to begin talking about a closely related 
subject, which is the choice between forced enrollment in certain 
programs versus maximum individual choice.
  I thank Senator Thune for his remarks and leadership and look forward 
to those further remarks of Senator Isakson and others as we advance 
this critical debate toward dramatic, bold health care reform.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, it looks as if we are getting to the end 
of this debate on housing, and it has been a good one.
  I come to the floor before we move to the final stages of this debate 
to thank my colleagues for their extraordinary help in putting into 
this bill, which is a major piece of legislation--attempting to help 
communities throughout the country deal with the added rate of 
foreclosures, the spiraling downward of so many neighborhoods due to a 
variety of different circumstances--and I think it is important that 
the Senate act today.
  I particularly thank the chairman of this committee, Senator Dodd, 
for his patience and his tenacity in getting us to this point and for 
putting in many good provisions into this bill that will be a help to 
homeowners, to communities, in some instances to lenders, who got 
themselves into difficulty because, again, our goal is to try to 
reinvigorate the housing markets, to stop the slide. Particularly, in 
the case of Louisiana, we still have a significant housing crisis that 
did not start with the foreclosure crisis but started when 250,000 
homes were destroyed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  This Congress has been generous at times in helping us to try to come 
up with ways to deal with this unprecedented situation. I am very 
grateful for the amendment that was adopted overwhelmingly last week by 
a vote of over 70 Members of this body to say that our Road Home 
grants, which is what they are called in Louisiana--they are called 
Homeowner Assistance Grants in Mississippi--but those grants that have 
been provided by this Congress to help people rebuild homes that were 
destroyed when insurance proceeds were either not available or not 
enough. This is from small towns such as Waveland, MS, to very large 
cities such as New Orleans, LA; places such as Lake Charles, LA, to 
small little communities such Creole, LA, on the southwest side.
  So it is affecting urban and rural places in my State. That amendment 
we adopted last week will be a significant help to homeowners trying to 
use those grants to get back into their homes. Until that amendment 
passed, this grant, if you will, was taxable. With the amendment we 
placed on the floor of the Senate, those grants will be treated as 
nontaxable, basically.
  I wish we could get this bill to the President's desk before April 
15. We are going to move it off the floor today. It has, of course, to 
go to the House for negotiations and eventually get to the President.
  I am very hopeful this bill--generally in its current form, with, 
hopefully, some improvements, as it continues to move through the 
process--can get to the President's desk quickly because our people on 
the gulf coast--particularly in Louisiana, but on the gulf coast--who 
received help 2 years ago through community development block grants 
are feeling a real pinch right now because they are now paying $5,000, 
$10,000 or $20,000 in taxes on those grants at a time when they can 
least afford it.
  I cannot tell you how many people stop me when I go home and say: 
Senator, if you could do one thing for us, please tell them we cannot 
pay tax on these grants we have received--which have been minimal, 
helpful but minimal, in their efforts to rebuild hundreds of thousands 
of homes.
  Let me say for the record--and I am very proud of Habitat for 
Humanity. I am the cochair of the Habitat for Humanity caucus here. I 
have been on many builds throughout the country. Habitat for Humanity, 
which has not stopped working since the rain stopped--and I see the 
Senator from Connecticut on the Senate floor--and which has had 
thousands of volunteers every day coming to their sites in Louisiana, 
has only completed 162 houses--162 houses--and they are the largest 
homebuilder in New Orleans. We lost about 250,000 dwelling places 
throughout the state of Louisiana. So I am here in an uphill battle.
  I appreciate my colleagues bearing with this speech over and over 
again, but I can only say, if your cities or your communities were as 
devastated as the ones I am representing, you would be here, too, 
trying every way you could to bring every little bit of help and big 
help to them.
  So I am grateful that finally we got a housing bill to the floor 
after 2\1/2\ years. Finally, we got a very significant addition to some 
tax relief. I will say that in further reading of this bill, I am 
encouraged--the Senator from Connecticut is here--that the $140 million 
to $150 million in extra mortgage revenue bonds that will come to our 
State will be a help. I think in further reading of the bill, the 
underlying bill actually will work for us. So I am very pleased.
  I think we will continue to work on the $95 million to $100 million 
that will come to our State in the underlying bill to help land banks. 
We are establishing and have established NORA in New Orleans and other 
land banks, perhaps in St. Bernard, Cameron, Lake Charles, perhaps in 
Plaquemines, perhaps in St. Tammany and Jefferson Parishes, which are 
the hardest hit parishes. I think this bill allows for support of those 
land banks. So that is another $95 million to $100 million that may 
come for that purpose, and we have been looking for some help in that 
regard.

  So, overall, this bill will address many issues in Louisiana with the 
additional help we have received through these amendments. I am very 
pleased that we have made progress.
  Again, I wish to thank the Senator. He has been more than generous 
with his time. I know this has been difficult because there are 50 of 
us who are asking him for special help and attention. But he has been 
down to our State. I am hoping he will come back and walk through some 
of these neighborhoods.
  Finally, I will say that this is quite an interesting and wonderful--
if you can say that--experiment going on in the United States of 
America, because the question is, when a community of 60,000 people is 
wholly destroyed, which happened in St. Bernard Parish, the parish 
south of New Orleans, is it possible for the Government to rebuild it? 
If so, how and how quickly and how well? There are nonprofits and there 
are universities, from Harvard University to Stanford to LSU to some of 
the top social scientists in the country right there on the gulf coast, 
because in their minds, in this century, there has not been a 
devastation like this in modern times.
  So there are some interesting questions: How does a neighborhood come 
back? Do you build the churches first or the schools or the libraries? 
How important is water and electricity relative to the scheme of things 
in terms of rebuilding neighborhoods? How do you do it with community 
planning in a democracy where every neighbor's voice has to be treated 
the same? So these are some exciting times. We are just making the best 
of a very desperate situation and trying to do the best we can to 
rebuild our communities.
  I want to end with thanking all of the volunteers, all of the 
nonprofits, all of the businesses that have stepped up. I thank the 
Senate for acting on at least a very significant portion of this

[[Page S2795]]

tax relief for homeowners who are still putting the pieces of their 
lives and their fortunes back together--regardless of how modest some 
of those fortunes may be--neighborhood to neighborhood. But people are 
really trying to put their homes and their lives back together. So I 
thank the Senator from Connecticut.
  I understand we are going to move now to the managers' package. 
Again, we have some significant portions taken care of in this bill. I 
am looking forward to being able to let the State know that another 
$140 million, $150 million worth of mortgage revenue bonds that I 
personally hope will go to affordable, low-income housing, workforce 
housing, and particularly for seniors who have been so devastated by 
the loss of their homes, and again, the support that may come out of 
this bill for our land banks as we think of new and innovative ways to 
get this property back on the private rolls, redeveloped in a way that 
creates excitement and vibrancy in neighborhoods from New Orleans East 
to Lakeview to the Lower Ninth Ward, all the way to lower Packwood 
Parish, which is about as far south as you can go in Louisiana.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Iraq Hearings

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we had a hearing yesterday in the Armed 
Services Committee, of which I am a member, in which General Petraeus 
and Ambassador Crocker made their reports back to the Congress, as they 
promised. They also testified yesterday afternoon before the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, and today they are before the House 
committee. I think they had about a 30-minute break or less between the 
testimony here and their testimony in the Foreign Relations Committee. 
I thought General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker did a marvelous job 
and were asked a lot of tough questions, which is the Congress's 
responsibility, I don't dispute.
  What I wish to share with my colleagues today relates to the 
testimony of General Jack Keane, who testified this morning before the 
Armed Services Committee.
  General Keane was former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. He is 
a paratrooper, a combat veteran, a student of the military for 37 
years, a four star general who has made four trips to Iraq in the last 
year, and he has made a number of suggestions and continues to be, in 
my opinion, one of the most respected observers of the Iraqi military 
situation we have in our country today.
  In fact, I happened to be on ``The Charlie Rose Show'' with him and 
Senator Jack Reed last night. Reference was made that he was an adviser 
to Presidential candidate and Senate Member Hillary Clinton. He said 
that, in fact, he had provided advice to her, but he had provided 
advice to all three of the leading candidates still in the race and 
three of those who dropped out. His advice is widely sought. His 
criticism was real over a year ago when he felt the policies we were 
executing in Iraq were not good policies and not effective. He believed 
a change in policy was called for. To a significant degree, the surge, 
and even more importantly, the tactical changes that took place with 
the surge were suggestions that he had made. Of course, General 
Petraeus also executed them, and it represented General Petraeus's 
view, but General Keane did make a valuable contribution in the new 
policy we have undertaken.
  Now, the American people are concerned about Iraq. They are rightly 
worried that we have a long-term commitment, and they wonder whether 
there is a good and decent government at the end of that commitment, 
whether it will be worth the effort we are putting forth, and whether 
we have a realistic chance of success in Iraq.
  I have asked General Petraeus each and every time he has testified 
before me: Do you believe we have a realistic chance of success? He 
said that when he first went over there, when things were going badly 
and he knew he had to make some changes, he said: Yes, Senator. If I 
didn't believe I could be successful, I wouldn't go, I wouldn't take 
the job. Since then, he has twice reported based on his time there that 
he thinks we have a realistic chance of success.
  What did General Keane say to us today? This very fine, highly 
respected professional military officer said this:

       The character of my visits to Iraq is to spend considerable 
     time with the Iraqi people, their Sheik and Tribal leaders, 
     as well as time with our U.S. military, Iraqi military, and 
     civilian leaders, and our troops.

  That is a direct quote. I will continue to quote General Keane:

       First and foremost, we have the most talented and capable 
     leadership team in Iraq represented by General Petraeus and 
     Ambassador Crocker. Nothing in my 40 plus years in national 
     security compares to this extraordinary team who provide the 
     very best of leadership to their marvelous teammates and 
     troops.

  He talks about the dramatic turnaround:

       The security turnaround in Iraq from the hell of 2006 and 3 
     years of failed strategy is one of the most stunning 
     achievements in the annals of counterinsurgency practice. It 
     was achieved in a matter of months versus the years it 
     normally takes to turn around one of the most formidable 
     insurgencies the West has ever faced. Fundamental to that 
     success was the use of proven counterinsurgency practice to 
     protect the people with sufficient amounts of Iraq and U.S. 
     troops. This was a catalyst--

  He says--

     for the widespread Sunni awakening movement, which is truly 
     underappreciated here in the U.S. What really happened is the 
     Sheiks and Tribal leaders decided they could not achieve 
     their political objectives with al-Qaida Iraq in fighting the 
     United States and the government of Iraq. As such, the 
     overwhelming majority of Sunni leaders made four strategic 
     decisions to (1) stop the violence; (2) leverage the United 
     States leaders to influence the government of Iraq; (3) 
     reconcile with the government of Iraq; and (4) provide their 
     ``sons'' to work with us and the Iraqis to help defeat the 
     AQI--

  al-Qaida Iraq--

     and protect their own people.

  Now, that is a remarkable development. It occurred in a matter of 
months, and I agree with him. I don't think even those of us in the 
Congress have fully understood the significance of what has happened. I 
don't say everything is perfect and is going to be perfect and there 
are not dangers and problems ahead, but we need to listen to the report 
from this objective, respected general very carefully.
  He goes on to say:

       These results are the very best one could expect in 
     fighting an insurgency; your opponent not only surrenders, 
     but comes to your side, to assist. The entire Arab Muslim 
     world are aware of the Sunni rejection of AQI, the first 
     major occurrence, ever, where the people have rejected the 
     AQI and their barbaric hold on them. Additionally, in a 
     recent poll over 90 percent of the Sunnis are expected to 
     participate in the political process in the 2008 provisional 
     elections and in the general election in 2009. What does that 
     tell us about reconciliation? Clearly, the Sunnis are 
     politically reconciling with the government of Iraq and the 
     government of Iraq is assisting.

  That is a good report.
  People all over the Arab world know that al-Qaida has a Sunni 
heritage, and that al-Qaida fed on the Sunni unhappiness over being 
displaced from power as part of the Saddam Hussein regime. Many of the 
displaced Sunnis were military people with military training and 
capable in military conflicts and attacks. Now many Sunnis have 
partnered with the United States and the Government of Iraq and turned 
against al-Qaida and have basically driven them out of large portions 
of the country.
  General Keane goes on to say this:

       The implication of this is that the central region of Iraq 
     is relatively secure and now the U.S. and Iraqi forces are 
     focusing their efforts on the remaining presence of AQI in 
     the north.

  Now, I hope my colleagues will listen to this next sentence:

       In my view, the AQI are already operationally defeated and 
     the final campaign against AQI is underway as we speak. We 
     will complete the defeat of AQI in the months ahead in 2008.

  I say to my colleagues, without the slightest doubt, this is his 
professional

[[Page S2796]]

military opinion. It is not a political document, and it is consistent 
with what we have been reading. If you read through what the media 
saying that the people in Al Anbar, the Sunni region that had been the 
haven of al-Qaida, have turned against al-Qaida, they have joined with 
the U.S. military and the government of Iraq and have made Fallujah and 
Ramadi now cities of relative safety. Just a few months ago they were 
exceedingly dangerous and violent cities. It is not perfect, but huge 
progress was made.
  General Keane went on to say this:

       Make no mistake, this is genuine progress and has led to a 
     significant conclusion. We cannot lose militarily in Iraq, as 
     we were on the verge of doing in 2006. The AQI and remaining 
     hardliner Sunni insurgents cannot mount an offensive that 
     they could sustain, which would threaten the regime. Are we 
     finished? No, but we and the Iraqis have the momentum, we are 
     on the offense, and we can finally see that winning in Iraq 
     is now a likely outcome.

  He talks about the problem with the Iranians. He doesn't minimize 
that in any way. He goes on to talk about Prime Minister Maliki. We 
have had people continually criticize Prime Minister Maliki, but it 
appears to me, based on the testimony I have heard, that he is growing 
in personal confidence and stature and is beginning to show some of the 
leadership we would like for him to show in the sovereign nation of 
Iraq.
  He talked about Maliki's decision to quickly send troops to the 
south, to Basra, where a militia group and special groups associated 
with the Shia community were causing trouble to the central government. 
Maliki is a Shia, his government is dominated by Shia, and the majority 
of the country is Shia. A lot of the people who criticize the war at 
every possible turn have said that the Shia government in Iraq is doing 
nothing to crack down on the Shia militia. Then when Maliki does it, 
they promptly rise up and start saying he didn't do it wisely; he 
should have done it differently.
  Let's see what General Jack Keane said:

       As impulsive as he was, and while the planning and 
     coordination [of this action to Basra] was inadequate, this 
     is the right course of action. We should not be quick to 
     judge the success of a campaign by the first few days of 
     action when we know this is the beginning of a campaign which 
     will last for months.

  He is talking about a campaign against extremist Shia militia, 
particularly in the south.

       My view is, the campaign in the south will not be as 
     difficult as the fight against AQI and the Sunni insurgents. 
     Indeed, Maliki's political position has been considerably 
     enhanced because all the major political parties are 
     supporting Maliki against the Sadirists, who are now 
     isolated. In fact, this weekend Maliki announced that you 
     cannot participate in the upcoming elections if your 
     political party has a militia. This had thrown the Sadirists 
     into disarray.

  So I think it is a noteworthy event that Maliki took the central army 
of Iraq, supported as best we could, and sent them off to the south--
almost a division--to confront these Shia militia and, as General Keane 
noted, they can be successful in the long run. It has thrown the 
Sadirists into disarray and it has been very popular with the Iraqi 
people, who would like to see him standing up to these groups, many of 
whom are associated with Iran. There is a nationalistic mood in the 
country of Iraq. They do not want to be dominated by Iran.
  So General Keane goes on to say this:

       All that said, it is critical to succeed. It is in the U.S. 
     national interests to defeat Iran in Iraq. To do so, we need 
     a U.S. national and regional strategy. . . .

  Many of our colleagues and commentators continue to say, well, yes, 
we have had some military progress, thank you, General Petraeus and 
people like you. We congratulate you on your work, but still the 
Government of Iraq has shown no political progress. Without political 
progress, ultimately, we cannot have peace and a progressive Iraq, so 
it is all doomed to failure. You have heard those arguments on 
television all the time, and they are on the floor of the Senate, and 
they were raised in committee. This is what General Keane said:

       The surge or counter-offensive was always intended to buy 
     time so that the Iraqis could make political and economic 
     progress. This is happening and while there is much to be 
     done, the progress is definable. How can anyone conclude 
     there is no political progress when (1) the Sunnis are 
     reconciling with a Shia dominated government, stopped the 
     violence, and are providing 91,000 of their sons [Sons of 
     Iraq] to assist us? This, after all, was the intent of the 
     much-discussed national legislative benchmarks. (2) As to the 
     benchmarks, we, the United States Government [he was somewhat 
     critical of our Government] ``brow-beated'' the government of 
     Iraq into submitting to a legislative agenda. After we 
     achieved some basic security, the government of Iraq has made 
     impressive political progress--passing 12 of 18 benchmarks 
     and making progress on 5 others. Significantly, 4 out of 6 
     legislative benchmarks, including deBaathification, amnesty, 
     semi-autonomous regions and provincial powers are passed. Why 
     is it so difficult to acknowledge that both these points, 
     Sunni reconciliation and major national legislation, 
     represent significant political progress?

  I ask my colleagues, why are we in this body not willing to 
acknowledge this is progress? Is it because we are so invested in 
predicting a defeat of our own military that we refuse to acknowledge 
that progress of unexpected depth and breadth has occurred? It is not 
over yet, I submit. This is a difficult, dangerous situation still. The 
violence is still about in Iraq; I don't deny that. But it is a 60-
percent, or more, reduction in less than a year. And huge sections of 
the country have begun to reconcile, as we hoped and prayed would 
occur.

  We had this talk through the last election. It was a good way to 
articulate it politically. Opponents of the war argued that the only 
thing they understand in the Iraqi Government and the only way they 
will reconcile and work out their political differences is for us to 
tell them to do so, and if they don't do so, we threaten to pull out 
our troops, regardless of the consequences on the ground, and this will 
make them more likely to reconcile and be nice to one another. We 
basically rejected that and we signed on to a new strategy, a 
counterinsurgency strategy, which we called a surge. What did General 
Keane say about that?

       It is a myth to suggest by withdrawing rapidly, somehow, 
     that will force the Iraqis to make progress they would not 
     make by our presence. Anyone who truly knows the situation in 
     Iraq, and the Iraqi leaders, realizes that it is the American 
     presence that has aided the Iraqis to make the progress they 
     have made and will continue to make. Our encouragement, 
     tough-mindedness, and genuine assistance are major factors in 
     that success. To leave and abandon them forces them into 
     isolation, not reconciliation. It brings out their worst 
     fears, driven by their paranoia about the past, that the 
     Shias are on their own and their enemies are all around. What 
     is needed is our continued, but not open-ended, presence to 
     further our mutual objectives.

  He talked about our force, our military. This is important. This man 
has given his life to the service of his country. He said this:

       One final point, about our ground forces; not only are they 
     magnificent but are performing to a standard not seen in any 
     previous conflict. They are not a broken force, or near 
     broken. Their discipline, morale, competence, behavior, and 
     courage is extraordinary, and it is so with the knowledge 
     that many of the American people do not support the war, but 
     do support them. Are they stressed, and their loved ones as 
     well, by the repeated deployments? Of course they are. But 
     this is a proud, resilient force that has no quit in it; they 
     have a dogged determination to succeed. We are fighting two 
     wars that are in our national interest [Iraq and Afghanistan] 
     and I have known since 
     9/11, our force, which I was a part of it, was committed to 
     protect the American people by staying on the offense against 
     our enemies. They want to win, and they will; they do not 
     want to be a party to choosing defeat, or to be part of an 
     Army or Marine Corps that suffers a humiliating defeat. That 
     stark reality will break the force. Fighting protracted wars 
     in our history has always stressed our forces. Doing what we 
     can to reduce the impact is critical, but choosing victory 
     is, hands-down, the best answer.

  It was a remarkable bit of testimony, I think, and it came from a man 
whose credentials are undisputed--a general who was prepared to 
criticize our tactics when he believes they were in error. He invested 
time by going there four times to visit this country. He has gone 
throughout the entire country, and he is in a position to evaluate and 
analyze whether our new tactics--the surge and counterinsurgency 
tactics General Petraeus has applied--were successful. He said it is 
one of the most dramatic turnarounds in the history of warfare, 
certainly in fighting against an insurgency.
  We can all disagree about the war and whether we should have gone 
there, and how we should draw down our troops. But let's not deny that 
with

[[Page S2797]]

the courage and fidelity of our military men and women in uniform, they 
have made dramatic progress in recent months. That progress places us 
in a much better position to secure a very successful outcome in this 
effort.
  As to those who have opinions about what we should do in Iraq, and 
they think perhaps the President's ideas or others are not worthy of 
respect, let me just say it this way: January, a year ago, General 
Petraeus went over to Iraq. Last summer, we funded by an overwhelming 
vote the surge giving General Petraeus additional troops and additional 
authorities to lead in Iraq. We basically gave General Petraeus a 
chance because things had not been going well and people were very 
worried, and I was one of them.
  General Petraeus was No. 1 in his class at Command and General Staff 
College, received a Ph.D. from Princeton University, commanded the 
101st Airborne Division in Mosul when the war began, and spent a year 
there. I visited with him there. He came home for a period of time, I 
think less than a year. He was asked to go back and train the Iraqi 
military. I visited him in Baghdad when he was doing that. Following 
that tour, he came home and he wrote the Defense Department manual on 
how to confront and defeat an insurgency, and before the ink was dry on 
that manual we asked him to go back and lead that effort.
  I would say we have never had a better prepared general for the 
complex military and political situation such as we face in Iraq. There 
has been a dramatic improvement under his leadership. That is 
indisputable.
  General Petraeus testified yesterday, and this is basically what he 
said: I have drawn down the surge numbers. We will have those numbers 
completely drawn down by this summer. So our troop levels will be back 
to where they were before the surge occurred. I think, it is my best 
military judgment--my best military judgment--that we ought to pause 
for a while, and not immediately continue to draw down--and not for a 
year, just for a matter of months--and make sure we don't go so fast in 
our withdrawal that we destabilize the progress we have made because 
much of the progress is fragile. It could fall back if we don't conduct 
ourselves properly. That is what he asked us to do.
  We have political generals, we have commentators on television who 
like to talk, and on the radio, but I will tell you who has earned my 
respect. General Petraeus. If he says, after all this effort and all 
the commitment of this Nation, that he needs a few months of pause 
before we begin to draw down again, then I think we ought to give it to 
him. Who is prepared to dispute that? If we don't support that, what we 
are saying is we think we know better than General Petraeus. General 
Keane says it is the finest military team he has ever seen assembled in 
his 40 years in the military.
  I made the mistake of saying that General Petraeus--because I visited 
him over there, I knew this was his third tour in Iraq--that he had 
served 3 years in the war on terror. A little later it came up again. 
He said: Since 2001, I have been deployed 4\1/2\ years.
  I remember when he went this time. He was asked to go. He believed he 
could make a difference. He believed he owed it to his country to give 
it his best shot. I am sure he felt a burden--people said he was the 
best person we had to lead our troops--to try to fulfill the request of 
his country. He left his family again to place his life at risk and to 
serve our country in Iraq.
  I think his advice has been proven correct repeatedly, and I believe 
we ought to give him this chance to succeed. I agree with General Keane 
that nothing would be more corrosive of a fabulous military than to 
have all their sacrifice, all their efforts, the loss of life, the 
injuries sustained among the brotherhood of the military, to have all 
that thrown away by a precipitous political pullback. What will the 
military think the next time we ask them to go somewhere?
  I have to tell you, Mr. President, I think we were far too optimistic 
about creating a government in a country that has never had a 
legitimate government, that has no experience, and no history with it. 
We thought it was far easier than it turned out to be. We thought and 
did not fully comprehend, as General Keane indicated, the depth of the 
opposition that rose up after the initial successful invasion. Our 
military was smaller than we needed. Now we know, and perhaps we should 
have known earlier.
  We have made some mistakes. It has not been a perfect operation, that 
is for sure. I respect people who disagree with what I have said. Good 
people can disagree. I am not questioning their patriotism. However, 
logic, common sense, and a commitment to the men and women who have 
gone out and served us so well, to me, makes it pretty easy to say we 
should support General Petraeus's reasonable request that the continued 
drawdown pause for a while before resuming, and we should support it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4429

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak 
against amendment No. 4429, which has been offered by my good friend, 
Senator Alexander from Tennessee. Senator Alexander's amendment would 
slash the wind tax credit in half and would curtail the wind energy 
development for the State of Colorado and for the Nation.
  All across America, what we see today is great enthusiasm for the 
possibility of renewable energy. It is driven, in my view, in a very 
different way, with a robust look at renewable energy as a way forward. 
In the 1970s, Richard Nixon coined the term ``energy independence'' 
after OPEC was formed. Then Jimmy Carter talked to the Nation about the 
importance of energy independence that we needed to embrace with the 
moral imperative of a war. Yet through the eighties, through the 
nineties, through the beginning of this century, we did not, frankly, 
live up to their vision or to that promise of energy independence. In 
fact, we went the other way. And in going the other way, what has 
happened is we have compromised our national security with our 
addiction to oil that we import from other countries to where in March 
of 2007 we imported 67 percent of our oil from foreign countries.
  We compromise our environmental security as we see what is happening 
around our planet with the danger of global warming and the 
consequences it will bring to this planet and to this generation and to 
generations to come. And we have lost our way forward in terms of 
creating economic opportunities in America because what has happened is 
the technology we developed in America, such as the technology from the 
National Renewable Lab in Golden, CO, has, in fact, been taken by other 
countries--Spain, Germany, and other countries--and they have developed 
a very strong energy renewable economy.
  When we talk about renewable energy, I agree very much with my 
colleagues on both the Democratic and Republican sides who have said we 
need to embrace the renewable energy future of America with an ethic 
that is a sustainable ethic, with the sense that we are here to do 
everything we possibly can, and we cannot do this by fits and starts. 
When we look at wind energy, it seems to me we need to come together to 
support the future of wind energy in America.
  In my State of Colorado, we are seeing a virtual revolution occurring 
in terms of what is happening with wind energy. In 2004, there was 
hardly any wind generation taking place in my State of Colorado. I 
remember going across the eastern plains during my campaign for the 
Senate and then following that time, my visit to all 64 counties in the 
State and talking about how renewable energy would open a whole new 
chapter in rural America, would help us in so many ways to address the 
fundamental issues of our time.
  Since 2004, my State of Colorado has moved to the point where we are 
about to produce 1,000 megawatts of electrical power a year in the 
State of Colorado--1,000 megawatts of electrical power--by harnessing 
the power of the wind. It would take much longer than 3

[[Page S2798]]

years to permit a coal-fired powerplant, and 1,000 megawatts represent 
the energy that would be generated from three coal-fired powerplants.
  I don't have anything against coal, as my friend from Pennsylvania 
knows. We need to have coal some way as part of our portfolio of 
energies as we move forward, but we need to embrace the renewable 
energies we know are now on the market and make these initiatives of 
renewable energy sustainable over a long period of time.
  Many projects are depending on our extension of the production tax 
credit and the investment tax credit. These tax credits are very 
important. I will be supporting Senator Cantwell's and Senator Ensign's 
amendment later on in the vote we will be having.
  A recent study by Navigant Consulting indicates that failing to 
extend the investment tax credit could result in the withdrawal of 
nearly $19 billion in capital investment in solar and wind. That would 
result in a loss of 116,000 jobs in 2009, including 10,600 jobs in the 
State of Colorado.
  Over the last several weeks, the last 2 months on the floor of the 
Senate, we have talked about the economic situation in which we find 
ourselves. We said what we have to do is stimulate the economy and do 
some things that make sure the economy doesn't go further in the ditch. 
There are some who say we are already in the ditch. Alan Greenspan said 
yesterday he thought we were already in a recession. We need to do what 
we can to make sure that ditch is not too deep so we cannot find our 
way out.
  One of those ways is making sure we are stimulating the economy in 
ways that work. When we talk about production tax credits and 
investment tax credits, that essentially will make sure we have these 
116,000 jobs created in America. It is something we should very much 
support.
  Congress has looked at the PTC and the ITC in fits and starts. It was 
first created to expire at the end of 1999, again in 2001, and again in 
2003. We need to stop those fits and starts, and we need to be more 
persistent than consistent with respect to these investments.
  Currently, the wind production tax credit has a value of 2 cents per 
kilowatt hour. The credit is scheduled to expire in 2008. Senator 
Alexander's amendment would cut the credit for wind to just 1 cent per 
kilowatt hour. That, in my view, is headed in the wrong direction. 
Senator Alexander argues that the wind energy receives special 
treatment and argues fossil energy has received some credit but that we 
should back down on the credits we are giving to wind energy.
  What this chart will show is that what we are doing in terms of tax 
incentives, as well as in research and development expenditures out of 
the Federal Government, is not at all skewed toward renewable energies. 
In fact, it is skewed to fossil fuels. You will see that in tax 
expenditures, in the year 2007 in billions of dollars, fossil fuel 
received $13.7 billion of the expenditures that we were making through 
the incentives we are creating for oil, gas, coal, and other fossil 
fuels. But we were putting $13.7 billion into fossil fuels to help us 
with our energy independence, where we were only putting $2.8 billion 
into renewables. That is a stark contrast as to where we should be 
going if we are to get to energy independence for national security and 
environmental reasons.

  When you look at research and development, these are the figures from 
the Department of Energy out of a General Accounting study which was 
requested by Senator Alexander in 2007. We see that, in billions of 
dollars, the Department of Energy spent only $1.4 billion on 
renewables, but at the same time the Department of Energy spent $3.1 
billion, three times as much, on fossil fuels, and $6.2 billion on 
nuclear.
  So when we talk about harnessing the power of the wind, the power of 
the Sun, the power of biofuels as we grow our way to energy 
independence, in my view, we need to have some more balance. We need to 
put more into the renewable energy future of our country.
  We have, as a Nation, starting over a century ago, made major 
investments in helping the fossil fuels industry. What this chart will 
show is, beginning in 1916, we created this laundry list of tax 
incentives for exploration of oil and gas and for the production of oil 
and gas and coal. Also, beginning in 1957, we made major incentives for 
nuclear. Yet we see the very few incentives we have instituted with 
respect to wind, which did not start until 1992. So this chart reflects 
there is a lot of catching up to do if we are to do everything we can 
as a Nation to harness the energy of the wind.
  I am hopeful, therefore, my colleagues will vote no on the Alexander 
amendment because the wind energy future of our Nation is very 
dependent on our continuing to sustain a policy over a longer period of 
time so we get the wind energy industry up and running in America. It 
is also, in my view, important we support the amendment of Senators 
Cantwell and Ensign, with respect to energy tax credits, because we 
need to make sure those do not expire, and right now they are on the 
verge of expiring.
  I would hope, as we move forward in dealing with tax incentives and 
other issues in the Congress, we will be able to find a way to extend 
them beyond the end of 2008.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Alexander amendment, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Cantwell-Ensign amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and to call up amendment No. 4501.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SALAZAR. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GREGG. Well, I am shocked, shocked to hear an objection from the 
Senator on this very reasonable request to call up an amendment so this 
bill, which is a fairly significant bill, could be voted on by the 
Senate in parts, because there are some parts of this bill which aren't 
that good, and this amendment addresses one of those parts. 
Specifically, this amendment says the net operating loss carry-forward 
provisions, which cost $17 billion over the first 3 years of this bill, 
would be eliminated. There are already in law net operating loss 
provisions. What this bill does, however, regrettably, is expand those 
provisions dramatically and benefits one small segment of our 
commercial society, to the disadvantage of other segments of our 
commercial society and to the distinct disadvantage of our children and 
our children's children who have to pay for all the money that is going 
to be spent in the area of a tax credit or deduction.
  This $17 billion will go to benefit the same industry, or part of the 
industry, which created the problem which this stimulus package is 
trying to address. It is a lot like that story of the fellow who shot 
both his parents and then threw himself on the court and asked for 
mercy because he was an orphan. What we have is the housing 
industry requesting a $17 billion tax break specifically for them 
because they created an economic meltdown by speculatively building 
thousands of houses--thousands more than we needed--and then selling 
those houses to people through the subprime mortgage process, which 
turned out to be a very poor idea for many people who bought houses 
with a subprime mortgage.

  At the time these housing construction industry companies did this, 
they made a lot of money--a lot of money. Now they are losing money. 
And they are saying, with a straight face, in this bill: We need a $17 
billion tax break, which allows us to go back and eliminate the taxes 
we paid on the profit we made during the good days of the housing 
bubble and get a tax rebate to reflect the fact that we are losing 
money today, which recovers the taxes we paid 3 and 4 years ago. How 
outrageous is that?
  In addition, of course, housing contractors who were responsible--and 
who during this period of the bubble did not overbill or did not overly 
utilize subprime mortgages but, rather, built in a reasonable manner 
and are still doing well and are still making money--are going to find 
that their competitor down the street--who was potentially excessive, 
building a lot of inventory that was not necessary, selling it through 
subprime mortgages and then finding they are stuck with it today and 
thus losing money today--is going to get a tax benefit representing

[[Page S2799]]

$17 billion. So the contractor who actually has been responsible and 
has run their business in probably a conservative and constructive way 
is going to have to compete with the profligate contractor, 
potentially, who is losing money but is suddenly going to get a huge 
windfall as a result of this bill in the way of a tax rebate. Where is 
the fairness in that?
  In addition, of course, it undermines the whole concept of the free 
marketplace. I mean, the marketplace says: If you take a risk and you 
make an investment and you make a lot of money--which is what happened 
here--and then that risk turns out to turn on you and you start to lose 
money, the Government shouldn't come in and say: Oh, that is okay, we 
are going to insure your losses with a tax break--which is essentially 
what is happening. We are going to insure them to the extent of $17 
billion over the next 2 years.
  That is not a capitalist system. That is a French system. That is 
sort of modified socialism. It essentially says: You can't lose. You 
can go out and make money, and if you start to lose money, we will give 
you a tax credit. So the American taxpayers get to pay so you don't 
lose money.
  Then who pays for all this? Who pays for this $17 billion? Well, 
these folks sitting right down here--the pages--will pay for this. We 
are not going to pay for it this year. We are not offsetting this cost. 
This goes on the national debt. Interest will accrue on it. When these 
young pages graduate from high school and then move on to college--and 
I know they are all going to go to college--and then they move out of 
college and start to get a job, you know what they will have to do? 
They will have to pay taxes, and part of the taxes they are going to be 
paying 8, 9, 10 years from now is going to go to pay for this tax 
deduction which we are passing today to benefit an industry which 
created the bubble, which created a recession. We are giving them this 
type of insurance through this type of tax break. That is not fair.
  It is not fair to the next generation to pass this bill on to them. 
It is not fair to competitors who were conservative and managed their 
businesses well, that we are going to give this tax break to people who 
were not so successful or were successful but today aren't doing well. 
It doesn't make any sense. It is almost a bill of attainder. It should 
be unconstitutional--the idea we are going to pass a tax that benefits 
this one segment of the industry.
  By the way, it is not going to stimulate the economy because most of 
this benefit is going to probably come to fruition after the recession 
is pretty much over. Probably not before the third or fourth quarter of 
this year and into next year will these dollars start to reflow into 
these industries. So as a practical matter, most economists are saying 
that to the extent we have a recession--and I happen to believe we have 
one--it is going to be shallow and short, which means it will probably 
be over. With all the Fed is doing, I think it will definitely be over 
by the end of this year, at the latest. So this makes no sense.
  At the minimum, the Senate should at least have the right to vote on 
this policy. I mean, why not at least have a vote on this policy? It is 
a huge piece of policy, by the way. It seems to me we should have the 
right to have a vote on this policy. So all I have asked for is not 
that we accept the ideas I have put on the table, which is that this 
tax benefit makes no sense economically, that it makes no sense from 
the standpoint of a capitalist system, it makes no sense from the 
standpoint of the debt to pass on to our children, and it makes no 
sense from the standpoint that the people who are benefitting from this 
tax benefit were the biggest beneficiaries from the runup of the 
speculative market. I am not saying people have to accept those 
arguments, although I find them logical, reasonable, and I hope most 
people would accept them. I am saying let's vote on them. Let us have a 
vote on whether those arguments make more sense or the idea of putting 
this tax benefit in this bill makes more sense.
  So that is why I have asked, on a number of occasions, for a vote on 
this item. I regret that there has been an objection, on occasion, to 
my request for this amendment to be brought up. I am tempted to renew 
that request at this time, but I sense somebody else might object--this 
time probably from the audience, as the last objection came from staff. 
But in any event, I can appreciate the fact that there would be an 
objection, so I will not raise it again. I will simply reflect the fact 
that I have made this point, and hopefully at some point there will be 
a relenting on the other side of the aisle to having a vote on this 
item.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           2008 Olympic Games

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern about the 
Chinese Government's continued human rights violations and to urge 
President Bush not to attend the opening ceremonies at the Olympic 
Games in Beijing this summer.
  The Chinese Government's unwillingness to acknowledge or address 
their record of human rights violations is in direct conflict to the 
spirit of the Olympic Games, and the United States should not accede to 
the Chinese Government with our attendance.
  The recent developments in Tibet, in which Buddhist monks and other 
ethnic Tibetans were violently punished, and in some cases killed, for 
participating in protests, are disturbing and should be unacceptable to 
anyone who believes in basic human freedoms. Furthermore, these 
developments also seem to confirm that the Chinese Government, which 
has long disrespected the rights of its citizens, under the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights, has failed to sufficiently improve its 
conduct when confronted with citizens who happen to voice a difference 
in opinion.
  We believe--I think many of us believe--that the President's 
attendance at the opening ceremonies, rightly or not, would send the 
implicit message to the world that the United States condones the 
intolerance that has been demonstrated by these actions of the Chinese 
Government.
  The Chinese Government was awarded the Olympic Games on the 
understanding that it would work to significantly improve its human 
rights record. Clearly--clearly--it has not. In fact, its actions are 
completely contradictory to the Olympic spirit.
  Let me highlight two specific points in the Olympic Charter's 
Fundamental Principles of Olympism. It says:

       The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of 
     the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a 
     peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human 
     dignity.

  The other principle that is on point here:

       Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a 
     person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or 
     otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic 
     Movement.

  ``Incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.''
  The Chinese Government blatantly violates both of these points.
  Some have made the argument that the President's attendance at the 
opening ceremonies is more about support for the Games themselves than 
for the host country. I believe it is all to the contrary. It would 
show tremendous support and respect for the Games and the spirit they 
embody, and these principles that are part of the Olympic Charter, to 
take a stand against a host nation that flagrantly disrespects that 
spirit.
  We remind the President that the recent developments in Tibet are 
only the latest chapter in a long history of Chinese human rights 
concerns. Even in the midst of the latest atrocities against Tibetans, 
we should not forget the Chinese Government's continued unwillingness 
to use all of its unique leverage--unique leverage--with the Sudanese 
regime to assist the international effort to bring an end to the 
genocide in Darfur. This issue remains

[[Page S2800]]

of serious concern to us and many others who have not seen the 
improvements in Darfur that we had hoped would have happened long ago.
  If we were languishing in the camps in Darfur, as the world watches 
genocide, if we see human rights violations in China against the 
Tibetans, if we see prison camp labor, child labor, forced abortions, 
the exiling of the Dalai Lama, and so, so much more, who among us, if 
we were in their position, would be content with the counsels of 
patience and delay? Who among us would be content with the silence that 
exists in this respect? And who among us would not want to see a world 
leader, a leader of the free world, make a very powerful statement to 
ensure that we move in a different direction?
  If the Chinese Government is ever to treat its people with basic 
human rights, it must be sent a bold and clear message that its record 
of violence and suppression is completely unacceptable.
  Few actions can speak louder than if the President of the United 
States were to condemn the Chinese human rights record with the entire 
world watching. It is at the moment of the opening ceremonies where the 
world's attention is riveted on the Olympic Games--it is at the opening 
ceremonies where the world's attention is riveted on the Olympic 
Games--and not attending, refusing to attend, the opening ceremonies 
would accomplish exactly that: a clear condemnation of China's human 
rights record.
  We hope the President will agree with us, that the Chinese 
Government's actions are unacceptable, and that we must send a bold 
message now while the world--while the world--is focused on China.
  China wanted the Olympic Games. It got it with the understanding 
that, in fact, it would dramatically improve its human rights record. 
It has not. The world has seen its repressive nature. If we go on as if 
nothing had happened, we will send a message that impunity is, in fact, 
something that is tolerated by the rest of the world.
  I do not believe Americans want to see that happen. I believe the 
principle of the Olympic Charter that clearly says, ``Any form of 
discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of 
[their] race, religion, politics, gender . . . is incompatible with 
belonging to the Olympic Movement'' is something worthy of sustaining, 
and this is an opportunity in time and history to make that principle 
ring loudly and clearly.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4419

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes on an 
amendment I have offered with Senator Cantwell regarding renewable 
energy. It is amendment No. 4419. I don't know whether it is going to 
be voted on tonight or tomorrow. Either way, I wish to spend a few 
minutes on this particular amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some letters of 
support from various industries.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    April 3, 2008.
       Dear Senator: As a coalition of businesses, environmental 
     organizations, investors, labor, nongovernmental 
     organizations, public health organizations, religious 
     organizations, states, trade associations and utilities, we 
     urge you to pass bipartisan legislation as soon as possible 
     that extends federal tax incentives for energy efficiency and 
     renewable energy technologies and consumer purchases of 
     energy efficient products. These critically important 
     incentives have expired or will expire at the end of this 
     year and must be extended immediately to avoid significant 
     harm to the developing clean energy industries in the United 
     States.
       We urge extension of the renewable energy production tax 
     credit, clean renewable energy bonds, efficient commercial 
     buildings tax deduction, investment tax credit for solar 
     electric and fuel cell systems, tax credit for energy 
     efficiency upgrades to existing homes, tax credits for the 
     production of efficient home appliances, and tax credit for 
     construction of efficient new homes. These incentives play a 
     vital role in reducing global warming pollution, creating new 
     high-wage American jobs, spurring economic growth, promoting 
     consumer purchases of energy efficient products, and saving 
     consumers and businesses money on their energy bills.
       It is essential for the development of clean technology 
     industries that extensions of the efficiency and renewable 
     energy tax incentives remain effective for multiple years. 
     Congress has historically extended the clean energy 
     incentives in one or two-year increments, which creates a 
     boom-bust cycle for the technologies covered by the 
     incentives. This cycle undermines the efficient development 
     of the clean energy technology industries into mature 
     industries.
       It is critical for the sustained development of the clean 
     energy technology industries that efficiency and renewable 
     energy tax incentives be promptly extended. The delay in 
     extending these provisions is already discouraging investment 
     decisions today for clean energy projects that will be 
     completed in 2009 or later. According to a recent study by 
     Navigant Consulting, failure to promptly extend renewable 
     energy tax incentives places at risk 116,000 jobs in the wind 
     and solar industries and more than $19 billion in clean 
     energy investment. Similarly, more than 800 megawatts of 
     renewable biomass electrical generation in development has 
     been placed on hold because the renewable production tax 
     credit has not been extended according to biomass industry 
     estimates.
       America is on the cusp of a new, clean energy economy. 
     Extending efficiency and renewable energy tax incentives is 
     critical to promoting the transition to this economy. They 
     will help get us started on solving the global warming 
     problem, reduce energy prices for consumers, and create new 
     high-wage jobs. We urge you to do everything you can to 
     ensure prompt passage of legislation with significant 
     bipartisan support that adopts long-term extensions of the 
     efficiency and renewable energy tax incentives and can be 
     enacted into law this spring.
           Sincerely,
       American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE).
       AES Wind Generation.
       Airevolution Wind Energy Systems, LLC.
       Akeena Solar.
       Alaska Wind Power, LLC.
       Alliance to Save Energy.
       Alliant Energy Corporation.
       Alternative Fuels Renewable Energies Council.
       Ameren Corporation.
       The American Agriculture Movement, Inc.
       American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
       The American Institute of Architects (AIA).
       American Solar Energy Society.
       American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
       Applied Materials.
       Apricus Inc.
       Arizona Public Service.
       Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM).
       Audubon.
       Ausra, Inc.
       AWS Truewind, LLC.
       Babcock & Brown.
       Ballard Power Systems.
       Best Buy Co., Inc.
       Bio-A.I.R.E., LLC.
       BioEconomy Development Corporation.
       BioEnergy Development, LLC.
       Bloom Energy.
       BOSCH.
       BrightSource Energy, Inc.
       Broadwind Energy, Inc.
       Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
       California Energy Commission.
       Cardinal Fastener & Specialty.
       CCIM Institute.
       Center for Energy and Environmental Sustainability at James 
     Madison University.
       Central Vermont Public Service.
       CH Energy.
       Chirag Bator.
       Clipper Windpower, Inc.
       Clyde Industrial, LLC.
       Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL).
       Competitive Power Ventures, Inc.
       Conergy.
       Constellation Energy.
       Converteam Inc.
       Dakota Resource Council.
       Dakota Rural Action.
       D.H. Blattner.
       Dominion.
       The Dow Chemical Company.
       Dow Corning Corporation.
       Duke Energy.
       The Dyson Corporation.
       Earthjustice.
       Edison Electric Institute (EEI).
       Edison International.
       Empire District Electric Company.
       Energize Now Initiative.
       Energy Innovations, Inc.
       Energy Systems Group.
       Energy Unlimited, Inc.
       Enertech.
       Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI).
       Environment America.
       Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
       enXco.
       Eurus Energy America Corporation.
       Evergreen Solar, Inc.
       Exelon Corporation.
       Fagen, Inc. Construction.
       Federal Performance Contracting Coalition.

[[Page S2801]]

       FPL Group.
       Friends Committee on National Legislation.
       Gamesa Technology Corporation.
       GE Energy.
       Geothermal Energy Association (GEA).
       Global Energy Concepts.
       Global Resource Options, Inc.
       GPCO USA.
       Green Mountain Power Corporation.
       Greenpeace.
       Green Volts.
       Great Plains Energy.
       Hansen Transmissions Inc.
       Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.
       Heartland Power and Light LLC.
       Hexcel Corporation.
       HICO America.
       The Home Depot, Inc.
       Honeywell.
       Horizon Wind Energy.
       Hydrogenics.
       Iberdola Energias Renovables.
       Idaho Rural Council.
       IdaTech.
       Infinia Corporation.
       Intermountain Wind, LLC.
       International Council of Shopping Centers.
       Interstate Power and Light.
       Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM).
       Invenergy LLP.
       John Deere Renewables, LLC.
       Johnson Matthey.
       JP Morgan Chase.
       JW Great Lakes Wind LLC.
       JW Prairie Wind Power LLC.
       Knight & Craver.
       Kyocera.
       Lake Superior Warehousing Co., Inc.
       League of Conservation Voters.
       LM Glasfiber, Inc.
       LOGANEnergy.
       Lowe's Companies, Inc.
       Macy's.
       Mendel Biotechnology, Inc.
       Mesa Power, Inc.
       Michigan Alliance of Cooperatives.
       Millennium Cell, Inc.
       Missionary Oblates of Mary.
       Immaculate, Justice Peace/Integrity of Creation Office.
       MJH Power Consulting LLC.
       Mortenson Construction.
       MMA Renewable Ventures, LLC.
       Mortenson Construction.
       MOU Citrus Partnership, LLC.
       National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).
       National Association of Industrial and Office Properties 
     (NAIOP).
       National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO).
       National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA).
       National Farmers Union (NFU).
       National Grid.
       National Multi Housing Council.
       National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA).
       National Small Business Association.
       National Tribal Environmental Council.
       National Venture Capital Association (NVCA).
       National Wildlife Federation.
       National Wind LLC.
       Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
       Noble Environmental Power.
       Northeast Public Power Association (NEPPA).
       North American Equipment Dealers Association.
       North American Insulation.
       Manufacturers Association (NAIMA).
       Nuerva.
       Oerlikon Solar.
       Ohio Environmental Council.
       OptiSolar.
       Oregon Rural Action.
       Owens Corning.
       Peloton Energy, LLC.
       PG&E Corporation.
       Pacific Winds LLC.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility.
       Pinnacle West.
       Plug Power Inc.
       PNM Resources.
       Polyisocyanurate Insulation.
       Manufacturers Association (PIMA).
       Portland General Electric.
       Powder River Basin Resource Council.
       Power Works LLC.
       PPM Energy.
       Progress Energy.
       Public Citizen.
       Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.
       Public Works LLC.
       The Real Estate Roundtable.
       Rebirth Capital, LLC.
       REC Silicon.
       Redefining Progress.
       Regeneration Project/Interfaith Power and Light.
       Reinforcing Services.
       Renewable Energy Systems Americas.
       Retail Industry Leaders Association.
       Rocket Wind Energy LLC.
       Rosendin Electric, Inc.
       Rural Minnesota Energy Board.
       Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD).
       SANYO Energy Corporation.
       SCHOTT Solar, Inc.
       Sempra Energy.
       SGR Site Associates LLC.
       Shell Wind Energy.
       Siemens Windpower A/S.
       Sierra Club.
       Signal Wind Energy, LLC.
       SkyFuel, Inc.
       Smart Growth Advocates.
       Solar Energy, Inc.
       Solar Energy Industries Association.
       Solar Integrated Technologies, Inc.
       Solar Power Partners.
       SolarReserve.
       SolarWorld California Inc.
       Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE).
       Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA).
       SPI Industries.
       Spire Solar, Inc.
       Sriya Innovations, Inc.
       SunEdison.
       SunPower Corporation.
       Susitna Energy Systems.
       Suntech America, Inc.
       Target Corporation.
       Third Planet Power LLC.
       TPI Composites.
       Trade Wind Energy.
       Trane.
       TRI Composites, Inc.
       TRICO TCWIND, Inc.
       Trinity Industries, Inc.
       TSS Consultants.
       25x'25 Steering Committee.
       United Biofuels Development.
       Union of Concerned Scientists.
       The Union for Reform Judaism.
       The United Steelworkers.
       3M.
       United Technologies Corporation.
       UPC Wind Management, LLC.
       U.S. Fuel Cell Council.
       USA Biomass.
       US Wind Force, LLC.
       Ventera Energy Corp.
       Vestas Americas.
       Vote Solar.
       Waste to Energy, LLC.
       Westar Trade Resources.
       Western Colorado Congress.
       Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC).
       Western Renewables Group.
       Westwood Professional Services.
       Whirlpool.
       The Wilderness Society.
       Wind Capital Group.
       WindLogics Inc.
       Windsmith, LLC.
       Wind Turbine Industries Inc.
       Wisconsin Power and Light.
       Xcel Energy Company.
                                  ____


       Keep our Economic Engines Turning on a Clean Energy Future

       America is on the cusp of a new, clean energy economy. 
     Extending the efficiency and renewable energy tax incentives 
     is critical to promoting the transition to this clean energy 
     future. But these important incentives have expired or will 
     expire at the end of this year and must be extended 
     immediately to avoid significant harm to the developing clean 
     energy industries in the United States. These incentives play 
     a vital role in reducing global warming pollution, creating 
     new high-wage American jobs, spurring economic growth, 
     promoting consumer purchases of energy efficient products, 
     and saving consumers and businesses money on their energy 
     bills.
       We, the undersigned, representing a broad coalition of 
     organizations and businesses, urge you to pass with 
     significant bi-partisan support the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus 
     Act introduced by Senators Cantwell and Ensign.
                                  ____


     Please Support S. 2821, the Clean Energy Stimulus Act of 2008

     Members of the United States Senate,
     Washington, DC, April 4, 2008.
       Dear Senator: We are writing to urge you to cosponsor and 
     support passage of S. 2821, the Clean Energy Stimulus Act of 
     2008. This legislation extends vitally important federal tax 
     incentives for wind, geothermal, biomass, solar power, 
     qualified hydropower, and other renewable energy technologies 
     that expire this year. An immediate extension of renewable 
     energy tax incentives is critical for sustaining one of the 
     most rapidly expanding areas of the American economy.
       The delay in extending renewable tax incentives is already 
     discouraging investment decisions today for clean energy 
     projects that will be completed in 2009 or later. According 
     to a recent study by Navigant Consulting, failure to promptly 
     extend renewable energy tax incentives places at risk 116,000 
     jobs in the wind and solar industries and more than $19 
     billion in clean energy investment.
       Prompt action to extend renewable tax incentives is 
     critical to continuing the economic growth and high-wage jobs 
     associated with the rapid growth of wind and solar power, and 
     to helping reduce global warming pollution even as we meet 
     increasing electricity demand.
       Please do all you can to support S. 2821.
           Sincerely,
       Alliant Energy.
       American Wind Energy Association.
       Alyra Renewable Energy Finance, LLC.
       Babcock & Brown.
       Bluewater Wind.
       Broadwind.
       CAB Inc.
       Catamount Energy Corporation.
       Clipper Windpower Development Company, Inc.
       Columbia Energy Partners LLC.
       Competitive Power Ventures, Inc.
       D.H. Blattner & Sons.
       DH Blattner.
       Distributed Generation Systems, Inc.
       DMI Industries, Inc.
       Emerging Energies Of Wisconsin, LLC.
       Energy Unlimited, Inc.

[[Page S2802]]

       Enertech.
       Eurus Energy America Corporation.
       Global Energy Concepts.
       Green Wing Pacific Energy.
       HICO America.
       Hilliard Energy.
       Honeywell.
       Horizon Wind Energy.
       Iberdrola Renewable Energies U.S.A.
       Interstate Power and Light.
       Interwest Energy Alliance.
       John Wade Wind Consultant, LLC.
       JP Morgan.
       JPW RIGGERS, INC.
       JW Prairie Wind Power, LLC.
       Knight & Carver Wind Group.
       Lecco Steel.
       LM Glasfiber.
       Mackinaw Power, LLC.
       Mecal Applied Mechanics.
       Mesa Power LP.
       Midwest Wind Energy, LLC.
       Molded Fiberglass.
       Motion Industries.
       NextEnergy.
       Noble Environmental Power.
       Oregon Trail Wind Farm.
       Owens Corning Company.
       Pacific Winds, LLC.
       Pike and Scott County Farm Bureaus.
       POWER Engineers, Inc.
       PPM Energy.
       Renewable Energy Systems Americas.
       Second Wind Inc.
       Sharp Executive Associates, Inc.
       Shell Wind Energy.
       Siemens.
       SIPCO Mechanical Linkage Solutions.
       Skyward Energy.
       Solar Energy Industries Association.
       Southwest Windpower.
       Suzlon Wind Energy Corporation's Torch Renewable Energy.
       Torch Renewable Energy.
       Tower Foundations.
       TPI Composites.
       Trinity Industries, Inc.
       Two Rivers Farm Bureau Foundation.
       UPC Wind.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                    Washington, DC, April 8, 2008.
       To the Members of the United States Senate: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation 
     representing more than three million businesses and 
     organizations of every size, sector, and region, supports an 
     amendment based on S. 2821, the ``Clean Energy Tax Stimulus 
     Act of 2008,'' which is expected to be offered by Sen. Ensign 
     to H.R. 3221, the ``Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.''
       The Chamber believes it is in the national interest to 
     promote the responsible use of all energy sources. To reach 
     this goal, government and business should support investment 
     in new technologies that expand alternative energy and enable 
     traditional sources of energy to be used more cleanly and 
     efficiently. Extension of the incentives in S. 2821 will go a 
     long way toward the development of the renewable and 
     alternative energy technologies essential to our nation's 
     energy future.
       Congress must be mindful, however, not to merely stop at 
     renewables. Many of the incentives extended by S. 2821 were 
     included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), a 
     comprehensive energy policy bill largely overlooked scarcely 
     more than two years after its enactment. EPAct contains 
     nearly 70 provisions that require federal agencies to 
     undertake research, development and demonstration of new 
     technologies, to engage in public/private partnerships, or to 
     make available financial incentives to the private sector for 
     the development of these new technologies. Presently, a 
     significant number of the nearly 70 new energy technology and 
     efficiency directives are unfunded, under-funded, or simply 
     not implemented at all.
       The Chamber supports Sen. Ensign's amendment, and urges 
     Congress not only to extend the incentives specified in that 
     bill, but to fully fund and implement all of the energy 
     technology and efficiency directives enacted by EPAct.
           Sincerely,

                                              R. Bruce Josten,

                                         Executive Vice President,
     Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                   Retail Industry


                                          Leaders Association,

                                     Arlington, VA, April 3, 2008.
     Hon. Maria Cantwell,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Ensign,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Cantwell and Ensign: I write to thank you for 
     introducing the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008. This 
     bipartisan legislation seeks to extend federal tax incentives 
     for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies and 
     consumer purchases of energy efficient products. These 
     critically important incentives have expired or will expire 
     at the end of this year and must be extended immediately to 
     maximize energy savings for consumers and businesses to help 
     reduce greenhouse gas emissions in communities across the 
     United States.
       The Retail Industry Leaders Association, RILA, promotes 
     consumer choice and economic freedom through public policy 
     and industry operational excellence. Its members include the 
     largest and fastest growing companies in the retail 
     industry--retailers, product manufacturers, and service 
     suppliers--which together account for more than $1.5 trillion 
     in annual sales. RILA members provide millions of jobs and 
     operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities 
     and distribution centers domestically and abroad.
       RILA and our member companies are committed to 
     environmental sustainability. We applaud the bill's 
     particular provisions that extend tax incentives for 
     investments in solar technology; construction of ``green'' 
     commercial buildings; and consumer purchases of energy 
     efficient products to improve their homes.
       We look forward to working with you to pass this 
     legislation on a strong bipartisan basis toward the path of 
     extending the efficiency and renewable energy tax incentives 
     for enactment into law this spring.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Faith A. Cristol,
     Vice President, Workforce & Tax.
                                  ____



                                   The Real Estate Roundtable,

                                    Washington, DC, April 8, 2008.
       To All United States Senators: The Real Estate Roundtable 
     urges your support for S. 2821, The Clean Tax Stimulus Act of 
     2008. Sponsored by Senators Cantwell and Ensign and 
     cosponsored by 31 other Senators, this narrowly tailored bill 
     extends essential energy tax provisions facing expiration.
       This bill is being offered as Amendment #4419 to the 
     housing stimulus bill H.R. 3221. Passing this amendment will 
     encourage a dialogue between the Senate and the House 
     regarding the timely disposition of these important policies. 
     We urge you to cosponsor the bill and support the amendment.
       The Roundtable particularly supports two provisions in the 
     bill: (1) a one year extension of the Section 179 deduction 
     for energy efficient commercial buildings and the 
     modification to increase the entire building deduction to 
     $2.25 per square foot and to $.75 per square foot for the 
     partial building deduction; and (2) an eight extension of the 
     30 percent business tax credit for solar energy and fuel 
     cells.
       Ideally, a much longer extension of the Section 179 energy 
     efficient building deduction should be enacted given the long 
     lead time involved with the design, development and 
     construction of commercial buildings.
       Increased investment in energy efficient technologies--
     including building technologies--has special significance to 
     our industry. Roundtable members have been leaders in 
     advancing the state of the art as it relates to the 
     development and operation of energy efficient ``high 
     performance'' buildings. The energy efficient building 
     deduction and the solar and fuel cell credit are important 
     tools in allowing our members to continue this leadership 
     role.
       Failure to enact these extensions would mean losing the 
     economic benefit provided by the alternative energy and 
     energy efficiency industries. Further, it would hinder the 
     development and deployment of energy efficient technologies 
     and alternative energy production. The economic and 
     environmental benefits spurred by these tax incentives would 
     provide a meaningful offset to the bill's revenue cost.
       If you or your staff has any questions, please contact 
     Roundtable Senior Vice President and Counsel Steve Renna 
     ([email protected]).
           Sincerely,
                                                Jeffrey D. DeBoer,
                            President and Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, over the last several weeks Senator 
Cantwell and I worked together in a bipartisan fashion to craft a 
renewable energy package that would break the gridlock that has 
happened here in the Senate. There have been several good faith 
attempts to pass a renewable energy bill, but frankly, several of us, 
including myself, have objected to some of what are called offsets, the 
``pay-fors'' in the bill.
  I believe very strongly in renewable energy but also know that this 
country will be dependent on fossil fuels for the next 20 to 30 years. 
We need more domestic supplies of fossil fuels and less reliance on 
foreign sources of fossil fuels.
  In the package that was put before us, tax incentives were going to 
be taken away from people who explore for domestic sources of fossil 
fuels. That was the reason I opposed the original renewable energy 
package.
  Senator Cantwell and I, along with our staffs, got together over the 
last several weeks and came up with a compromising provision that has 
no offsets. We encourage the continued development of solar, wind, 
geothermal, and biomass energies. There are several renewable energies 
out there and all kinds of new technologies that are coming on line. 
The more private investment and innovation that we have, the more 
alternatives and renewable energies we will see come into the U.S. 
markets. This will insure that we are responsible to the environment 
and to our economy by creating innovative new jobs and less dependent 
on foreign sources of energy. This is the reason

[[Page S2803]]

Senator Cantwell and I have come together in a bipartisan fashion to 
say, ``Let's break this logjam in the Senate. Let's make sure we get 
this bill passed so it can be signed into law.''
  What we have today in front of us is a housing bill which will help 
stimulate the economy. Everyone knows the economy is being dragged down 
by the subprime mortgage market crisis we are facing in America. My 
State leads the Nation in foreclosure rates. It is dragging the rest of 
the Nevada economy down in what appeared to be a recession-proof 
economy. We need this housing bill. We need to do things that will help 
bring our economy out of the doldrums it is in.
  This energy package we have put together is also stimulative. It will 
preserve the jobs that have already been created, as well as create 
more jobs and help the economy.
  I believe strongly, for many different reasons, that this amendment 
will help the economy, it will help our environment, and it will help 
make us become less dependent on foreign sources of energy. For those 
reasons, I would encourage my colleagues to support our amendment.
  Senator Alexander is offering a second-degree amendment that I 
believe will gut our amendment and will break apart this bipartisan 
coalition we have put together. It is his right to offer a second-
degree amendment and he will speak in defense of it. But, I am going to 
encourage our colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, if you want a 
renewable energy bill, to oppose the Alexander amendment and to support 
the Ensign-Cantwell amendment on renewable energy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his 
comments, and I thank him for his effort. He and the Senator from 
Washington, Ms. Cantwell, are making a constructive effort to give 
Federal support for emerging renewable energy. Clean renewable energy 
is very important for our country. I have a chart here which lists the 
sources of renewable electricity qualified to receive the production 
tax credit. This production tax credit is the subject, in part, of the 
Ensign-Cantwell amendment No. 4419. But what Senator Kyl and I have is 
a second-degree amendment No. 4429 that we will offer when the Ensign-
Cantwell amendment comes up, which is a way to improve that amendment.
  Basically, what we have been hearing from entrepreneurs and those who 
are inventing new technologies, which would help reduce our dependence 
on fossil fuels, is: We need some certainty in whatever support you 
give us from the Federal Government. The Ensign-Cantwell amendment 
would--the first part of it--would allocate about $3 billion to the 
production tax credit for 1 more year. It would extend the ability of 
renewable electricity to qualify for the production tax credit. What we 
would say is, let's do that for 2 more years. I will explain that in 
just a minute.
  One might say: Well, how are you going to pay for that? The way we 
would propose paying for it is to put wind in the same category as 
emerging renewable energies, make it also available for a 1-cent 
subsidy per kilowatt hour, and that amount of money alone would make it 
possible for us to have a 2-year extension of the production tax credit 
at the same cost that Senator Ensign and Senator Cantwell propose in 
their amendment.
  Now, let me explain what I mean by that. But first, our goal with the 
Alexander-Kyl amendment would be to extend the production tax credit 
for 2 years, to focus it on emerging renewable electricity 
technologies, to focus it on those that have a capacity for supplying 
baseload electricity; in other words, electricity production that we 
can rely on all day and all night. If you want to turn your light on in 
the middle of the night or operate your computer at 4 p.m., whether the 
sun is shining or the wind is blowing, you need reliable sources of 
baseload electricity, and we would like to treat all of these energies 
fairly.

  Here is what the law now does and has done since 1992. It pays the 
producer of this kind of electricity, renewable electricity, 2 cents 
per kilowatt hour for the electricity it produces. Right now, the 2 
cents is going to closed-loop biomass and to geothermal; that is heat 
coming out of the ground and is being converted into clean electricity. 
It used to go to solar, but that was removed in 2005, and it goes to 
wind today. So those three--closed-loop biomass, geothermal, and wind--
all get 2 cents per kilowatt hour. These other emerging technologies on 
this side of the chart just get 1 cent per kilowatt hour.
  What we propose to do is move wind from the two-cent category to the 
one-cent category. Wind would still get 1 cent per kilowatt hour. It 
would end up getting more of the money than any of these others, but it 
would focus more of the dollars in the Cantwell-Ensign bill on emerging 
baseload energy by providing more time for these to be developed.
  Now, that is not as complicated as it sounds. Let me try to say why 
it is necessary to do this. Most of the speeches we hear around here 
about the production tax credit say: Oh, we need to have renewable 
energy. We need to have everything. We need to have biomass. We need to 
have small irrigation power. We need to have landfill gas. We need to 
have trash combustion, qualified hydropower, and now wave and tidal. 
That is new. That is when you put a turbine in the East River in New 
York City and the water turns the turbines instead of the wind. It 
turns out there is more power in the water. In fact, it destroyed the 
turbines, so they are going to have to start over again. But these are 
emerging experimental technologies. So we say on the Senate floor that 
we are going to have all of these renewable generating sources, but the 
fact is we don't do that.
  We are now committed to $11.5 billion in tax expenditures, according 
to the Joint Tax Committee, on wind power alone over the next 10 
years--$11.5 billion on wind power alone. By adopting the Ensign-
Cantwell amendment, based on my best estimates, we would add another $3 
billion over the next 10 years to wind alone, and almost none of it 
would go over here to these other renewable electricity technologies. 
Now, why would I say that? It is because a new report by the Energy 
Information Administration, which I requested in May 2007 and received 
this week, said that wind power accounted for 97 percent of the total 
renewable electricity production tax credit in fiscal year 2007. Now, 
Senator Bingaman said earlier when we debated the Energy bill in June 
2007 that he relied on the figure that 75 percent of all of the 
production tax credit was being used for wind power. That was an 
estimate from last year from the Joint Committee on Taxation. But the 
Energy Information Administration in this new report says that wind 
received 97 percent of the production tax credit in Fiscal Year 2007. I 
am not saying wind power is good or wind power is bad by saying this; I 
am saying if you are saying with the Ensign-Cantwell amendment that you 
are offering support for all of these different emerging technologies, 
that is not going to be the case because according to the Energy 
Information Administration, 97 percent of it went for wind.
  Wind has another difference with all of these: the issue of supplying 
baseload power. The problem with wind is the limitation on it. Each one 
of these has some limitation, but one of wind's limitations is you can 
only use it when the wind blows. You don't store wind power; you use it 
when the wind blows. So if you are the city of Los Angeles or you are 
the city of Little Rock or the city of Nashville and it is 4 o'clock in 
the afternoon and you want to turn on your air-conditioners and operate 
your computer and turn on your light when you hear a noise, you don't 
want to first check to see whether the wind is blowing. So it is not a 
baseload power, it is not a controllable power source. It has a severe 
limitation.
  Now, solar had much the same limitation when it was--insofar as the 
technology has developed so far. For solar, we generally buy panels and 
put them on the roof and we use the electricity that comes from the 
panels, and that can be very useful, just as wind mills have always 
been useful on farms for occasional power. But the solar industry 
requested to be taken out of this production tax credit because it 
wasn't getting any of it. It was all going to wind.
  Now there is another provision for an investment tax credit for 
solar. Extending this investment tax credit is in

[[Page S2804]]

the Ensign amendment. I fully support that. That would help, for 
example, new solar thermal plants where you put a lot of mirrors out on 
the ground, collect the Sun, create steam, put the steam in the ground, 
and then you can use it on a continuous basis, not just when the Sun 
shines. Pacific Gas and Electric has a commercial plant that they are 
going to build out West for that. Let's see if it works. If it does, it 
will be a great thing for our country.
  We only have a limited amount of money available to support emerging 
renewable energy, so why would we spend virtually all of it--97 
percent--for a proven technology--wind power--that we have been 
subsidizing since 1992 and to which we have committed $11.5 billion 
over the next 10 years, if we don't do anything else, just the wind 
power. And, with the Ensign-Cantwell amendment, we are about to put in 
another $3 billion for wind power over the next ten years, acting as if 
we are also doing it for open-looped biomass, small irrigation power, 
landfill gas, trash combustion, qualified hydropower, wave and tidal, 
and it won't get anything. It will all go to these big wind turbines.
  Let me go to another chart and give an example of what this has 
produced. We hear a lot of talk about Federal subsidies for oil and 
Federal subsidies for coal and Federal subsidies for this and that, and 
the oil companies are called up and everybody gets excited because we 
are talking about $3.50, $4 for gasoline. We have a right to be excited 
about that. We don't like to send our gas money overseas to people who 
are trying to kill us, so we are upset about that. But we are talking 
here about Federal subsidies for electricity, not gasoline.
  I asked the Energy Information Administration in May 2007 to please 
tell me what is the Federal taxpayer doing to support the different 
ways we produce electricity in the country. The information came back 
this week, and it is really pretty interesting. Coal. Coal is half of 
all of the electricity we use in the United States. We are not a desert 
island. We use 25 percent of all of the energy in the world. If we are 
going to be realistic about it, we need to find a way to burn coal 
cleanly, which means we need to recapture the carbon if we care about 
climate change. But right now, we subsidize coal to the tune of 44 
cents per megawatt hour. We may not know what a megawatt hour is, but 
we can compare it to what we do for others. Refined coal is a very 
small part of coal, and it gets a very high subsidy. That is very 
interesting. I didn't know about that. That is a special subsidy which 
was put in for refined coal, but almost all the coal we burn gets 44 
cents.
  Natural gas. Almost all the plants built to make new electricity in 
the 1990s were natural gas and petroleum. That is oil and gas. We 
assume it gets a lot of subsidies. It only gets 25 cents for a megawatt 
hour. Nuclear power. Nuclear plants generate 19 percent of all our 
electricity in America, but they are 70 percent of all our clean 
electricity. If we want to have clean air and to deal with climate 
change in this generation, nuclear power--other than conservation--is 
our best option because, with that, you have no nitrogen, no sulfur, 
and no mercury, which dirties the air, and you have no carbon. So 70 
percent of our carbon-free electricity comes from nuclear power. How do 
we subsidize nuclear power? EIA's report says $1.59 per megawatt hour 
in Fiscal Year 2007?
  Biomass is a new renewable energy, which gets 89 cents. Geothermal. 
They are interesting new technologies that drill way down into the 
ground and out comes heat and you can heat your house from that. That 
is 92 cents per kilowatt hour.
  Hydroelectric, which is water over the dams. It is about 7 percent of 
all the electricity in America. It is clean, but you and I know how 
many new dams are going to be built. Not many more. Subsidizing that 
will not solve the problem of clean electricity for a country that uses 
25 percent of all the electricity in the world.
  Solar is misleading. We are subsidizing it at the rate of $24 per 
megawatt hour, about 50 times that for coal. That is an infinitesimal 
amount for electricity. We don't sell much solar electricity to the 
grid today. It is from solar panels put on the roof.
  Then we have wind. That $11.5 billion we are already committed to 
spend to help developers build wind turbines all over America in places 
where it blows or doesn't blow, we are subsidizing the electricity 
produced by those wind turbines at the rate of $23 a megawatt hour in 
Fiscal Year 2007, while coal is less than a half dollar. That is 50 
times the subsidy for coal.
  It is $1.59 for nuclear--70 percent of our clean energy--and wind is 
2 percent of our clean energy. If we were subsidizing nuclear power at 
the same rate as wind, it would cost us $300 billion over the next 10 
years. We don't have that much money in the United States with which to 
subsidize electricity. So go all the way down to the bottom, past 
landfill gas and municipal solid waste, and I have talked about that 
before. In Johnson City, TN, a company is using the landfill there and 
paying Johnson City a million dollars a year for that purpose because 
it produces electricity, and Johnson City is keeping its property taxes 
lower. It is worth, perhaps, subsidizing that a while longer. We are 
doing that at the rate of 13 cents per megawatt hour.
  All renewables--and this is supposed to be a bill about encouraging 
renewables--are being subsidized at $2.80 per megawatt hour. Yet the 
Ensign-Cantwell legislation would add $3 billion to wind power, which 
is already being subsidized at $24 per megawatt hour. That is not a 
wise stewardship of dollars. What Senator Kyl and I are seeking to do 
is improve the Ensign-Cantwell bill.
  The objective there, if I can go back to the other chart, is this. 
The objective is to identify some of these emerging renewable 
technologies that have the capacity to turn into base-load technologies 
and encourage them. They are more likely to be encouraged if we give 
them a 2-year extension for the production tax credit instead of 1 
year. That is what we would do. They are more likely to get some of the 
money if we don't let wind gobble it all up, as it did last year. Why 
give $3 billion more to a proven technology when our goal is to support 
emerging technology? That is what we are trying to do. If the Senate 
would like to resolve the gridlock and spend $6 billion or $7 billion 
in support of helping us find ways to encourage new emerging base-load 
technologies, the way to do that would be to support Ensign-Cantwell as 
amended by Alexander-Kyl. Wind is getting $11.5 billion over 10 years, 
plus many other subsidies. With the Alexander-Kyl amendment, wind would 
get 1 cent per kilowatt hour and most of the $3 billion we are talking 
about over a longer, two-year period.
  But some of these other emerging renewable energies would have a 
fighting chance to get some of the money because they would have more 
time to plan and invest. I have been visited by a lot of people who 
want to see some support for renewable energy. I want to see that too. 
I was the principal sponsor of the solar energy tax credit, increasing 
it in 2005. I would like to see solar thermal plants. I would like to 
see support for open-loop biomass, and small irrigation power, landfill 
gas, trash combustion, qualified hydropower and wave and tidal. But the 
Ensign legislation would not do it by extending the production tax 
credit for 1 year because wind will gobble it all up such as it did 
last year. The others will have a fighting chance if we extend the 
production tax credit for 2 years and treat wind like all these other 
ones, particularly now that it is proven. That is a wiser use of our 
money and puts us on a better path toward cleaner air and dealing with 
climate change.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, Rhode Island currently has the highest 
foreclosure rate in New England. According to the most recent National 
Delinquency Survey from the Mortgage Bankers Association, 3.9 percent 
of all the loans being serviced in the State are in foreclosure. 
Foreclosure initiations were up 11.8 percent from the previous quarter. 
As far as subprime adjustable rate mortgage loans, ARMs, are concerned, 
8.2 percent of them are in foreclosure, which is up 18.8 percent from 
last quarter. And we know that a majority of these ARMs have not yet 
reset and are scheduled to do so sometime during the next year.
  Many families' homes are now worth less than their mortgages, giving 
them no ability to refinance or sell their homes. With the cost of 
energy, food, health care, education, and other needs at an all time 
high, they are trapped between a rock and a hard place.

[[Page S2805]]

  The legislation before us, the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, is 
a start. I want to thank Senators Dodd and Shelby and their respective 
staffs for all of their hard work in helping us move forward on this 
legislation.
  I am pleased that the bill contains the provision I authored, from my 
bill, S. 2153, to amend the Truth-in-Lending Act to improve home loan 
disclosures. This provision will ensure that consumers are provided 
with timely and meaningful disclosures in connection with not just home 
purchase mortgages, but also for loans that refinance a home or provide 
a home equity line of credit.
  The bill requires that disclosures be provided no later than 7 
business days prior to closing so borrowers can shop for another loan 
if not satisfied with the terms. If the terms of the loan change, the 
consumer must be notified 3 days before closing of the changed terms.
  If consumers apply for adjustable rate or variable payment loans 
there will now be an explicit warning on the one page TILA form that 
the payments will change, depending on the interest rate, and an 
estimate of how those payments will change under the terms of the 
contract based on the current interest rate. The bill also requires a 
new disclosure that informs borrowers of the maximum monthly payments 
possible under their loan.
  The bill provides a right to waive the early disclosure or 
requirements if the consumer has a bona fide financial emergency that 
requires that they close on the loan quickly, and increases the range 
of statutory damages for TILA violations from the current $200 to 
$2,000 to $400 to $4,000.
  Finally, it requires lenders to include a statement that the consumer 
is not obligated on the mortgage loan just because they have received 
the disclosures. This will give consumers the opportunity to truly shop 
around for the best mortgage terms for the first time ever. They will 
be able to compare the payments and costs associated with a certain 
loan product, and decide not to sign on the dotted line if they do not 
like the basic terms of the loan.
  I believe that giving consumers the information they need regarding 
the maximum payments is critical. Borrowers need to better understand 
the full financial impact of entering into a particular loan early in 
the process, and before they actually consummate the loan. They also 
need to have the chance of backing out of a loan with bad terms before 
they get to the closing table. I am pleased that my Republican 
colleagues agreed that improved disclosures are an important part of 
the process moving forward.
  Importantly, FHA modernization legislation has been included in the 
bill, which will provide more safe, fixed-rate mortgages, a particular 
help for families who would like to refinance out of more exotic 
mortgage products. This section of the bill also contains provisions I 
authored to improve the HUD Post-Purchase Housing Counseling Program. 
This amendment expands access to HUD-approved counseling programs by 
allowing any low- or moderate-income homeowner to be eligible for 
financial counseling services.
  Since we know that millions of homeowners are facing resets of their 
mortgages during the upcoming year, this change, combined with the 
additional funding that we are providing in this bill for housing 
counseling, should help at least 250,000 families to get the advice or 
assistance they need to help keep their home. I believe we need more 
funding for this, and I will keep advocating for these housing 
counseling services.
  Additionally, the bill contains language that allows $25 million in 
FHA savings every year to be used for the purpose of improving FHA's 
technology, processes, and program performance, and for providing 
appropriate staffing for the FHA mortgage insurance programs. This 
funding is critical to ensuring the success of FHA modernization since 
it will allow FHA to access cutting-edge mortgage insurance industry 
practices and procedures.
  The FHA section of the bill also contains some of the provisions that 
I coauthored with Senator Allard to improve the home equity conversion 
mortgages, HECM, for seniors.
  Other noteworthy provisions include: $10 billion in Federal tax-
exempt private activity bond authority that will provide for the 
refinancing of subprime loans, mortgages for first-time homebuyers, and 
multifamily rental housing: $4 billion in new community development 
block grant, CDBG, funding to help communities impacted by foreclosures 
by allowing localities with high foreclosure rates to purchase 
foreclosed properties for rehabilitation, rent, or resale; assistance 
for returning soldiers to avoid foreclosure by lengthening the time a 
lender must wait before starting foreclosure from three months to nine 
months after a soldier returns from service and providing returning 
soldiers with one year relief from increases in mortgage interest 
rates; the requirement that the Department of Defense establish a 
counseling program to ensure veterans and active service members can 
access assistance if facing financial difficulties; and an increase in 
the VA loan guarantee amount, so that veterans have additional 
homeownership opportunities.
  However, I think that this legislation has failed to deal with the 
core issue at the center of this crisis--helping struggling families 
whose homes are now worth less than their mortgage loan--the so-called 
``underwater mortgages.'' I think the Durbin amendment, which I 
cosponsored, would have helped substantially in this regard. To help 
families save their homes, the Durbin amendment was strictly limited 
and would have only applied to families that could pass the strict 
means test in bankruptcy--and therefore could prove that they couldn't 
afford the current mortgage. It also would have limited the provisions 
to families that were currently struggling with nontraditional and 
subprime loans.
  Moreover, a judge's authority to change the terms of a mortgage was 
strictly limited. Judges would have only been able to reduce interest 
rates to the prime interest rate plus a reasonable premium for risk and 
could only have extended the life of the loan up to 30 years. In 
addition, if a family sold their home within 5 years of the court-
supervised mortgage change, any increase in the market value of the 
home up to the original mortgage amount would have been given back to 
the lender.

  There is no credible evidence to support the claim that the mere 
possibility of a small subset of mortgages being changed in bankruptcy 
would have somehow raised the cost of all mortgages by 1.5 to 2 
percentage points, as some have claimed. In fact, a study released 
earlier this month concluded that allowing strip downs would have had 
no impact on the cost of credit at all.
  The Senate should have had a straight up or down vote on this 
amendment, so that we could start the process of helping the families 
who want to honor their financial obligations get a court-ordered 
payment plan that will enable them to stay in their homes at no 
additional cost to taxpayers. However, the minority did not allow that 
to happen. This was unfortunate, and I believe a mistake. We are going 
to have to figure out a way to help the housing market deal with all of 
these underwater mortgages in an efficient and orderly manner.
  As the housing crisis deepens, it is clear that its effects are 
reverberating throughout our entire economy. Indeed, employers shed 
80,000 jobs in March, the worst decline in 5 years. In addition, the 
jobless rate jumped to 5.1 percent from 4.8 percent in February, the 
highest since September 2005. Unfortunately, Rhode Island has been hit 
especially hard in the current economic downturn as the unemployment 
rate has climbed to 5.8 percent. As I mentioned, families throughout 
Rhode Island are coping with rising energy, food, health care, and 
education costs, all while workers are losing their jobs and wages have 
remained stagnant. That is why I spearheaded a letter earlier this year 
urging the inclusion of an extension of unemployment insurance, UI, 
benefits in the original stimulus package.
  Given that this extension was not included in the package signed into 
law and the economic situation has since worsened, I believe Congress 
needs to act now to ensure Americans who have played by the rules and 
worked hard all of their lives can make ends meet. It is critical that 
we extend this important program. Doing so would not only

[[Page S2806]]

stimulate our economy, but help workers who have lost their jobs by 
providing much-needed and temporary income support. Indeed, economists 
have found that the extension of UI benefits provides a very high 
return on the investment, generating approximately $1.64 in gross 
domestic product per dollar spent.
  Although I support the Foreclosure Prevention Act, I hope that we can 
revisit the Durbin amendment, look more closely at Senator Dodd's 
proposal to deal with underwater loans, and analyze other remedies that 
will deal with the heart of this crisis--millions of families trapped 
in loans that cost more than the value of their homes. If we do not 
provide an orderly unwinding to this problem, I fear our entire economy 
is going to be affected for quite some time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, it is critical that the Senate extend 
renewable tax credits now so that capital for next year's wind and 
solar projects do not dry up.
  Unfortunately my friends on the other side of the aisle have blocked 
every previous attempt to extend these much-needed tax credits.
  Why have they decided to block something as popular as renewable 
energy tax credits? One can only wonder if it's because they prefer to 
defend something as unpopular as record oil company profits over 
reducing record family energy costs.
  Every single time we have attempted to fund a renewable energy tax 
credit by rolling back completely unnecessary oil subsidies, the other 
side of the aisle has sided with Big Oil over the American people.
  Well now it is time to try another strategy. We have been blocked 
from taking the financially responsible path of paying for the 
renewable energy tax credits. But we simply cannot afford to stand by 
and do nothing as our economy continues to slump and energy prices 
continue to put more unnecessary financial stress on New Jersey 
families. We must find a way forward.
  Anyone who is not living under a rock understands three things:
  Our economy is in serious trouble; the climate crisis is getting 
worse and we must act immediately to avert the worst affects of global 
warming; and energy prices are rising through the roof.
  The majority has repeatedly offered to extend the renewable energy 
tax credits which would go a long way toward fixing all three of these 
serious problems.
  If we let the renewable energy tax credits expire we will set back 
the tremendous growth in renewables at least a couple of years. This 
setback would cost the U.S. economy the creation of roughly 100,000 
jobs and billions in economic development. In my home State of New 
Jersey, letting these tax credits lapse would cost the State over 3000 
good, high paying jobs. We cannot let the economy suffer this kind of 
hit at this critical juncture.
  Of course setting back renewables a couple of years will also be 
devastating to our environment. In the face of global warming we simply 
do not have 2 years to waste. We are in the midst of a climate crisis 
in which we must do everything we can to reduce our dependence on 
carbon. Delays like this one simply do not make any sense.
  One last economic point makes this an easy call in my view. 
Electricity prices are skyrocketing because the price of coal and 
natural gas are skyrocketing. For every watt of energy we make from 
renewables, demand is eased on our natural gas and coal markets. If we 
suddenly pull the rug out from the renewable industry, wind and solar 
production will plummet, demand for coal and natural gas will spike and 
our families' electricity bills will get even higher.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Cantwell's and 
Senator Ensign's amendment to provide an extension of the renewable 
energy tax credits and help deliver a stronger, greener economy for our 
country.
  (Ms. CANTWELL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
morning business on Thursday, April 10, the Senate then resume 
consideration of H.R. 3221, and the Senate proceed to vote in relation 
to the following amendments in the order listed, and if a point of 
order is raised against an amendment, then there be 2 minutes of debate 
prior to a vote on the motion to waive the point of order, equally 
divided and controlled in the usual form: Senator Alexander's second-
degree amendment No. 4429; Senator Ensign's amendment No. 4419, as 
amended, if amended. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Alexander and Senator Ensign be recognized for 5 minutes apiece in 
consideration of their amendments; that all remaining pending 
amendments be withdrawn, except the substitute, and that a managers' 
amendment that has been cleared by the managers and the leaders also be 
in order; that the managers' package be considered and agreed to, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that upon disposition 
of the listed amendments, the substitute, as amended, be agreed to, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that upon disposition 
of the substitute amendment, the bill be read a third time, and the 
Senate vote on passage of the bill without further intervening action 
or debate; that upon passage, the title amendment, which is at the 
desk, be agreed to, and that the cloture motion on the bill be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


         Amendment No. 4398, As Modified, to amendment No. 4387

       At the end of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 402. CREDIT COUNSELING.

       (a) In General.--Entities approved by the Neighborhood 
     Reinvestment Corporation or the Secretary and State housing 
     finance entities receiving funds under this title shall work 
     to identify and coordinate with non-profit organizations 
     operating national or statewide toll-free foreclosure 
     prevention hotlines, including those that--
       (1) serve as a consumer referral source and data repository 
     for borrowers experiencing some form of delinquency or 
     foreclosure;
       (2) connect callers with local housing counseling agencies 
     approved by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation or the 
     Secretary to assist with working out a positive resolution to 
     their mortgage delinquency or foreclosure; or
       (3) facilitate or offer free assistance to help homeowners 
     to understand their options, negotiate solutions, and find 
     the best resolution for their particular circumstances.


                Amendment No. 4444 To Amendment No. 4387

       At the end, insert the following:

                    TITLE VIII--SENSE OF THE SENATE

     SEC. 801. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that in implementing or 
     carrying out any provision of this Act, or any amendment made 
     by this Act, the Senate supports a policy of noninterference 
     regarding local government requirements that the holder of a 
     foreclosed property maintain that property.


         Amendment No. 4446, As Modified, to amendment No. 4387

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. NATIONWIDE DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or the 
     amendments made by this Act, each State shall receive not 
     less than 0.5 percent of funds made available under section 
     301 (relating to emergency assistance for the redevelopment 
     of abandoned and foreclosed homes).


         amendment no. 4449, as modified, to amendment no. 4387

(Purpose: To sunset the ability of States to reinvent profits generated 
                under title III, and for other purposes)

       On page 54, strike line 17 and all that follows through 
     page 55, line 9, and insert the following:
       (3) Reinvestment of profits.--
       (A) Profits from sales, rentals, and redevelopment.--
       (i) 5-year reinvestment period.--During the 5-year period 
     following the date of enactment of this Act, any revenue 
     generated from the sale, rental, redevelopment, 
     rehabilitation, or any other eligible use that is in excess 
     of the cost to acquire and redevelop (including reasonable 
     development fees) or rehabilitate an abandoned or foreclosed 
     upon home or residential property shall be provided to and 
     used by the State or unit of general local government in 
     accordance with, and in furtherance of, the intent and 
     provisions of this section.
       (ii) Deposits in the treasury.--

       (I) Profits.--Upon the expiration of the 5-year period set 
     forth under clause (i), any revenue generated from the sale, 
     rental, redevelopment, rehabilitation, or any other eligible 
     use that is in excess of the cost to acquire and redevelop 
     (including reasonable development fees) or rehabilitate an 
     abandoned or foreclosed upon home or residential property 
     shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States as 
     miscellaneous receipts, unless the Secretary approves a 
     request to use the funds for purposes under this Act.
       (II) Other amounts.--Upon the expiration of the 5-year 
     period set forth under clause (i), any other revenue not 
     described under subclause (I) generated from the sale, 
     rental, redevelopment, rehabilitation, or any other eligible 
     use of an abandoned or foreclosed upon

[[Page S2807]]

     home or residential property shall be deposited in the 
     Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.

       (B) Other revenues.--Any revenue generated under 
     subparagraphs (A), (C) or (D) of subsection (c)(3) shall be 
     provided to and used by the State or unit of general local 
     government in accordance with, and in furtherance of, the 
     intent and provisions of this section.


         amendment no. 4454, as modified, to amendment no. 4387

    (Purpose: To require enhanced reporting regarding certain loans 
           guaranteed by the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund)

       On page 12, at the end of line 22, add the following: ``The 
     report shall also include an evaluation of the quality 
     control procedures and accuracy of information utilized in 
     the process of underwriting loans guaranteed by the Fund. 
     Such evaluation shall include a review of the risk 
     characteristics of loans based not only on borrower 
     information and performance, but on risks associated with 
     loans originated or funded by various entities or financial 
     institutions.''.


                    Amendment No. 4458, As Modified

       On page 58 between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 302. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS WITH RESPECT TO EMINENT 
                   DOMAIN.

       No State or unit of general local government may use any 
     amounts received pursuant to section 301 to fund any project 
     that seeks to use the power of eminent domain, unless eminent 
     domain is employed only for a public use: Provided, That for 
     purposes of this section, public use shall not be construed 
     to include economic development that primarily benefits 
     private entities.


         amendment no. 4464, as modified, to amendment no. 4387

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT AUTHORITY FOR 
                   DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) Depository Institution Community Development 
     Investments.--
       (1) National banks.--The first sentence of the paragraph 
     designated as the ``Eleventh'' of section 5136 of the Revised 
     Statutes of the United States (12 U.S.C. 24) (as amended by 
     section 305(a) of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief 
     Act of 2006) is amended by striking ``promotes the public 
     welfare by benefitting primarily'' and inserting ``is 
     designed primarily to promote the public welfare, including 
     the welfare of''.
       (2) State member banks.--The first sentence of the 23rd 
     paragraph of section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 
     338a) is amended by striking ``promotes the public welfare by 
     benefitting primarily'' and inserting ``is designed primarily 
     to promote the public welfare, including the welfare of''.


         amendment no. 4473, as modified, to amendment no. 4387

       On page 12, after line 25, insert the following:

     SEC. 202. LIMITATION ON DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--None of the funds made available under 
     this title or title III shall be distributed to--
       (1) an organization which has been indicted for a violation 
     under Federal law relating to an election for Federal office; 
     or
       (2) an organization which employs applicable individuals.
       (b) Applicable Individuals Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``applicable individual'' means an individual who--
       (1) is--
       (A) employed by the organization in a permanent or 
     temporary capacity;
       (B) contracted or retained by the organization; or
       (C) acting on behalf of, or with the express or apparent 
     authority of, the organization; and
       (2) has been indicted for a violation under Federal law 
     relating to an election for Federal office.


                amendment no. 4480 to amendment no. 4387

 (Purpose: To require the Federal Housing Finance Board to permit the 
  Federal home loan banks to use affordable housing program funds to 
            refinance certain single-family first mortgages)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK REFINANCING AUTHORITY FOR 
                   CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOANS.

       Section 10(j)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1430(j)(2) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) during the 2-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph, refinance loans that are 
     secured by a first mortgage on a primary residence of any 
     family having an income at or below 80 percent of the median 
     income for the area.''.


         amendment no. 4489, as modified, to amendment no. 4387

       On page 18, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 
     20, line 24, and insert the following:

     SEC. 122. HOME EQUITY CONVERSION MORTGAGES.

       (a) In General.--Section 255 of the National Housing Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2), insert `` `real estate,' '' after 
     `` `mortgagor','';
       (2) by amending subsection (d)(1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) have been originated by a mortgagee approved by the 
     Secretary;'';
       (3) by amending subsection (d)(2)(B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) has received adequate counseling, as provided in 
     subsection (f), by an independent third party that is not, 
     either directly or indirectly, associated with or compensated 
     by a party involved in-
       ``(i) originating or servicing the mortgage;
       ``(ii) funding the loan underlying the mortgage; or
       ``(iii) the sale of annuities, investments, long-term care 
     insurance, or any other type of financial or insurance 
     product;'';
       (4) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by striking ``(f) Information Services for 
     Mortgagors.--'' and inserting ``(f) Counseling Services and 
     Information for Mortgagors.--''; and
       (B) by amending the matter preceding paragraph (1) to read 
     as follows: ``The Secretary shall provide or cause to be 
     provided adequate counseling for the mortgagor, as described 
     in subsection (d)(2)(B). Such counseling shall be provided by 
     counselors that meet qualification standards and follow 
     uniform counseling protocols. The qualification standards and 
     counseling protocols shall be established by the Secretary 
     within 12 months of the date of enactment of the Reverse 
     Mortgage Proceeds Protection Act. The protocols shall require 
     a qualified counselor to discuss with each mortgagor 
     information which shall include--''
       (5) in subsection (g), by striking ``established under 
     section 203(b)(2)'' and all that follows through ``located'' 
     and inserting ``limitation established under section 
     305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act 
     for a 1-family residence'';
       (6) in subsection (i)(1)(C), by striking ``limitations'' 
     and inserting ``limitation'';
       (7) by striking subsection (l);
       (8) by redesignating subsection (m) as subsection (l);
       (9) by amending subsection (l), as so redesignated, to read 
     as follows:
       ``(l) Funding for Counseling.--The Secretary may use a 
     portion of the mortgage insurance premiums collected under 
     the program under this section to adequately fund the 
     counseling and disclosure activities required under 
     subsection (f), including counseling for those homeowners who 
     elect not to take out a home equity conversion mortgage, 
     provided that the use of such funds is based upon accepted 
     actuarial principles.''; and
       (10) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Authority To Insure Home Purchase Mortgage.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, the Secretary may insure, upon application by a 
     mortgagee, a home equity conversion mortgage upon such terms 
     and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, when the home 
     equity conversion mortgage will be used to purchase a 1- to 
     4-family dwelling unit, one unit of which that the mortgagor 
     will occupy as a primary residence, and to provide for any 
     future payments to the mortgagor, based on available equity, 
     as authorized under subsection (d)(9).
       ``(2) Limitation on principal obligation.--A home equity 
     conversion mortgage insured pursuant to paragraph (1) shall 
     involve a principal obligation that does not exceed the 
     dollar amount limitation determined under section 305(a)(2) 
     of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a 1-
     family residence.
       ``(n) Requirements on Mortgage Originators.--
       ``(1) In general.--The mortgagee and any other party that 
     participates in the origination of a mortgage to be insured 
     under this section shall--
       ``(A) not participate in, be associated with, or employ any 
     party that participates in or is associated with any other 
     financial or insurance activity; or
       ``(B) demonstrate to the Secretary that the mortgagee or 
     other party maintains, or will maintain, firewalls and other 
     safeguards designed to ensure that--
       ``(i) individuals participating in the origination of the 
     mortgage shall have no involvement with, or incentive to 
     provide the mortgagor with, any other financial or insurance 
     product; and
       ``(ii) the mortgagor shall not be required, directly or 
     indirectly, as a condition of obtaining a mortgage under this 
     section, to purchase any other financial or insurance 
     product.
       ``(2) Approval of other parties.--All parties that 
     participate in the origination of a mortgage to be insured 
     under this section shall be approved by the Secretary.
       ``(o) Prohibition Against Requirements to Purchase 
     Additional Products.--The mortgagee or any other party shall 
     not be required by the mortgagor or any other party to 
     purchase an insurance, annuity, or other additional product 
     as a requirement or condition of eligibility for a mortgage 
     authorized under subsection (c).
       ``(q) Study to Determine Consumer Protections and 
     Underwriting Standards.--The Secretary shall conduct a study 
     to examine and determine appropriate consumer protections and 
     underwriting standards to ensure that the purchase of 
     products referred to in subsection (o) is appropriate for the 
     consumer. In conducting such study, the

[[Page S2808]]

     Secretary shall consult with consumer advocates (including 
     recognized experts in consumer protection), industry 
     representatives, representatives of counseling organizations, 
     and other interested parties.''.
       (b) Mortgages for Cooperatives.--Subsection (b) of section 
     255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by inserting ``a first or subordinate mortgage or 
     lien'' before ``on all stock'';
       (B) by inserting ``unit'' after ``dwelling''; and
       (C) by inserting ``a first mortgage or first lien'' before 
     ``on a leasehold''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``a first or subordinate 
     lien on'' before ``all stock''.
       (c) Limitation on Origination Fees.--Section 255 of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20), as amended by the 
     preceding provisions of this section, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(r) Limitation on Origination Fees.--The Secretary shall 
     establish limits on the origination fee that may be charged 
     to a mortgagor under a mortgage insured under this section, 
     which limitations shall--
       ``(1) equal 1.5 percent of the maximum claim amount of the 
     mortgage unless adjusted thereafter on the basis of--
       ``(A) the costs to the mortgagor; and
       ``(B) the impact of such fees on the reverse mortgage 
     market;
       ``(2) be subject to a minimum allowable amount;
       ``(3) provide that the origination fee may be fully 
     financed with the mortgage;
       ``(4) include any fees paid to correspondent mortgagees 
     approved by the Secretary; and
       ``(5) have the same effective date as subsection (m)(2) 
     regarding the limitation on principal obligation.''.


                Amendment No. 4518 to Amendment No. 4387

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


         amendment no. 4390, as modified, to amendment no. 4387

       At the end add the following:

      TITLE VIII--REIT INVESTMENT DIVERSIFICATION AND EMPOWERMENT

     SEC. 800. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``REIT 
     Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act of 2008''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

                 Subtitle B--Taxable Reit Subsidiaries

     SEC. 811. CONFORMING TAXABLE REIT SUBSIDIARY ASSET TEST.

       Section 856(c)(4)(B)(ii) is amended by striking ``20 
     percent'' and inserting ``25 percent''.

                        Subtitle C--Dealer Sales

     SEC. 821. HOLDING PERIOD UNDER SAFE HARBOR.

       Section 857(b)(6) (relating to income from prohibited 
     transactions) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``4 years'' in subparagraphs (C)(i), 
     (C)(iv), and (D)(i) and inserting ``2 years'',
       (2) by striking ``4-year period'' in subparagraphs (C)(ii), 
     (D)(ii), and (D)(iii) and inserting ``2-year period'', and
       (3) by striking ``real estate asset'' and all that follows 
     through ``if'' in the matter preceding clause (i) of 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively, and inserting ``real 
     estate asset (as defined in section 856(c)(5)(B)) and which 
     is described in section 1221(a)(1) if''.

     SEC. 822. DETERMINING VALUE OF SALES UNDER SAFE HARBOR.

       Section 857(b)(6) is amended--
       (1) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph 
     (C)(iii) and inserting ``, or (III) the fair market value of 
     property (other than sales of foreclosure property or sales 
     to which section 1033 applies) sold during the taxable year 
     does not exceed 10 percent of the fair market value of all of 
     the assets of the trust as of the beginning of the taxable 
     year;'', and
       (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (II) of 
     subparagraph (D)(iv) and by adding at the end of such 
     subparagraph the following new subclause:
       ``(III) the fair market value of property (other than sales 
     of foreclosure property or sales to which section 1033 
     applies) sold during the taxable year does not exceed 10 
     percent of the fair market value of all of the assets of the 
     trust as of the beginning of the taxable year,''.

                     Subtitle D--Health Care Reits

     SEC. 831. CONFORMITY FOR HEALTH CARE FACILITIES.

       (a) Related Party Rentals.--Subparagraph (B) of section 
     856(d)(8) (relating to special rule for taxable REIT 
     subsidiaries) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Exception for certain lodging facilities and health 
     care property.--The requirements of this subparagraph are met 
     with respect to an interest in real property which is a 
     qualified lodging facility (as defined in paragraph (9)(D)) 
     or a qualified health care property (as defined in subsection 
     (e)(6)(D)(i)) leased by the trust to a taxable REIT 
     subsidiary of the trust if the property is operated on behalf 
     of such subsidiary by a person who is an eligible independent 
     contractor. For purposes of this section, a taxable REIT 
     subsidiary is not considered to be operating or managing a 
     qualified health care property or qualified lodging facility 
     solely because it--
       ``(i) directly or indirectly possesses a license, permit, 
     or similar instrument enabling it to do so, or
       ``(ii) employs individuals working at such property or 
     facility located outside the United States, but only if an 
     eligible independent contractor is responsible for the daily 
     supervision and direction of such individuals on behalf of 
     the taxable REIT subsidiary pursuant to a management 
     agreement or similar service contract.''.
       (b) Eligible Independent Contractor.--Subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of section 856(d)(9) (relating to eligible independent 
     contractor) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible independent 
     contractor' means, with respect to any qualified lodging 
     facility or qualified health care property (as defined in 
     subsection (e)(6)(D)(i)), any independent contractor if, at 
     the time such contractor enters into a management agreement 
     or other similar service contract with the taxable REIT 
     subsidiary to operate such qualified lodging facility or 
     qualified health care property, such contractor (or any 
     related person) is actively engaged in the trade or business 
     of operating qualified lodging facilities or qualified health 
     care properties, respectively, for any person who is not a 
     related person with respect to the real estate investment 
     trust or the taxable REIT subsidiary.
       ``(B) Special rules.--Solely for purposes of this paragraph 
     and paragraph (8)(B), a person shall not fail to be treated 
     as an independent contractor with respect to any qualified 
     lodging facility or qualified health care property (as so 
     defined) by reason of the following:
       ``(i) The taxable REIT subsidiary bears the expenses for 
     the operation of such qualified lodging facility or qualified 
     health care property pursuant to the management agreement or 
     other similar service contract.
       ``(ii) The taxable REIT subsidiary receives the revenues 
     from the operation of such qualified lodging facility or 
     qualified health care property, net of expenses for such 
     operation and fees payable to the operator pursuant to such 
     agreement or contract.
       ``(iii) The real estate investment trust receives income 
     from such person with respect to another property that is 
     attributable to a lease of such other property to such person 
     that was in effect as of the later of--

       ``(I) January 1, 1999, or
       ``(II) the earliest date that any taxable REIT subsidiary 
     of such trust entered into a management agreement or other 
     similar service contract with such person with respect to 
     such qualified lodging facility or qualified health care 
     property.''.

       (c) Taxable Reit Subsidiaries.--The last sentence of 
     section 856(l)(3) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or a health care facility'' after ``a 
     lodging facility'', and
       (2) by inserting ``or health care facility'' after ``such 
     lodging facility''.

                 Subtitle E--Effective Dates and Sunset

     SEC. 841. EFFECTIVE DATES AND SUNSET.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the amendments made by this title shall apply to 
     taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) REIT Income Tests.--
       (1) The amendment made by section 801(a) and (b) shall 
     apply to gains and items of income recognized after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) The amendment made by section 801(c) shall apply to 
     transactions entered into after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (3) The amendment made by section 801(d) shall apply after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Conforming Foreign Currency Revisions.--
       (1) The amendment made by section 803(a) shall apply to 
     gains recognized after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) The amendment made by section 803(b) shall apply to 
     gains and deductions recognized after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) Dealer Sales.--The amendments made by subtitle C shall 
     apply to sales made after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (e) Sunset.--All amendments made by this title shall not 
     apply to taxable years beginning after the date which is 5 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act. The 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and 
     administered to taxable years described in the preceding 
     sentence as if the amendments so described had never been 
     enacted.


                amendment no. 4433 to amendment no. 4387

  (Purpose: To modify the increase in volume cap for housing bonds in 
                                 2008)

       On page 70, strike lines 14 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(A) Increase for 2008.--In the case of calendar year 
     2008, the State ceiling for each State shall be increased by 
     an amount equal to the greater of--
       ``(i) $10,000,000,000 multiplied by a fraction--

       ``(I) the numerator of which is the population of such 
     State, and
       ``(II) the denominator of which is the total population of 
     all States, or

       ``(ii) the amount determined under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Minimum amount.--The amount determined under this 
     subparagraph is--

[[Page S2809]]

       ``(i) in the case of a State (other than a possession), 
     $90,300,606, and
       ``(ii) in the case of a possession of the United States 
     with a population less than the least populous State (other 
     than a possession), the product of--

       ``(I) a fraction the numerator of which is $90,300,606 and 
     the denominator of which is population of the least populous 
     State (other than a possession), and
       ``(II) the population of such possession.

     In the case of any possession of the United States not 
     described in clause (ii), the amount determined under this 
     subparagraph shall be zero.
       ``(C) Set aside.--

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank you, I thank Senator Shelby and 
his staff, our staff, and the leaders. The majority leader has been 
tremendously valuable. Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, the Republican 
leader, and his staff as well.
  This has been a long week but satisfying. I will have more remarks to 
add about the details of what is here. This is a very important moment, 
and the leadership deserves an immense amount of credit for making this 
possible. I thank them immensely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 2739

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon 
disposition of H.R. 3221, the Senate proceed to the consideration of 
Calendar No. 616, S. 2739, the energy lands bills; that when the bill 
is considered, the only first-degree amendments in order be the four 
amendments at the desk by Senator Coburn, with no other amendments in 
order; that there be a total of 2 hours for debate with respect to the 
amendments, equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon 
disposition of the amendments, the bill be read a third time, and with 
no further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on 
passage of S. 2739, as amended, if amended; further, that the 
amendments be printed in the Record once this agreement is entered; and 
that the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 2739 be 
withdrawn, and the order with respect to S. 2483 be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 4519

 (Purpose: To require the transfer of certain funds to be used by the 
Director of the National Park Service to dispose of assets described in 
   the candidate asset disposition list of the National Park Service)

       At the end, add the following:

                 TITLE IX--DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN FUNDS

     SEC. 901 CANDIDATE ASSET DISPOSITION LIST.

       For fiscal year 2008, and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     amounts made available to be used by the Director of the 
     National Park Service to dispose of assets described in the 
     candidate asset disposition list of the National Park Service 
     shall be equal to 1 percent of, and derived by transfer from, 
     all amounts made available to the Secretary of the Interior 
     carry out this Act for each such fiscal year.


                           amendment no. 4520

 (Purpose: To ensure that all individuals who reside, or own property 
 that is located, in a proposed National Heritage Area are informed of 
             the designation of the National Heritage Area)

       On page 203, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

Subtitle G--Notification and Consent Requirements Relating to National 
                             Heritage Areas

     SEC. 491 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall not approve a 
     management plan for a National Heritage Area designated by 
     this title unless the local coordinating entity of the 
     proposed National Heritage Area provides written notification 
     through the United States mail of the designation to each 
     individual who resides, or owns property that is located, in 
     the proposed National Heritage Area.

     SEC. 492. WRITTEN CONSENT REQUIREMENT.

       With respect to each National Heritage Area designated by 
     this title, no employee of the National Park Service or 
     member of the local coordinating entity of the National 
     Heritage Area (including any designee of the National Park 
     Service or the local coordinating entity) may enter a parcel 
     of private property located in the proposed National Heritage 
     Area without the written consent of the owner of the parcel 
     of property.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4521

(Purpose: To require approval prior to the assumption of control by the 
                 Federal Government of State property)

       At the end, add the following:

                        TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 901. REQUIREMENT OF APPROVAL OF CERTAIN CITIZENS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the 
     Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, and the 
     Forest Service, acting individually or in coordination, shall 
     not assume control of any parcel of land located in a State 
     unless the citizens of each political subdivision of the 
     State in which a portion of the parcel of land is located 
     approve the assumption of control by a referendum.
       (b) National Emergencies.--The requirement described in 
     subsection (a) shall not apply in the case of a national 
     emergency, as determined by the President.
       (c) Private Landowners.--The requirement described in 
     subsection (a) shall not apply in the case of a voluntary 
     exchange between a private landowner and the Federal 
     Government of a parcel of land.
       (d) Duration of Approval.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to a parcel of land described 
     in subsection (a), the approval of the citizens of each 
     political subdivision in which a portion of the parcel of 
     land is located terminates on the date that is 10 years after 
     the date on which the citizens of each political subdivision 
     approve the control of the parcel of land by the Department 
     of the Interior, the Department of Energy, or the Forest 
     Service under that subsection.
       (2) Renewal of approval.--With respect to a parcel of land 
     described in subsection (a), the Department of the Interior, 
     the Department of Energy, or the Forest Service, as 
     applicable, may renew, by referendum, the approval of the 
     citizens of each political subdivision in which a portion of 
     the parcel of land is located.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4522

   (Purpose: To require the Director of the Office of Management and 
  Budget to determine on an annual basis the quantity of land that is 
   owned by the Federal Government and the cost to taxpayers of the 
                         ownership of the land)

       At the end, add the following:

                        TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 901. ANNUAL REPORT RELATING TO LAND OWNED BY FEDERAL 
                   GOVERNMENT.

       (a) Annual Report.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 
     May 15, 2009, and annually thereafter, the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget (referred to in this section 
     as the ``Director'') shall ensure that a report that contains 
     the information described in subsection (b) is posted on a 
     publicly available website.
       (2) Extension relating to certain segment of report.--With 
     respect to the date on which the first annual report is 
     required to be posted under paragraph (1), if the Director 
     determines that an additional period of time is required to 
     gather the information required under subsection (b)(3)(B), 
     the Director may--
       (A) as of the date described in paragraph (1), post each 
     segment of information required under paragraphs (1), (2), 
     and (3)(A) of subsection (b); and
       (B) as of May 15, 2010, post the segment of information 
     required under subsection (b)(3)(B).
       (b) Required Information.--An annual report described in 
     subsection (a) shall contain, for the period covered by the 
     report--
       (1) a description of the total quantity of--
       (A) land located within the jurisdiction of the United 
     States, to be expressed in acres;
       (B) the land described in subparagraph (A) that is owned by 
     the Federal Government, to be expressed--
       (i) in acres; and
       (ii) as a percentage of the quantity described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (C) the land described in subparagraph (B) that is located 
     in each State, to be expressed, with respect to each State--
       (i) in acres; and
       (ii) as a percentage of the quantity described in 
     subparagraph (B);
       (2) a description of the total annual cost to the Federal 
     Government for maintaining all parcels of administrative land 
     and all administrative buildings or structures under the 
     jurisdiction of each Federal agency; and
       (3) a list and detailed summary of--
       (A) with respect to each Federal agency--
       (i) the number of unused or vacant assets;
       (ii) the replacement value for each unused or vacant asset;
       (iii) the total operating costs for each unused or vacant 
     asset; and
       (iv) the length of time that each type of asset described 
     in clause (i) has been unused or vacant, organized in 
     categories comprised of periods of--

       (I) not more than 1 year;
       (II) not less than 1, but not more than 2, years; and
       (III) not less than 2 years; and

       (B) the estimated costs to the Federal Government of the 
     maintenance backlog of each Federal agency, to be--
       (i) organized in categories comprised of buildings and 
     structures; and
       (ii) expressed as an aggregate cost.
       (c) Use of Existing Annual Reports.--An annual report 
     required under subsection (a) may be comprised of any annual 
     report relating to the management of Federal real property 
     that is published by a Federal agency.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, let me say this: This has taken some time 
to get done. I appreciate Senator Bingaman's hard work. I appreciate 
the understanding of Senator Coburn. He came to my office. We had a 
very warm discussion. If there was a misunderstanding--and obviously 
there was--I certainly apologize to everyone for any inconvenience I 
caused.

[[Page S2810]]

  As I have indicated, I think this accomplishes what we need to do. 
Again, I appreciate the understanding of Senator Coburn.


                Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Nominations

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, 
April 10, upon disposition of S. 2739, following consultation with 
Senator McConnell, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider 
the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 476, 477, 478, 479, and 515; 
that there be a total of 4 hours of debate on the nominations, with 2 
hours each under the control of Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member 
Specter; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed 
to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed above; 
that after the first vote in the sequence, the vote time be limited to 
10 minutes; and that upon confirmation, the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, let me say this also. The first agreement 
that Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby did could not have been reachable 
without the understanding and cooperation of Senator Kyl. He reached a 
long distance to agree to this request. I appreciate his understanding 
and his willingness to let us move forward.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 4389, As Further Modified

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding its adoption the Landrieu amendment No. 4389, as 
further modified, be further modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified further, is as follows:

       On page 82, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 605. USE OF AMENDED INCOME TAX RETURNS TO TAKE INTO 
                   ACCOUNT RECEIPT OF CERTAIN HURRICANE-RELATED 
                   CASUALTY LOSS GRANTS BY DISALLOWING PREVIOUSLY 
                   TAKEN CASUALTY LOSS DEDUCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if a taxpayer claims a 
     deduction for any taxable year with respect to a casualty 
     loss to a personal residence (within the meaning of section 
     121 of such Code) resulting from Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane 
     Rita, or Hurricane Wilma and in a subsequent taxable year 
     receives a grant under Public Law 109-148, 109-234, or 110-
     116 as reimbursement for such loss, such taxpayer may elect 
     to file an amended income tax return for the taxable year in 
     which such deduction was allowed and disallow such deduction. 
     If elected, such amended return must be filed not later than 
     the due date for filing the tax return for the taxable year 
     in which the taxpayer receives such reimbursement or the date 
     that is 4 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     whichever is later. Any increase in Federal income tax 
     resulting from such disallowance if such amended return is 
     filed--
       (1) shall be subject to interest on the underpaid tax for 
     one year at the underpayment rate determined under section 
     6621(a)(2) of such Code; and
       (2) shall not be subject to any penalty under such Code.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement, all provisions of this section are designated as 
     emergency requirements and necessary to meet emergency needs 
     pursuant to section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

     SEC. 606. WAIVER OF DEADLINE ON CONSTRUCTION OF GO ZONE 
                   PROPERTY ELIGIBLE FOR BONUS DEPRECIATION.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 1400N(d)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) without regard to `and before January 1, 2009' in 
     clause (i) thereof,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2007.
       (c) Emergency Designation.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement, all provisions of this section are designated as 
     emergency requirements and necessary to meet emergency needs 
     pursuant to section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

     SEC. 607. TEMPORARY TAX RELIEF FOR KIOWA COUNTY, KANSAS AND 
                   SURROUNDING AREA.

       (a) In General.--The following provisions of or relating to 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply, in addition to 
     the areas described in such provisions, to an area with 
     respect to which a major disaster has been declared by the 
     President under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (FEMA-1699-DR, 
     as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act) by 
     reason of severe storms and tornados beginning on May 4, 
     2007, and determined by the President to warrant individual 
     or individual and public assistance from the Federal 
     Government under such Act with respect to damages attributed 
     to such storms and tornados:
       (1) Suspension of certain limitations on personal casualty 
     losses.--Section 1400S(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, by substituting ``May 4, 2007'' for ``August 25, 
     2005''.
       (2) Extension of replacement period for nonrecognition of 
     gain.--Section 405 of the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 
     2005, by substituting ``on or after May 4, 2007, by reason of 
     the May 4, 2007, storms and tornados'' for ``on or after 
     August 25, 2005, by reason of Hurricane Katrina''.
       (3) Employee retention credit for employers affected by may 
     4 storms and tornados.--Section 1400R(a) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986--
       (A) by substituting ``May 4, 2007'' for ``August 28, 2005'' 
     each place it appears,
       (B) by substituting ``January 1, 2008'' for ``January 1, 
     2006'' both places it appears, and
       (C) only with respect to eligible employers who employed an 
     average of not more than 200 employees on business days 
     during the taxable year before May 4, 2007.
       (4) Special allowance for certain property acquired on or 
     after may 5, 2007.--Section 1400N(d) of such Code--
       (A) by substituting ``qualified Recovery Assistance 
     property'' for ``qualified Gulf Opportunity Zone property'' 
     each place it appears,
       (B) by substituting ``May 5, 2007'' for ``August 28, 2005'' 
     each place it appears,
       (C) by substituting ``December 31, 2008'' for ``December 
     31, 2007'' in paragraph (2)(A)(v),
       (D) by substituting ``December 31, 2009'' for ``December 
     31, 2008'' in paragraph (2)(A)(v),
       (E) by substituting ``May 4, 2007'' for ``August 27, 2005'' 
     in paragraph (3)(A),
       (F) by substituting ``January 1, 2009'' for ``January 1, 
     2008'' in paragraph (3)(B), and
       (G) determined without regard to paragraph (6) thereof.
       (5) Increase in expensing under section 179.--Section 
     1400N(e) of such Code, by substituting ``qualified section 
     179 Recovery Assistance property'' for ``qualified section 
     179 Gulf Opportunity Zone property'' each place it appears.
       (6) Expensing for certain demolition and clean-up costs.--
     Section 1400N(f) of such Code--
       (A) by substituting ``qualified Recovery Assistance clean-
     up cost'' for ``qualified Gulf Opportunity Zone clean-up 
     cost'' each place it appears, and
       (B) by substituting ``beginning on May 4, 2007, and ending 
     on December 31, 2009'' for ``beginning on August 28, 2005, 
     and ending on December 31, 2007'' in paragraph (2) thereof.
       (7) Treatment of public utility property disaster losses.--
     Section 1400N(o) of such Code.
       (8) Treatment of net operating losses attributable to storm 
     losses.--Section 1400N(k) of such Code--
       (A) by substituting ``qualified Recovery Assistance loss'' 
     for ``qualified Gulf Opportunity Zone loss'' each place it 
     appears,
       (B) by substituting ``after May 3, 2007, and before on 
     January 1, 2010'' for ``after August 27, 2005, and before 
     January 1, 2008'' each place it appears,
       (C) by substituting ``May 4, 2007'' for ``August 28, 2005'' 
     in paragraph (2)(B)(ii)(I) thereof,
       (D) by substituting ``qualified Recovery Assistance 
     property'' for ``qualified Gulf Opportunity Zone property'' 
     in paragraph (2)(B)(iv) thereof, and
       (E) by substituting ``qualified Recovery Assistance 
     casualty loss'' for ``qualified Gulf Opportunity Zone 
     casualty loss'' each place it appears.
       (9) Treatment of representations regarding income 
     eligibility for purposes of qualified rental project 
     requirements.--Section 1400N(n) of such Code.
       (10) Special rules for use of retirement funds.--Section 
     1400Q of such Code--
       (A) by substituting ``qualified Recovery Assistance 
     distribution'' for ``qualified hurricane distribution'' each 
     place it appears,
       (B) by substituting ``on or after May 4, 2007, and before 
     January 1, 2009'' for ``on or after August 25, 2005, and 
     before January 1, 2007'' in subsection (a)(4)(A)(i),
       (C) by substituting ``qualified storm distribution'' for 
     ``qualified Katrina distribution'' each place it appears,
       (D) by substituting ``after November 4, 2006, and before 
     May 5, 2007'' for ``after February 28, 2005, and before 
     August 29, 2005'' in subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii),
       (E) by substituting ``beginning on May 4, 2007, and ending 
     on November 5, 2007'' for ``beginning on August 25, 2005, and 
     ending on February 28, 2006'' in subsection (b)(3)(A),
       (F) by substituting ``qualified storm individual'' for 
     ``qualified Hurricane Katrina individual'' each place it 
     appears,
       (G) by substituting ``December 31, 2007'' for ``December 
     31, 2006'' in subsection (c)(2)(A),
       (H) by substituting ``beginning on June 4, 2007, and ending 
     on December 31, 2007'' for ``beginning on September 24, 2005, 
     and ending

[[Page S2811]]

     on December 31, 2006'' in subsection (c)(4)(A)(i),
       (I) by substituting ``May 4, 2007'' for ``August 25, 2005'' 
     in subsection (c)(4)(A)(ii), and
       (J) by substituting ``January 1, 2008'' for ``January 1, 
     2007'' in subsection (d)(2)(A)(ii).
       (b) Emergency Designation.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement, all provisions of this section are designated as 
     emergency requirements and necessary to meet emergency needs 
     pursuant to section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.


                     Amendment No. 4478, As Amended

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the unanimous consent agreement, the Murray amendment 
No. 4478, as amended by the Mikulski amendment, be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4494), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. _____.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the amount 
     appropriated under section 301(a) of this Act shall be 
     $3,920,000,000 and the amount appropriated under section 401 
     of this Act shall be $180,000,000: Provided, That, of amounts 
     appropriated under such section 401 $30,000,000 shall be used 
     by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (referred to in 
     this section as the ``NRC'') to make grants to counseling 
     intermediaries approved by the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development or the NRC to hire attorneys to assist 
     homeowners who have legal issues directly related to the 
     homeowner's foreclosure, delinquency or short sale. Such 
     attorneys shall be capable of assisting homeowners of owner-
     occupied homes with mortgages in default, in danger of 
     default, or subject to or at risk of foreclosure and who have 
     legal issues that cannot be handled by counselors already 
     employed by such intermediaries: Provided further, That of 
     the amounts provided for in the prior provisos the NRC shall 
     give priority consideration to counseling intermediaries and 
     legal organizations that (1) provide legal assistance in the 
     100 metropolitan statistical areas (as defined by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget) with the 
     highest home foreclosure rates, and (2) have the capacity to 
     begin using the financial assistance within 90 days after 
     receipt of the assistance: Provided further, That no funds 
     provided under this Act shall be used to provide, obtain, or 
     arrange on behalf of a homeowner, legal representation 
     involving or for the purposes of civil litigation.

  The amendment (No. 4478), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________