[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5168-5184]
[From the U.S. 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3221, which the clerk will 
report.
  The 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.
       Voinovich amendment No. 4406 (to amendment No. 4387), to 
     protect families most vulnerable to foreclosure due to a 
     sudden loss of income by extending the depreciation incentive 
     to loss companies that have accumulated alternative minimum 
     tax and research and development tax credits.
       Landrieu modified amendment No. 4389 (to amendment No. 
     4387), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
     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, and to 
     waive the deadline on the construction of GO Zone property 
     which is eligible for bonus depreciation.
       Sanders amendment No. 4401 (to amendment No. 4387), to 
     establish a national consumer credit usury rate.
       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.


                           Amendment No. 4406

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
question is on amendment No. 4406, offered by the Senator from Ohio, 
Mr. Voinovich, and the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow.
  The Senator from Ohio.


                    Amendment No. 4406, as Modified

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment, and I now send the modification to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title VI, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. ELECTION TO ACCELERATE AMT AND R AND D CREDITS IN 
                   LIEU OF BONUS DEPRECIATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 168(k), as amended by this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Election to accelerate amt and r and d credits in 
     lieu of bonus depreciation.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a corporation which is an eligible 
     taxpayer (within the meaning of paragraph (4)) for purposes 
     of this subsection elects to have this paragraph apply--
       ``(i) no additional depreciation shall be allowed under 
     paragraph (1) for any qualified property placed in service 
     during any taxable year to which paragraph (1) would 
     otherwise apply, and

[[Page 5169]]

       ``(ii) the limitations described in subparagraph (B) for 
     such taxable year shall be increased by an aggregate amount 
     not in excess of the bonus depreciation amount for such 
     taxable year.
       ``(B) Limitations to be increased.--The limitations 
     described in this subparagraph are--
       ``(i) the limitation under section 38(c), and
       ``(ii) the limitation under section 53(c).
       ``(C) Bonus depreciation amount.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph--
       ``(i) In general.--The bonus depreciation amount for any 
     applicable taxable year is an amount equal to the product of 
     20 percent and the excess (if any) of--

       ``(I) the aggregate amount of depreciation which would be 
     determined under this section for property placed in service 
     during the taxable year if no election under this paragraph 
     were made, over
       ``(II) the aggregate amount of depreciation allowable under 
     this section for property placed in service during the 
     taxable year.

     In the case of property which is a passenger aircraft, the 
     amount determined under subclause (I) shall be calculated 
     without regard to the written binding contract limitation 
     under paragraph (2)(A)(iii)(I).
       ``(ii) Maximum amount.--The bonus depreciation amount for 
     any applicable taxable year shall not exceed the applicable 
     limitation under clause (iii), reduced (but not below zero) 
     by the bonus depreciation amount for any preceding taxable 
     year.
       ``(iii) Applicable limitation.--For purposes of clause 
     (ii), the term `applicable limitation' means, with respect to 
     any eligible taxpayer, the lesser of--

       ``(I) $40,000,000, or
       ``(II) 10 percent of the sum of the amounts determined with 
     respect to the eligible taxpayer under clauses (ii) and (iii) 
     of subparagraph (D).

       ``(iv) Aggregation rule.--All corporations which are 
     treated as a single employer under section 52(a) shall be 
     treated as 1 taxpayer for purposes of applying the limitation 
     under this subparagraph and determining the applicable 
     limitation under clause (iii).
       ``(D) Allocation of bonus depreciation amounts.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), the 
     taxpayer shall, at such time and in such manner as the 
     Secretary may prescribe, specify the portion (if any) of the 
     bonus depreciation amount which is to be allocated to each of 
     the limitations described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(ii) Business credit limitation.--The portion of the 
     bonus depreciation amount allocated to the limitation 
     described in subparagraph (B)(i) shall not exceed an amount 
     equal to the portion of the credit allowable under section 38 
     for the taxable year which is allocable to business credit 
     carryforwards to such taxable year which are--

       ``(I) from taxable years beginning before January 1, 2006, 
     and
       ``(II) properly allocable (determined under the rules of 
     section 38(d)) to the research credit determined under 
     section 41(a).

       ``(iii) Alternative minimum tax credit limitation.--The 
     portion of the bonus depreciation amount allocated to the 
     limitation described in subparagraph (B)(ii) shall not exceed 
     an amount equal to the portion of the minimum tax credit 
     allowable under section 53 for the taxable year which is 
     allocable to the adjusted minimum tax imposed for taxable 
     years beginning before January 1, 2006.
       ``(E) Credit refundable.--Any aggregate increases in the 
     credits allowed under section 38 or 53 by reason of this 
     paragraph shall, for purposes of this title, be treated as a 
     credit allowed to the taxpayer under subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A.
       ``(F) Other rules.--
       ``(i) Election.--Any election under this paragraph 
     (including any allocation under subparagraph (D)) may be 
     revoked only with the consent of the Secretary.
       ``(ii) Deduction allowed in computing minimum tax.--
     Notwithstanding this paragraph, paragraph (2)(G) shall apply 
     with respect to the deduction computed under this section 
     (after application of this paragraph) with respect to 
     property placed in service during any applicable taxable 
     year.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2007, in taxable years ending after such date.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the chairman of the Finance Committee 
has voiced concern about the original revenue loss associated with our 
amendment, which is bipartisan, with several members of the Finance 
Committee as sponsors. Senator Stabenow and I have worked very hard 
with Finance Committee staff and the Joint Committee on Taxation to 
bring the revenue estimate down. We managed to cut it by two-thirds to 
about $1.3 billion over 10 years. I am pleased Senator Baucus finds it 
acceptable and now supports my amendment.
  I would now like to turn the floor over to Senator Stabenow.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, let me say, part of this recovery is to 
support those businesses currently not making a profit but that want to 
continue to invest in America and American jobs. That is the piece we 
address in this amendment.
  I thank Senator Baucus and his staff and Senator Grassley for working 
very closely with us to get this to a point where it is supported by 
them.
  Thank you.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, under the rules, technically someone on 
the minority side would manage the time, theoretically, in opposition 
to this amendment. I do not see anyone here. Not to be too formal about 
this, I will speak anyway.
  I thank the Senator from Ohio, as well as the Senator from Michigan, 
for working out this amendment. Very basically, they have a very good 
point; namely, that many businesses, particularly in some parts of the 
country, are not able to take full advantage of bonus depreciation or 
so-called 179 expensing. That is because these are companies that have 
no profits. They do not have the ability to take advantage of these 
depreciation write-downs.
  So they have come up with an amendment to address that problem. The 
first version was a bit expensive. We have worked very closely together 
with the Senators, as well as with the Joint Committee on Tax, to find 
the proper amount that makes some sense, and it has been tailored down 
to about $1.3 billion. That is the modification which was sent to the 
desk by the Senator from Ohio. I think that is a proper amount. I think 
it is very helpful and ought to help these companies in these very 
stressed parts of our country that very much need the benefit of this 
provision. So I accept the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for 
those words of support.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from New York 
(Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), 
the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), the Senator from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Cochran), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Wyoming 
(Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the 
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter).
  Further, if present and voting the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``yea.'' The 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman

[[Page 5170]]


     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Corker
     Gregg
       

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Allard
     Bennett
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Obama
     Rockefeller
     Specter
     Tester
  The amendment (No. 4406), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the Landrieu 
amendment No. 4389, as modified.


                Amendment No. 4389, As Further Modified

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment No. 4389 be further modified, the text of which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the further modification 
of the amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as further modified, 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 or 
     Hurricane Rita and in a subsequent taxable year receives a 
     grant under Public Law 109-148, 109-234, or 110-116 as 
     reimbursement for such loss from the State of Louisiana or 
     the State of Mississippi, 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 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

[[Page 5171]]

     needs pursuant to section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2008.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Mississippi 
wishes to speak on our amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for 
yielding me an opportunity to speak. This is an example of how those in 
Government can work together to help citizens who have been 
disadvantaged by a storm, where Members can work together in a 
bipartisan manner.
  The Senator from Louisiana will be able to explain briefly the base 
amendment she offered. I simply want to thank her for agreeing to 
incorporate two very important amendments into hers. One is with regard 
to the bonus depreciation piece of the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act, known 
in shorthand as the GO-Zone. Because of bureaucratic delays, and 
because of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina, people who wish to take 
the opportunity of the GO-Zone bonus depreciation have not been able to 
commence construction. The Wicker-Cochran amendment, which the Senator 
has agreed to incorporate into her amendment, would move the 
commencement date of GO-Zone construction.
  The Senator from Louisiana has also graciously agreed to add a 
Brownback-Roberts amendment that will help the small town of 
Greensburg, KS, which was completely devastated in a storm recently. I 
urge all Senators to vote in favor of this simple change in the date on 
bonus depreciation.
  I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that this 
amendment violates section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, pursuant to section 204 of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 21, I move to waive that section of the 
concurrent resolution for the purpose of the pending amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the 
motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN: I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from New York 
(Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), 
the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), the Senator from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Texas (Mr. 
Cornyn), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Utah 
(Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea.'' The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would 
have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 74, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Barrasso
     Corker
     DeMint
     Gregg
     Kyl

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Allard
     Bennett
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Obama
     Rockefeller
     Specter
     Tester
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 74, the nays are 5. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order is moot.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4389), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Dodd is going to be here, as will 
Senator Baucus, for offering of amendments. It is my understanding 
there are a number of tax related amendments that will be offered. 
Senator Ensign, Senator Bill Nelson, and Senator Snowe have amendments.
  For the benefit of Members, I wish to lay out generally what the plan 
is for next week. We will have no votes on Monday. That has been long 
scheduled. The Republican leader and I will work out what is going to 
happen on Tuesday. There are a couple alternatives. I discussed it 
briefly this morning.
  I have a cloture motion waiting to file. Whether we do that or not, I 
will consult with my distinguished colleague, the Senator from 
Kentucky. What we might try to work out is having a finite list of 
amendments and have a time certain to complete work on this bill on 
Tuesday sometime.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield for 
an observation, I agree it would be appropriate filing a cloture 
motion. We can vitiate it later if we get there without that. I think 
it would help us get to the end of the trail, a point at which both of 
us would like to finish up, which will hopefully be Tuesday or 
Wednesday.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend's advice and will 
follow it.
  I will also say this about next week. We can work Tuesday, and we can 
work Wednesday. Thursday the Pope will be in Washington, DC, and will 
say a mass. It is my understanding that mass will begin at 10 a.m. 
There will be a lot of traffic problems. There are a huge number of 
people expected to be at that mass, so we will have a window so Members 
and staff who wish to attend the mass will be able to do so. It will 
not be for all day, but I assume we will all work with those who know 
the schedule better. We will have a window on Thursday, but we will 
have to work into Thursday afternoon and Thursday evening on other 
issues.
  On Friday, there is a long-scheduled Senate Democratic retreat in 
Richmond, VA.
  That is the general view of next week.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. I believe the mass is the Thursday after.
  Mr. REID. It is not next week?
  Mr. LEAHY. No. We are trying to make life easy. The Pope would like 
to make life easier for the majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I had a couple of my Catholic friends come to me today and

[[Page 5172]]

say: We have to have some time off. That is a week from Thursday. That 
is like an eternity in the Senate. Everybody is going to have to work 
all day Thursday, I hate to break the bad news to you. I guess I have 
said enough.
  We will work with everyone's schedule so it is compatible with the 
Pope's a week from Thursday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, a number of Senators wish to speak and 
offer amendments. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ensign be 
recognized for 5 minutes and then I be allowed to follow him; following 
him, Senator Nelson of Florida recognized for 5 minutes and I be 
allowed to follow him. We will lock those two in at this point. There 
may be others throughout the day.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Reserving the right to object, I would like to be added 
as a cosponsor with Senator Nelson on his amendment. I ask that I be 
recognized for 5 minutes after Senator Nelson.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is on the Bill Nelson of Florida amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the 
Senator from Montana if I could be recognized following the Senator 
from Nevada to offer an amendment to his amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, could I be added after 
the Senator from Tennessee?
  Mr. ENSIGN. To clarify, the Senator from Tennessee objects to the 
wind power part, and he wants to offer a second-degree amendment. He 
wants to make sure he is in order for a second-degree amendment to our 
amendment is all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, may I follow after that 
debate is completed?
  Mr. BAUCUS. A better procedure is not to line up second degrees 
because nobody's second-degree rights are ever denied anyway on any 
amendment. That is automatic. For example, when Senator Ensign's 
amendment is offered, if somebody wants to offer a second-degree 
amendment, that is certainly in order. The unanimous consent request 
would not preclude someone from offering a second-degree amendment. The 
Senator always has that right.
  I don't want to get in the position of getting UCs for one second-
degree amendment or another at this point, especially when, I say to my 
good friend from Tennessee, it is not necessary in any way. He will be 
fully protected when the amendment of the Senator from Nevada is up. He 
is protected to offer a second degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator. I wish to make sure I am fully 
protected and another Senator does not get ahead of me in terms of a 
second-degree amendment. Is that the assurance I am receiving from the 
Senator?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is absolutely this Senator's understanding, and I 
will protect that Senator's right as best I can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent request pending.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, may I inquire of whoever 
will be managing the next amendment how long they will go forward with 
the discussion on this amendment? I would like to be added to the list 
after it is all over for 5 minutes to present a wholly different 
amendment. It does not have anything to do with this issue.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, so the Senator from Louisiana does not 
have an amendment?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I do have an amendment that I would like to offer on a 
completely different subject and sometime today.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Not to the housing bill?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. To the housing bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Later on today.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Later on today.
  Mr. DODD. I am going to be here all afternoon. So anyone who wants to 
offer amendments, I will be here to consider any amendments and debate 
anytime they want. We are not going anywhere. We have no more votes. We 
certainly are offering amendments.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I am trying to get a timeframe as to when I might be 
able to do that so I can plan my day.
  Mr. BAUCUS. As far as this Senator is concerned, it is fine if this 
Senator is added.
  Mr. ENSIGN. To add a clarification, we were only going to talk for 5 
minutes, 5 minutes, and the next people 5 minutes, 5 minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. So I will be in line to offer an amendment at 10:30 
a.m.?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the offering of the three amendments, the Senator from 
Louisiana be recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Reserving the right to object, may I say to the 
Senator from Montana, I would like to follow the Senator from Nevada 
for 5 minutes for the purpose of offering a second-degree amendment, if 
he can show me that courtesy.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as far as I am concerned, that is 
perfectly OK with me.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the initial request of 
the Senator from Montana? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.


                Amendment No. 4419 to Amendment No. 4387

       (Purpose: 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.)

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside and I be allowed to call up amendment No. 4419.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself, Mr. 
     Thune, and Ms. Cantwell, proposes an amendment numbered 4419 
     to amendment No. 4387.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Cantwell and Thune be added as cosponsors to the amendment. I am sure 
there will be others who will want to be added as cosponsors to this 
amendment. Since Senator Cantwell and I introduced the freestanding 
bill yesterday, we already have 28 of our colleagues who have become 
cosponsors. Additionally, we expect many more of our colleagues will be 
added as cosponsors to the bill and will also want to be added as 
cosponsors to this amendment.
  Briefly, I wish to share my time with the Senator from Washington, 
who has shown great leadership on this issue. The amendment we are 
proposing deals with renewables. We know this country has an energy 
problem. We are too dependent on foreign sources of energy. Too much of 
our energy byproducts are polluting the environment, and there are 
concerns about climate change around the world. And this amendment 
addresses both of those concerns, as well as being a stimulant to the 
economy. There are over 100,000 jobs that we protected with this 
amendment. We are talking about solar power, geothermal, wind energy 
and biomass. There are many different renewables that are going to help 
within this amendment. Additionally, at a time when our country is at 
war in places where we are spending over $100 per barrel of oil, we are 
spending hundreds of billions of dollars from our economy to support 
people who are not necessarily friendly to the United States. It is 
very important that we as a Senate, act now on this amendment in

[[Page 5173]]

order to help the United States become less dependent on foreign 
sources of energy as well as clean up our environment. It is a national 
security concern, it is an economic concern, and it is an environmental 
concern.
  I am very pleased to introduce this amendment today so we can vote on 
it next week. I think it is very critical that this be part of the 
package, and that is why it needs to be done as soon as possible. Some 
may ask why there is such an urgency. Well, because a lot of this type 
of energy production takes a long time to develop. We do not have a lot 
of time to set the financing of these projects. We have been told by a 
lot of industries that if there isn't stability, a lot of these 
industries are going to go away. We need to be encouraging renewable 
energy development.
  Mr. President, I yield a couple of minutes to my friend, the Senator 
from Washington, who is the lead sponsor of the bill we introduced 
yesterday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding me some of 
his time.
  This has been a big priority on this side of the aisle, to get clean 
energy tax credits so we can continue to stimulate investment in wind 
and solar and energy efficiency, and a variety of others--fuel cells, 
biomass, geothermal, and the list goes on and on. This is the fourth 
time we have tried to get to this legislation. Three other times we 
have come within one vote, so we are here today with more bipartisan 
support for a proposed solution.
  My colleagues and the chairman of the Finance Committee have worked 
very hard on this legislation in general, on the concept of trying to 
push forward these tax credits, but we are at a critical point. In 
fact, I have said to my colleagues that Rome is burning; that is, we 
are at the precipice now of projects actually getting canceled. Having 
been in business, I know what it is like to have your first quarter 
earnings report and then have to show some forward advancement to your 
investors about your projects. That is where we are. And because we 
aren't giving certainty in the Tax Code to these investors, they are 
going to start canceling projects.
  So we cannot wait another month, another 2 months to get about this 
tax. If we want to give certainty to the markets to continue to invest 
in alternative energy to take some of the pressure off of the rising 
cost of energy, now is the time to act. So I hope my colleagues will 
think about the bipartisan nature of the amendment. We have failed 
three times and have come one vote short to try to help our own 
economies in our States and in our country by saving this investment 
cycle. Give the predictability so we can keep 100,000 jobs working, so 
we can get renewable energy produced and invested in during 2008, and 
so we can have the production of CO2-reducing energy supply 
and get that going now.
  I could say to my colleagues that we are almost at a point where the 
United States is so far behind what other countries are doing that we 
are not even going to be able to claim we are leading in this area if 
we do not get about the task. So if the votes are here, let's start 
voting to say renewable energy and its ability to stimulate the economy 
is a priority.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, how much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will yield the floor after one brief 
comment to once again thank the great leadership of the Senator from 
Washington. I look forward to all of our colleagues joining us on this 
vote in a bipartisan way next week.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                Amendment No. 4429 to Amendment No. 4419

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4429 to amendment No. 4419.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment not be read further.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide a longer extension of the renewable energy 
 production tax credit and to encourage all emerging renewable sources 
                of electricity, and for other purposes)

       Beginning on page 2, line 14, strike all through page 6, 
     line 13, and insert the following:

     SEC. 811. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY 
                   PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Extension of Credit.--Each of the following provisions 
     of section 45(d) (relating to qualified facilities) is 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2011'':
       (1) Paragraph (1).
       (2) Clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(A).
       (3) Clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(A).
       (4) Paragraph (4).
       (5) Paragraph (5).
       (6) Paragraph (6).
       (7) Paragraph (7).
       (8) Paragraph (8).
       (9) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (9).
       (b) Production Credit for Electricity Produced From Marine 
     Renewables.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(c) (relating 
     to resources) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (H) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at 
     the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(I) marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.''.
       (2) Marine renewables.--Subsection (c) of section 45 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `marine and hydrokinetic 
     renewable energy' means energy derived from--
       ``(i) waves, tides, and currents in oceans, estuaries, and 
     tidal areas,
       ``(ii) free flowing water in rivers, lakes, and streams,
       ``(iii) free flowing water in an irrigation system, canal, 
     or other man-made channel, including projects that utilize 
     nonmechanical structures to accelerate the flow of water for 
     electric power production purposes, or
       ``(iv) differentials in ocean temperature (ocean thermal 
     energy conversion).
       ``(B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include any energy 
     which is derived from any source which utilizes a dam, 
     diversionary structure (except as provided in subparagraph 
     (A)(iii)), or impoundment for electric power production 
     purposes.''.
       (3) Definition of facility.--Subsection (d) of section 45 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy 
     facilities.--In the case of a facility producing electricity 
     from marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy, the term 
     `qualified facility' means any facility owned by the 
     taxpayer--
       ``(A) which has a nameplate capacity rating of at least 150 
     kilowatts, and
       ``(B) which is originally placed in service on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this paragraph and before January 1, 
     2011.''.
       (4) Credit rate.--Subparagraph (A) of section 45(b)(4) is 
     amended by striking ``or (9)'' and inserting ``(9), or 
     (11)''.
       (5) Coordination with small irrigation power.--Paragraph 
     (5) of section 45(d), as amended by subsection (a), is 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``the 
     date of the enactment of paragraph (11)''.
       (c) Sales of Electricity to Regulated Public Utilities 
     Treated as Sales to Unrelated Persons.--Section 45(e)(4) 
     (relating to related persons) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``A taxpayer shall be treated as 
     selling electricity to an unrelated person if such 
     electricity is sold to a regulated public utility (as defined 
     in section 7701(a)(33).''.
       (e) Reduction of Credit for Wind Energy.--Section 
     45(b)(4)(A) is amended by inserting ``(1),'' before ``(3)''.
       (f) Trash Facility Clarification.--Paragraph (7) of section 
     45(d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``facility which burns'' and inserting 
     ``facility (other than a facility described in paragraph (6)) 
     which uses'', and
       (2) by striking ``combustion''.
       (g) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Extension.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
     apply to property originally placed in service after December 
     31, 2008.
       (2) Modifications.--The amendments made by subsections (b), 
     (c), (d), and (e) shall apply to electricity produced and 
     sold after the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable 
     years ending after such date.
       (3) Trash facility clarification.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (f) shall apply to electricity produced and sold 
     before, on, or after December 31, 2007.


[[Page 5174]]

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I believe the amendment I offer on 
behalf of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, and myself would improve 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from 
Washington.
  As I listened to them talking, their concern is for emerging 
technologies, for businesses that are trying to develop emerging 
technologies to have time to plan, and so they offer a 1-year extension 
of the production tax credit, which gives a 1 cent per kilowatt hour 
tax credit to most emerging technologies producing electricity for 
commercial sales. Some renewable electricity sources receive a larger 2 
cents per kilowatt hour credit. I would propose, along with Senator 
Kyl, that we make it a 2-year extension for emerging technologies.
  The way we would pay for that so it would not be any more expensive 
than the proposal they have offered is to do with wind what we have 
already done with solar: take it off the list of 2-cent-per-kilowatt-
hour technologies and put it on the 1-cent list. In other words, we 
would be creating a 2-year extension of the production tax credit for 
renewable technologies. We would be treating wind the same way we treat 
open-loop biomass, small irrigation power, landfill gas, trash 
combustion, qualified hydropower, and wave and tidal facilities. They 
all would receive 1 cent per kilowatt hour.
  I think it makes much more common sense today, if we want to 
encourage emerging technologies, to treat them the same, especially 
because wind has had a preferential treatment since 1992. What has 
happened, Mr. President, is wind has gobbled up most of the money that 
has been spent through the production tax credit, and very little has 
gone to any of the other technologies. The taxpayer has spent an 
enormous amount of money to build large wind turbines in this country.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, we are committed to 
spending another $11.5 billion over the next 10 years for wind power 
alone, even though wind power produces less than 1 percent of all of 
our electricity and less than 3 percent of our clean electricity. 
Nuclear power produces nearly 70 percent of our clean electricity; that 
is, no nitrogen, no sulfur, no mercury, and no carbon for those 
concerned about climate change. If we were subsidizing nuclear power at 
the same rate we subsidize wind power for clean energy, we would be 
spending $300 billion or $400 billion over the next 10 years for 
nuclear power. So wind has been gobbling up the available money for 
renewable energies, and making it difficult to identify appropriate 
offsets to pay for long-term extensions of this renewable electricity 
tax credit.
  We have spent an extraordinary amount of money on wind. Wind has 
already proven that where the wind blows, it works. It is competitive. 
And where it does not blow, it is not competitive. In the Southeastern 
United States, for example, there is one wind farm. Because of the 
generous wind subsidies, this wind farm on the top of a lovely 
mountain, Buffalo Mountain in Tennessee, last August, in the middle of 
a drought when we were all sweating and turning up our air 
conditioners, was operating 10 percent of the time. It makes no sense 
to pay big subsidies to people in Chicago to build wind farms in places 
where the wind doesn't blow. So what we are suggesting, Senator Kyl and 
I, is to let us take the available money and let us extend for 2 years 
the production tax credit, and let us let some of it go to open-loop 
biomass, more to small irrigation power, more to landfill gas and trash 
combustion, and qualified hydropower and wave and tidal power, and it 
would also go for wind. It means the wind part of the tax credit would 
be for 2 years and wind would still receive about $1 billion of the $6 
billion or $7 billion that the Ensign-Cantwell amendment would consume.
  So I ask my friends to seriously consider this not as an unfriendly 
amendment to renewable energy but as a friendly amendment. I have met 
with a lot of people who say we desperately need some certainty in 
business. Well, 2 years is twice as much certainty as 1 year, and there 
is no reason at this stage of development of energy why wind, which is 
well proven where the wind blows, and which has been subsidized so 
heavily since 1992, should continue to be subsidized at the expense of 
certainty in our tax policy and at the expense of all of the other 
renewable energies.
  So in summary, Mr. President--and I will have more to say about this 
next week--we believe the Alexander-Kyl amendment would improve the 
Ensign-Cantwell amendment by doubling the time the production tax 
credit is available to emerging renewable technologies. And the way we 
would pay for it is to treat wind the same way we treat open-loop 
biomass, small irrigation power, landfill gas, trash combustion, 
qualified hydropower, and wave and tidal power. They would be treated 
the same, and they would be given a chance over 2 years to flourish 
rather than 1 year.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to address the underlying 
Ensign amendment. I think most Members of this body believe very 
strongly we need to be much more self-sufficient in the production of 
energy. We are way too reliant on OPEC. We have made several attempts 
in this Congress in the last several months to try to pass tax 
incentive provisions to accomplish that objective. They have not been 
successful, for various reasons. Some because they are paid for, and 
people don't like to pay for this, and others because it was not paid 
for.
  For example, last February we passed an energy tax incentive package 
very similar to the Ensign package, which was not paid for, and that 
did not survive. So we are in a difficult position. I agree with the 
impetus of Senator Cantwell and Senator Ensign, but we also know the 
other body is probably not as friendly toward passing this because it 
is not paid for--not as friendly as this body.
  We hope the President signs this package. I am not terribly sanguine 
that will happen, but nevertheless let's at least try to see if the 
other body will in fact adopt it. This is a housing bill; it is not an 
energy bill. We want to get a housing bill passed very quickly, and now 
that we have an energy provision in it, that is a bit problematic as to 
whether we are going to get the housing bill passed as it is, 
especially when the energy provisions are not paid for.
  The Finance Committee has other options to pass this package. All 
Senators on the committee know what we have been working on. I am 
committed to getting these tax incentives passed this year. They are so 
important, so vitally important, for reasons everyone has mentioned. 
And, in fact, I am even more worried about it than probably some other 
Senators. I am as worried as the Senator from Washington about getting 
this passed. So I am committed to finding a way. If this approach is 
not successful, I am committed to finding a way, to finding a 
successful approach so these energy provisions are in fact enacted into 
law this year.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I underscore the point the Senator from 
Montana has just made, and I say this in the same spirit in which he 
has expressed his remarks. This is a housing bill. We have 8,000 people 
a day in foreclosure--8,000. Just as we started this debate, 24,000 of 
our fellow citizens have lost their homes--24,000 people lost their 
homes.
  Now, I agree energy independence is critically important. But this 
isn't a Christmas tree. There are ways of doing these energy bills in 
other matters. I was under the impression we wanted to get a housing 
bill out that could make a difference in people's lives.
  Why are we taking up matters that run the risk of tying this up for 
weeks on end in a conference with the House on matters they disagree 
with, that are not paid for, that may get a Presidential veto, and as a 
result we watch even more people lose their homes? It is a housing 
bill. It is a housing bill.

[[Page 5175]]

  So with all due respect to the authors of this amendment, I am going 
to oppose every one of them from here on out so we can get this bill 
done. We have more to do. This is not an all-inclusive bill. A lot more 
needs to be done. We are, frankly, not doing enough for people in 
foreclosure, in my view, and I have made that speech for a year now on 
this matter. We have finally gotten to a point where we have come 
together in a bipartisan fashion to deal with housing, and all of a 
sudden I find myself dealing with every other issue in creation because 
we haven't had bills that have moved along for whatever reason.
  But we shouldn't make people who are losing their homes, with our 
economy suffering, pay the price because we haven't dealt with these 
other issues. This is housing. The Senator from Montana is absolutely 
correct, and I intend to stand with him. We may lose. I hope we don't 
because we run the risk of having this one effort to make a difference 
on housing fall apart.
  With all due respect to the authors of this legislation, and I agree 
with all of them on the substance, this is not the place and time for 
this issue. We need to deal with housing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                Amendment No. 4423 To Amendment No. 4387

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, because this is the Mortgage 
Foreclosure Prevention Act, just what the chairman of the Banking 
Committee has brought up, let's remind ourselves what is the underlying 
bill. The State of this Senator has the second highest number of 
foreclosures in the country. That is why I ask consent we set aside the 
pending amendment.
  I call up amendment No. 4423.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for himself and Mr. 
     Coleman, proposes an amendment No. 4423 to amendment 4387.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for the penalty-free use of retirement funds to 
 provide foreclosure recovery relief for individuals with mortgages on 
                      their principal residences)

       At the end of title VI, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PENALTY-FREE WITHDRAWALS FROM RETIREMENT PLANS FOR 
                   FORECLOSURE RECOVERY RELIEF FOR INDIVIDUALS 
                   WITH MORTGAGES ON THEIR PRINCIPAL RESIDENCES.

       (a) In General.--Section 72(t) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 shall not apply to any qualified foreclosure recovery 
     distribution.
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     aggregate amount of distributions received by an individual 
     which may be treated as qualified foreclosure recovery 
     distributions for any taxable year shall not exceed the 
     lesser of--
       (A) the individual's qualified mortgage expenditures for 
     the taxable year, or
       (B) the excess (if any) of--
       (i) $25,000, over
       (ii) the aggregate amounts treated as qualified foreclosure 
     recovery distributions received by such individual for all 
     prior taxable years.
       (2) Treatment of plan distributions.--If a distribution to 
     an individual would (without regard to paragraph (1)) be a 
     qualified foreclosure recovery distribution, a plan shall not 
     be treated as violating any requirement of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 merely because the plan treats such 
     distribution as a qualified foreclosure recovery 
     distribution, unless the aggregate amount of such 
     distributions from all plans maintained by the employer (and 
     any member of any controlled group which includes the 
     employer) to such individual exceeds $25,000.
       (3) Controlled group.--For purposes of paragraph (2), the 
     term ``controlled group'' means any group treated as a single 
     employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 
     414 of such Code.
       (c) Amount Distributed May Be Repaid.--
       (1) In general.--Any individual who receives a qualified 
     foreclosure recovery distribution may, at any time during the 
     3-year period beginning on the day after the date on which 
     such distribution was received, make one or more 
     contributions in an aggregate amount not to exceed the amount 
     of such distribution to an eligible retirement plan of which 
     such individual is a beneficiary and to which a rollover 
     contribution of such distribution could be made under section 
     402(c), 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), 408(d)(3), or 457(e)(16) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as the case may be.
       (2) Treatment of repayments of distributions from eligible 
     retirement plans other than iras.--For purposes of such Code, 
     if a contribution is made pursuant to paragraph (1) with 
     respect to a qualified foreclosure recovery distribution from 
     an eligible retirement plan other than an individual 
     retirement plan, then the taxpayer shall, to the extent of 
     the amount of the contribution, be treated as having received 
     the qualified foreclosure recovery distribution in an 
     eligible rollover distribution (as defined in section 
     402(c)(4) of such Code) and as having transferred the amount 
     to the eligible retirement plan in a direct trustee to 
     trustee transfer within 60 days of the distribution.
       (3) Treatment of repayments for distributions from iras.--
     For purposes of such Code, if a contribution is made pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) with respect to a qualified foreclosure 
     recovery distribution from an individual retirement plan (as 
     defined by section 7701(a)(37) of such Code), then, to the 
     extent of the amount of the contribution, the qualified 
     foreclosure recovery distribution shall be treated as a 
     distribution described in section 408(d)(3) of such Code and 
     as having been transferred to the eligible retirement plan in 
     a direct trustee to trustee transfer within 60 days of the 
     distribution.
       (4) Application to eligible retirement plans.--
       (A) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be treated 
     as requiring an eligible retirement plan to accept any 
     contributions described in this subsection.
       (B) Qualification.--An eligible retirement plan shall not 
     be treated as violating any requirement of Federal law solely 
     by reason of the acceptance of contributions described in 
     this subparagraph.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) Qualified foreclosure recovery distribution.--The term 
     ``qualified foreclosure recovery distribution'' means any 
     distribution to an individual from an eligible retirement 
     plan which is made--
       (A) on or after the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     before January 1, 2010, and
       (B) during a taxable year during which the individual has 
     qualifying mortgage expenditures.
       (2) Qualifying mortgage expenditures.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``qualifying mortgage 
     expenditures'' means any of the following expenditures:
       (i) Payment of principal or interest on an applicable 
     mortgage.
       (ii) Payment of costs paid or incurred in refinancing, or 
     modifying the terms of, an applicable mortgage.
       (B) Applicable mortgage.--The term ``applicable mortgage'' 
     means a mortgage which--
       (i) was entered into after December 31, 1999, and before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, and
       (ii) constitutes a security interest in the principal 
     residence of the mortgagor.
       (C) Joint filers.--In the case of married individuals 
     filing a joint return under section 6013 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, the qualifying mortgage expenditures of 
     the taxpayer may be allocated between the spouses in such 
     manner as they elect.
       (3) Eligible retirement plan.--The term ``eligible 
     retirement plan'' shall have the meaning given such term by 
     section 402(c)(8)(B) of such Code.
       (4) Principal residence.--The term ``principal residence'' 
     has the same meaning as when used in section 121 of such 
     Code.
       (e) Income Inclusion Spread Over 3-Year Period for 
     Qualified Foreclosure Recovery Distributions.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of any qualified foreclosure 
     recovery distribution, unless the taxpayer elects not to have 
     this subsection apply for any taxable year, any amount 
     required to be included in gross income for such taxable year 
     shall be so included ratably over the 3-taxable year period 
     beginning with such taxable year.
       (2) Special rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), rules 
     similar to the rules of subparagraph (E) of section 
     408A(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply.
       (f) Special Rules.--
       (1) Exemption of distributions from trustee to trustee 
     transfer and withholding rules.--For purposes of sections 
     401(a)(31), 402(f), and 3405 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, qualified foreclosure recovery distributions shall not 
     be treated as eligible rollover distributions.
       (2) Qualified foreclosure recovery distributions treated as 
     meeting plan distribution requirements.--For purposes of such 
     Code, a qualified foreclosure recovery distribution shall be 
     treated as meeting the requirements of sections 
     401(k)(2)(B)(i), 403(b)(7)(A)(ii), 403(b)(11), and 
     457(d)(1)(A) of such Code.
       (3) Substantially equal periodic payments.--A qualified 
     foreclosure recovery distribution--
       (A) shall be disregarded in determining whether a payment 
     is a part of a series of substantially equal periodic payment 
     under section 72(t)(2)(A)(iv) of such Code, and

[[Page 5176]]

       (B) shall not constitute a change in substantially equal 
     periodic payments under section 72(t)(4) of such Code.
       (g) Provisions Relating to Plan Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--If this subsection applies to any 
     amendment to any plan or annuity contract, such plan or 
     contract shall be treated as being operated in accordance 
     with the terms of the plan during the period described in 
     paragraph (2)(B)(i).
       (2) Amendments to which subsection applies.--
       (A) In general.--This subsection shall apply to any 
     amendment to any plan or annuity contract which is made--
       (i) pursuant to the provisions this section, or pursuant to 
     any regulation issued by the Secretary of the Treasury or the 
     Secretary of Labor under this section, and
       (ii) on or before the last day of the first plan year 
     beginning on or after January 1, 2010, or such later date as 
     the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.
     In the case of a governmental plan (as defined in section 
     414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), clause (ii) 
     shall be applied by substituting the date which is 2 years 
     after the date otherwise applied under clause (ii).
       (B) Conditions.--This subsection shall not apply to any 
     amendment unless--
       (i) during the period--

       (I) beginning on the date the legislative or regulatory 
     amendment described in subparagraph (A)(i) takes effect (or 
     in the case of a plan or contract amendment not required by 
     such legislative or regulatory amendment, any later effective 
     date specified by the plan), and
       (II) ending on the date described in subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     (or, if earlier, the date the plan or contract amendment is 
     adopted),

     the plan or contract is operated as if such plan or contract 
     amendment were in effect; and
       (ii) such plan or contract amendment applies retroactively 
     for such period.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, under current law, you can 
invade your retirement fund, your 401(k) fund, in order to purchase a 
home without paying the 10-percent penalty. What this amendment says 
is, if home ownership and keeping people in their homes is an important 
value in America, and they are about to have their home taken away 
because of this foreclosure crisis, then it seems to me we would want 
to amend the law to allow them to take money out of their retirement 
fund in order to forestall the foreclosure and stay in their homes.
  That is what this amendment does. It allows someone to withdraw up to 
$25,000 from their retirement fund without paying the 10-percent 
penalty. That has to be used for the purpose of foreclosure prevention 
purposes; that is like paying on the principal or interest payments; 
that is like a refinancing or a mortgage modification.
  To make sure people do not abuse this, we are limiting it to a 2-year 
period and we are additionally going to say, the money you bring out to 
help you so you do not go into foreclosure, if you put that money back 
into your retirement fund within 3 years, you are not going to have to 
pay the income tax on it. So it is a direct, tailored amendment to try 
to help people accomplish what the underlying goal is, which is to 
prevent foreclosures.
  I am joined by my colleague from Minnesota, who wants to speak on 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Florida to 
speak on behalf of our amendment No. 4423. I start by thanking, first, 
the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, and ranking member 
Senator Shelby, for bringing us to this point. People are losing their 
homes. I hear it. We all heard it when we went back over Easter break. 
For Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby to come together in a bipartisan 
way and give us an opportunity to do what this Senate is going to be 
doing, I express my deep appreciation; also to Senator Baucus and 
Senator Grassley, the chair and the ranking member, for working with us 
on this amendment. It is one of those things that goes to the heart of 
what we are trying to do today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Martinez be added 
as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, during our travels back home to housing 
townhall forums during the course of this last year, we are all meeting 
more and more folks who are in very desperate straits, trying to keep 
their home. Minnesota ranks No. 2 in the number of subprime mortgages 
in for closure. Minnesota--who would have thought? That is the reality. 
It is across the country. I was in a forum at St. Cloud, in the central 
part of my State. I met a nurse named Terri Ross, a woman who had two 
jobs, bought a house which was in need of repair. She had a pretty good 
mortgage, low interest rate, and wanted actually to quit one job to go 
back to school. She wanted to improve herself, improve her life, add to 
her education. She met with the mortgage broker. He said: Have I got a 
deal for you. We can get you a mortgage and it will be at a low rate. 
Don't worry about the fact--I am not sure she even knew it was going to 
pop up in a few years. Don't worry about it because property values are 
rising and there will be more equity in your house. She put the money 
in the house, did the mortgage. When all was said and done, she found 
herself in the situation where the value of the house was less than the 
value of the additions. She had lost one job. She now had one job, her 
income was in half. She is in big trouble.
  Here is a woman who worked all her life, put aside some money for 
retirement. What she did is she tapped into that and then she paid a 
penalty on it, trying to save her home. That was what she had. The 
problem is, across the Nation, people are now looking to use their 
retirement savings to save their homes and they get hit hard with a 10-
percent early withdrawal penalty.
  There was an article in USA Today. They ran a piece entitled 
``401(K)s Tapped to Save Homes.'' The article focuses on this problem. 
Americans are being slammed with taxes and penalties as they try to 
keep their homes.
  I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks this 
article be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. These are the stories my friend from Florida and I have 
been exchanging. We have personal accounts that do stretch from the 
Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes. These are the reasons we were called 
to take up this commonsense cause. We want to work on this legislation 
that Senator Nelson and I believe is one more way we can responsibly 
help homeowners, to temporarily waive this 10-percent penalty for 
withdrawals up to $25,000. Our amendment would also waive ordinary 
income taxes, as the Senator from Florida indicated, if the homeowner 
pays back the withdrawal within 3 years of making it, so homeowners are 
provided with a strong incentive to make their retirement savings whole 
again.
  This is not a silver bullet--I don't know if there is a silver bullet 
in terms of the crisis we are dealing with--but it helps those whom we 
want to help, homeowners who are in big trouble. In doing so, this 
temporary relief can prevent an unnecessary foreclosure from happening, 
one which hurts not only the family but hurts the entire community. 
When houses are foreclosed and vacant, it affects everyone in the 
surrounding area. It affects the neighborhoods. As a former mayor, I 
looked at neighborhoods we built up in my time as mayor and I believe 
the same neighborhoods are being torn down by the crisis we are facing.
  This bill is about homeowners helping themselves. While the 10-
percent penalty is well intentioned and we do not want people to be 
using retirement savings during their working years, times such as this 
require us to recognize that sometimes such rules need to be flexible 
in order to serve a greater good. Both on a home ownership level and 
community level, I believe it makes sense to enable those who can to 
keep their homes. Ultimately it is up to the homeowner to decide 
whether it makes financial sense to turn to their retirement savings to 
keep their homes.
  At least for those who decide to do so, we should not penalize them 
for trying to keep a roof over their heads and wanting to remain part 
of the community they have called home.

[[Page 5177]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense and much needed 
relief.
  I yield the floor.

                            [From USA Today]

                      401(K)s Tapped To Save Homes

                          (By Christine Dugas)

       Struggling to save their homes from foreclosure, more 
     Americans are raiding their 401(k) retirement accounts to pay 
     their bills--and getting slammed with taxes and penalties in 
     the process, according to retirement plan administrators.
       Rather than borrow money from their 401(k) accounts, which 
     would have to be paid back, a growing number of beleaguered 
     families have been cashing out, plan administrators say.
       This is happening even as borrowing from 401(k) accounts 
     remains fairly flat. Fewer still are borrowing from 401(k) 
     plans to buy homes. By contrast, new figures from plan 
     administrators show the number of 401(k) ``hardship 
     withdrawals'' is up in early 2008 compared with the same 
     period last year.
       The main reason? The need to stave off foreclosure or 
     eviction.
       Consider Tamara Campbell, who raided her 401(k) after her 
     husband was laid off from his job as an occupational 
     technician, and they fell behind on their mortgage for 
     several months. ``If I hadn't done that, we would have been 
     foreclosed on last year,'' says Campbell, who lives in a 
     Denver suburb.
       Such hardship withdrawals began rising last year and, by 
     January this year, had exceeded January 2007 levels. During 
     the first month of the year, as the economic slowdown 
     tightened pressure on mortgage holders, hardship withdrawals 
     rose 23 percent at plans that Merrill Lynch (MER) administers 
     compared with the same period in 2007, says Kevin Crain, 
     managing director of the Merrill Lynch Retirement Group.
       The 401(k) withdrawals are rising mainly because people 
     such as Campbell and her husband want to save their homes. 
     Merrill Lynch found that the primary reason for the rise in 
     hardship withdrawals was to prevent foreclosure or eviction, 
     based on its sampling of applications filed in January.
       Likewise, in the first month of the year, compared with 
     January 2007, Great-West Retirement Services saw a 20 percent 
     increase in hardship withdrawals to save a home. And 
     Principal Financial (PFG) reports that in January it received 
     245 calls from participants who inquired about 401(k) 
     withdrawals to prevent a foreclosure or eviction, up 
     dramatically from 45 similar calls it received in January 
     2007.
       For workers, the consequences can be severe. About 85 
     percent of employers bar employees from making 401(k) 
     contributions for six months after taking a hardship 
     withdrawal, says Pamela Hess, director of retirement research 
     at Hewitt Associates (HEW). Worse, employees who pull money 
     out of tax-deferred 401(k) plans before age 59\1/2\ generally 
     must pay a 10 percent penalty on top of the taxes owed.
       A 401(k) loan imposes no such punishment. ``But let's face 
     it: If your problem is paying bills, and if you take out a 
     loan, then you just add another bill to pay,'' says Nevin 
     Adams of PlanSponsor.com, which monitors the 401(k) industry.
       As Campbell considers whether to make another withdrawal, 
     she notes, ``It's not the kind of thing you want to use your 
     401(k) for. And if I keep doing this, I'm not going to have 
     any retirement savings.''

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to close with a couple 
of sentences. As the chairman of the Banking Committee can so well 
instruct us, for most Americans, their home is their most valuable 
asset. We ought to be adopting policy, through enacting law, that 
allows them to be able to stay in their own home and to use every tool 
available to stay in that home.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have great respect for my colleague from 
Florida and the Senator from Minnesota for their work on this effort, 
having been involved years ago in the creation of Individual Retirement 
Accounts going back to the early 1980s, recognizing the value of 
encouraging people to set aside hard-earned income for retirement, for 
health care, for education as the motivation. Let me mention one 
concern I have while both Senators are on the floor, and I don't 
question at all the motivations behind it. There is nothing in this 
amendment that would require a writedown. What we are trying to do is 
get the lenders to write down the size of these mortgages, to work out 
different arrangements so the borrower could afford the mortgage.
  What concerns me here is, while we are using this retirement income 
or these savings accounts to help meet these obligations, there is no 
commensurate responsibility on the part of the lender to try to reduce 
the cost. At the end of 2 years you may end up at exactly the same 
level. The money goes into the pockets of the lender, but at the end of 
the 2 years we are still faced with the size mortgage we had before, 
and the homeowner is in the same position they are in today.
  I don't have any quick idea here for you to tie this together to see 
if we can't incentivize that lender on that mortgage to also write down 
the cost of part of that or to restructure it in a way so that person 
facing foreclosure would be able to handle this. These moneys would be 
of tremendous help to them. But if you don't do anything about the size 
of the mortgage or conditions of it, all you have done is kicked the 
can down the road for 2 years and then also watch that retirement 
income get exhausted. You can put it back in, but it seems to be 
defeating the very purpose of trying to get workouts.
  We started a year ago with the stakeholders and set up a set of 
principles for writedowns. Unfortunately, according to Moody's, only 1 
percent of the lending institutions have done that in a year--
tragically, in my view. We would be in a very different position had 
they done otherwise. So I am very suspicious about their willingness to 
do this, and merely providing additional resources to them coming out 
of people's hard-earned money, although you have a good idea putting 
money back in. I would like to find a way to incentivize the lender so 
the people can use these resources to stay in the home. That is merely 
an idea to consider in the next couple of days as we go forward.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, frankly, I think this is a good 
discussion. There is merit for both, for those who want to amend the 
law so IRAs can be used to help people finance their homes, but I also 
think the Senator from Connecticut, the chairman of the Banking 
Committee, makes a very good point. We don't want to let the lenders 
off the hook either.
  From a tax perspective, we in the Finance Committee believe--I can 
speak for myself anyway--that the purpose of this amendment is close 
enough to the nature of the purpose of the IRAs and the savings 
vehicles in the first place to warrant an exception that will last for 
2 years because, after all, a home is pretty close to retirement. 
People should be saving for retirement in these retirement programs. If 
saving their home means dipping into their retirement savings, then I 
think that would be appropriate, as to avoiding the 10-percent penalty. 
Also it is in effect for only 2 years, so from a tax perspective I 
think it is appropriate. However, I think the chairman of the banking 
committees makes an excellent point and I would join with the Senator 
to see if he can find some way to incentivize lenders to do what they 
should be doing, at least with respect to the principal on a lot of 
these mortgage loans.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Can we 
then create some ideas between our respective staffs--yours, Finance; 
the Banking Committee; ours individually--and see if we can come up 
with something to address the issue?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I think we should. I will devote my staff to that effort.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COLEMAN. If the Senator will yield, I also understand the concern 
raised by the chairman of the Banking Committee. I will be pleased to 
work with the chairman and my colleagues. I ask the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, I think one of the things he did address, a piece of 
issue, had to do with the tax consequences. If a mortgage was $150,000 
and it was taken down to $100,000 by agreement, in the past that 
$50,000 was a taxable gain. I believe recently--again, this little 
piece--we took that building block and said: Hey, if you knock it down 
to $100,000, that $50,000 is no longer a taxable gain; is that correct?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
  Mr. COLEMAN. All these pieces fit together. Again, there is no silver 
bullet at the end, but if we can come closer to addressing the full 
range of concerns, I think that would be positive. I

[[Page 5178]]

think we already moved, with the leadership of the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, to address that one piece. This is another piece. It 
is your home, your future, and clearly there is more work to be done.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. Earlier, when the Senator from 
Minnesota talked about silver bullets I was smiling because it is my 
view there are never silver bullets. It is always a major effort to 
find lots of different pieces, different steps to address the 
difficulties.
  The occupant of the chair might remember this. There is a famous 
journalist, H.L. Mencken, of Baltimore, who said: For every complicated 
problem there is a simple solution--and it doesn't work.
  I guess that is true of this situation, too.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, what is the unanimous consent agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is to be 
recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to add to the unanimous 
consent agreement: If I could let my colleague go before me and then I 
could speak whenever he is finished or at 11 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Reserving the right to object, I will not. I am in the 
queue as well. I want to make sure I know where I am. I understand now 
I will follow Senator Thune.


                           Amendment No. 4419

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the amendment of the 
Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, regarding renewable energy.
  As much as I appreciate the fact, as the Senator from Connecticut has 
pointed out, that this is a housing bill and there is a mortgage crisis 
out there that needs to be addressed, I would also argue, first of all, 
that, this being the Senate, we oftentimes consider amendments to bills 
that are not necessarily related to the underlying base bill, and 
secondly, that there probably is not an issue that impacts the folks I 
represent in South Dakota any more than does the high cost of energy.
  Now, granted, as you travel across the country--and this is true in 
my State, as I think it is in every State--people are following closely 
what is happening with the subprime mortgage crisis, and the Senate and 
the Congress are reacting to that with the legislation that is 
currently on the floor. But if you look at it in the context of the 
broader economy and what is impacting the pocketbooks of Americans 
every single day--and certainly of South Dakotans--there is no question 
that high energy prices are impacting the lives of everyone I represent 
in South Dakota. We are a very energy-dependent State, and we travel 
long distances; we are a farm economy, so those inputs are very 
important to our economic well-being. We are a cold-weather State, and 
so electricity is in very high demand, both during the cold-weather 
season but also during the hot-weather season.
  It seems to me that if we are going to address the economic issues 
that affect this country right now, we cannot do that without taking a 
hard look at what we can do to make energy more affordable to people in 
this country. So I would argue to my colleagues who have made the point 
that this is, in fact, a housing bill that, notwithstanding that is the 
basic focus of this bill, when we look at addressing the economy, I 
think in the broader context this is what this whole discussion is 
about: how can we bring relief to hard-working people who are 
struggling with the economic pains created by the housing crisis, by 
high energy prices, by high health care costs. Those are all factors 
that impact the pocketbooks of everyday Americans. So I think the 
discussion of this renewable energy extender amendment is perfectly 
appropriate in the context of this debate.
  I would also say, with respect to the Senator from Montana, who has 
worked very hard, along with the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, on an 
energy package that would extend many of the tax incentives that are in 
place for renewable energy, we have had that legislation now on the 
floor of the Senate several different times and have been unable to 
reach that magic 60-vote threshold that is necessary to end a 
filibuster and to move forward with the legislation. So I would argue 
that every opportunity we have, we need to move forward with this 
debate about energy and what we are going to do to lessen our 
dependence on foreign sources of energy to make energy more affordable 
to more Americans. So I think it fits perfectly within the context of 
this debate.
  I would also say, with regard to some of the extenders that will 
impact those that relate to energy production in my part of the world, 
I am particularly interested in the wind energy production tax credit, 
the 2-cent-per-kilowatt credit that applies to wind, and I have talked 
to investors who are looking at wind energy projects across this 
country and who are prepared to invest capital to build wind energy 
production but cannot deal with the uncertainty that exists with regard 
to Federal policy. The wind energy production tax credit expires at the 
end of this year, and if we do not do something in the very near 
future, those who are looking at making investments--that investment 
capital is going to dry up. We cannot afford to have that happen at a 
time when we have an increasing and growing demand for energy across 
this country.
  We are trying to look at the whole issue of greenhouse gas emissions 
and carbon emissions and find new renewable forms of energy that will 
help address our energy needs in a clean, environmentally friendly way. 
We cannot afford to allow these tax incentives for renewable energy 
production to lapse at the very time that there is investment sitting 
there on the sidelines waiting to invest in wind energy production and 
solar energy production, but with the lack of certainty that exists 
today because of the pending expiration of these production tax 
credits, that investment very well could end up staying on the 
sidelines and not be made. That would be a very tragic outcome, I would 
argue, for our country.
  So I would hope that every opportunity we have here in the Senate--
and frankly there will not be that many opportunities, regrettably, 
this year on legislation that actually is going to pass here in the 
Senate to which to attach these types of amendments. The Senator from 
Montana has said there will be a tax extender bill moving later. I hope 
he is right. I hope we have a window down the road to get addressed 
some of these tax measures that are expiring. But if, in fact, that 
does not happen or if it happens later in the year, sometime in the 
summer, we are going to miss a lot of opportunity, a lot of capital 
investment in wind energy and other types of renewable energy 
production that we otherwise would get if we had some certainty with 
regard to what the policy is going to be.
  So, again, as much as there are jurisdictional objections being 
raised by the Senator from Connecticut with regard to this bill being a 
housing bill, the Senator from Montana regarding the need to do this 
later on a piece of legislation that might be a tax bill moving through 
the Finance Committee and ultimately out to the floor, I would simply 
make the case to my colleagues that timing is important. Timing really 
is critical with respect to whether we are going to continue to have 
incentives in place, economic incentives for investment in renewable 
energy. Frankly, based on the conversations I have had with those who 
are looking at making those types of capital investments in wind energy 
and other forms of renewable energy production, they are very concerned 
that Congress has yet to act.
  I would much rather see a multiyear extension of the production tax 
credit for wind, and some of the other renewable energy tax credits, 
than doing this for 1 year because I do not think that provides the 
long-term certainty that is necessary. But I would much rather have a 
1-year extension than face the prospect of this production tax credit 
expiring at the end of this year and us not addressing it and seeing a 
whole lot of capital investment that otherwise

[[Page 5179]]

would be made in these areas of production stay on the sidelines and us 
continue to go down this path of increasing dependance on foreign 
sources of energy, growing demand for energy here in the United States, 
and a need to lessen the greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere 
and us doing nothing about that. So my fear is that if we do not act 
now, perhaps this thing gets punted down the road, perhaps it does not 
get addressed this year, in which case the production tax credit would 
expire. That would be a tragic outcome, a tragic result for this 
country and for the goals we have when it comes to renewable energy.
  I would simply say to my colleagues who are going to hear objections 
raised on procedural grounds about dealing with these production tax 
credits in the context of this particular bill that we need to look at 
the broader picture. We have an energy crisis in this country. We have 
those who want to invest in renewable energy products that would help 
address that, that would meet all of the goals I mentioned about clean 
energy, about lessening our dependence upon foreign energy.
  Frankly, the argument that was made by my colleague from Tennessee, 
Senator Alexander, with regard to wind energy being more of a 
localized, regional issue, that is predominately true. But so is oil 
production. There are lots of parts of the country that do not have 
certain energy sources. Yet we all rely upon all of those energy 
sources for our energy needs in this country. We happen to have an 
abundance of wind in the upper Midwest which I think has been 
underutilized, but it has the potential to meet the energy needs of 
people not just in South Dakota or North Dakota or Nebraska or Iowa or 
Minnesota but all across the country. We need to be making the 
investments in those types of energy sources, and we need to have the 
policies in place that would create the economic incentives for that to 
happen.
  I hope that in spite of the objections that will be raised on some 
procedural grounds to moving forward, that absent action to date and 
having seen in the past--looking historically at what has happened to 
this wind energy production tax credit over time, since 1992 when it 
was originally enacted, every time it comes to where it is about to 
expire or does expire--you will see this peak investment when it is in 
place. When it comes to where it is running out, the investment falls 
off, tails off; it expires, gets put back in place, and it takes off 
again. We need to even that out so we don't have these peaks and 
valleys, that we have consistent policies in place that will provide 
the certainty and the necessary incentives for those who want to invest 
in these types of energy sources to be able to do.
  So I hope we will pass the Ensign amendment and put it on this bill. 
The objection has been raised that this could derail the housing bill. 
Frankly, the House has voted not on one occasion but on several 
occasions already for these very same renewable energy tax credits, and 
I suspect that they would welcome the opportunity to have that vote 
again in the House of Representatives. I hope it will be part of this 
package because it does address the fundamental issue when it comes to 
our broader economy; that is, the high cost of energy that is plaguing 
and harming and impacting the pocketbooks of every single American.
  I urge my colleagues, when we have this vote, which I assume will be 
early next week, to vote yes for the Ensign amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I might call up my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 4382 to Amendment No. 4387

  (Purpose: To provide an incentive to employers to offer group legal 
  plans that provide a benefit for real estate and foreclosure review)

  Mrs. LINCOLN. I call up my amendment No. 4382.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], for herself, Mr. 
     Smith, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Levin, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4382 to amendment No. 4387.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III add the following:

     SEC. 302. EXCLUSION FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER QUALIFIED 
                   GROUP LEGAL SERVICES PLANS RESTORED, EXTENDED, 
                   AND MODIFIED.

       (a) Removal of Dollar Limitation.--Section 120(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exclusion by 
     employee for contributions and legal services provided by 
     employer) is amended by striking the last sentence.
       (b) Real Estate Matters Emphasized.--Section 120(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to requirements) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Benefits.--The plan shall provide, at a minimum, 
     legal services for real estate matters relating to family or 
     personal residences, including document review of real estate 
     sales, purchases, closings, mortgages, and foreclosures.''.
       (c) Extension.--Section 120(e) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Application.--This section and section 501(c)(20) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2007, and before January 1, 2010.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2007.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today is a 
very important amendment because we are all here because we are 
concerned about the crisis that exists in the mortgage industry and 
certainly in home ownership, but, more importantly, we want to prevent 
it from happening again. We want to make sure we are providing 
information to home buyers and others, counseling them in a way that 
really makes a difference. The amendment I am offering today will 
encourage our employers to provide group legal services benefits with 
an emphasis on real estate counseling for their employees.
  Group legal services plans have been around since the 1970s and are 
intended to do exactly what the Center for Responsible Lending says 
should be one of our very top priorities in this effort to deal with 
the housing crisis. We should be encouraging and incentivizing 
preventative legal services.
  I want to make sure my colleagues understand how important this 
benefit is for our Nation's employees, particularly employees in rural 
areas and low-income areas where access to lawyers might be scarce. We 
should be giving the average American homeowner access to legal advice 
so that she or he can feel confident in the mortgages they are getting 
into and so that when, God forbid, things do go wrong, they can receive 
advice about what their rights and responsibilities are in dealing with 
foreclosures and what options are available to them in dealing with 
this crisis.
  Section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code has lapsed. That section of 
the code was intended to provide a tax incentive so that our employers 
would offer group legal services plans to their employees. Since it has 
lapsed, virtually no new group legal benefit plans have been created 
and many employers are dropping those that do exist.
  We should be encouraging these plans because they provide our working 
Americans with access to the legal advice they need, that they deserve, 
and that they often cannot access. Those legal services would provide a 
review of mortgage documents, would work with lenders to modify the 
loans and would create forbearance agreements, would assist in the 
restructuring of loans, and would provide counsel in foreclosure 
litigation when that is needed. These are all complex transactions that 
require significant legal counsel, and my amendment will help ensure 
that America's homeowners, particularly those who are hard-working 
American families, and those home buyers, can get that much needed 
advice. We have provided this advice and certainly these services, as I 
mentioned earlier, since the 1970s through this benefit where employers 
can actually pool their resources in providing this type of advice and 
service to their employees.
  I wish to thank all of my colleagues who have cosponsored this 
important

[[Page 5180]]

amendment. Many of us have worked on a separate bill, and we think this 
is absolutely an appropriate and a proper place to put this incentive. 
But Senator Smith, Senator Kerry, Senator Stabenow, Senator Levin, 
Senator Schumer, and Senator Kennedy are all cosponsors of our 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent now to add Senator Snowe 
as a cosponsor, who is also a cosponsor of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I also want to say a very big thanks to all of the 
groups that have endorsed this amendment: the American Bar Association, 
the American Prepaid Legal Services Institute, the International Union, 
the UAW, the AFSCME, and the Laborers. All of these groups have 
recognized how important it is to be able to provide these legal 
services to hard-working American families.
  Particularly at a time when they may be affected in their home 
ownership or in the difficulties and challenges they face in the 
problems that exist in the mortgage industry right now, this is a 
critical component of the assistance we can provide them. To have let 
it lapse and to see that it virtually no longer exists is something we 
can correct. I hope we will with this amendment.
  So, Mr. President, I thank you for the time, and I also say a special 
thanks to my chairman, Chairman Baucus, and Ranking Member Grassley, 
who have worked with us on this issue, along with Chairman Dodd and 
Ranking Member Shelby, who have done such a tremendous job in 
organizing and putting together, in an expeditious way, the effort we 
have to address these issues that working families are facing.
  So I thank them and their staff for working with us, and we look 
forward to being able to move our amendment. I hope my colleagues will 
join me in support of such an important amendment, a vehicle as well as 
a component that we already know works because we have had it in this 
country for quite some time in providing legal services to working 
American families. We want to continue to see that happen.


                Amendment No. 4433 to Amendment No. 4387

  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to 
lay aside the pending amendment and call up an amendment on behalf of 
Senator Snowe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], for Ms. Snowe, proposes an 
amendment numbered 4433 to amendment No. 4387.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (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--
       ``(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.--

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Snowe is offering 
with several other colleagues is an amendment that focuses on what we 
passed and maybe what we did not quite notice. The Finance Committee 
passed an important provision that would provide an additional $10 
billion in mortgage revenue bonds for first-time home buyers and at-
risk borrowers. This is something we have been trying to do, and we 
have had much leadership in the Senate on this issue.
  Under present law, however, mortgage revenue bonds are allocated with 
a small State set-aside. The $10 billion in the current package is 
allocated only based on State populations. As we know, the economic 
downturn and housing collapse do not necessarily correspond to the 
population of States.
  Those of us who come from smaller States recognize that and also 
recognize the benefits that have been provided in the underlying law 
that exists in that small State set-aside.
  The Snowe amendment adds enough additional bonds so large States will 
still receive their due under the allocation of the $10 billion by 
population, but small and rural States also receive their allocation 
based on a small State set-aside under the current law.
  I think it is an important point we have noticed in terms of what the 
underlying law does and has done effectively and making sure we 
incorporate that into what we do moving forward in the legislation we 
have.
  This amendment only costs about $134 million, but it means an awful 
lot for small and rural States in order to make sure they have equity 
in being able to access the resources their homeowners need and their 
States can provide through those revenue bonds.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this fair and reasonable amendment 
which will be a good addition to the mortgage revenue bond provision in 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                Amendment No. 4404 to Amendment No. 4387

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside and call up amendment No. 4404.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4404 to amendment No. 4387.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       (Purpose: To amend the provisions relating to qualified 
     mortgage bonds to include relief for persons in areas 
     affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma)
       Beginning on page 68, strike line 22 and all that follows 
     through line 4 on page 69 and and insert the following:
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the requirements of 
     subsection (i)(1), the proceeds of a qualified mortgage issue 
     may be used to refinance a mortgage which--
       ``(i) was originally financed by the mortgagor through a 
     qualified subprime loan, or
       ``(ii) is a mortgage on a residence--

       ``(I) located in the Gulf Opportunity Zone (as defined in 
     section 1400M(1)) and damaged or rendered uninhabitable by 
     reason of Hurricane Katrina,
       ``(II) located in the Rita GO Zone (as defined in section 
     1400M(3)) and damaged or rendered uninhabitable by reason of 
     Hurricane Rita, or
       ``(III) located in the Wilma GO Zone (as defined in section 
     1400M(5)) and damaged or rendered uninhabitable by reason of 
     Hurricane Wilma.

       On page 72, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       (c) Waiver of 3-Year Requirement for Homes Damaged by 
     Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 143(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C), 
     by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D), and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(E) in the case of bonds issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this subparagraph and before January 1, 2011, 
     financing with respect to the purchase of any residence--
       ``(i) located in the Gulf Opportunity Zone (as defined in 
     section 1400M(1)) and damaged or rendered uninhabitable by 
     reason of Hurricane Katrina,
       ``(ii) located in the Rita GO Zone (as defined in section 
     1400M(3)) and damaged or rendered uninhabitable by reason of 
     Hurricane Rita, or
       ``(iii) located in the Wilma GO Zone (as defined in section 
     1400M(5)) and damaged or

[[Page 5181]]

     rendered uninhabitable by reason of Hurricane Wilma,''.
       On page 72, line 11, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       On page 73, line 19, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate the support earlier today 
of an amendment that I, Senator Cochran, Senator Vitter, and Senator 
Wicker brought forward for the people of the gulf coast--thousands and 
thousands and thousands of homeowners, responsible homeowners, 
homeowners who did not exploit opportunities for fancy-dancy mortgages, 
homeowners who took just the regular standard mortgages, who had 
actually paid their mortgages off, and kept insurance their whole life. 
Then, in 2005, two storms hit the gulf coast and literally wiped out 
the net worth--literally, a great deal of the net worth--of hundreds of 
thousands of families on the gulf coast.
  The reason I continue to come to the Senate floor is because the 
Stafford Act, which would normally come, if you would, to the rescue of 
people in our country in this situation, is wholly inadequate for 
either the initial recovery or the long-term rebuilding. It is not just 
what Mary Landrieu says, the Senator from Louisiana. It is what 
Secretary Chertoff testified before our committee last week. I am going 
to submit his actual quote for the Record. It is what Chief Paulson of 
FEMA said yesterday, testifying before the committee. It is what the 
inspector general of the Homeland Security Department said yesterday 
testifying before our committee.
  So this is my dilemma as a Senator from a State that has had an 
unprecedented disaster. I would have been happy to receive the Stafford 
Act and just make it work for us. But since it is not working for us, I 
am kind of inventing things as we go along, trying to take appropriate 
and responsible advantage of other bills that come along that actually 
might be appropriate for our situation.
  I am trying not to ask for too much but only what we need. But since 
the structure we have is not applicable, I have no choice. So I have 
been waiting for a year and a half to get a housing bill on the Senate 
floor so we could make some of these changes. I appreciate my 
colleagues being understanding and supportive, and everybody has been 
just terrific.
  As I said earlier this week, we have had some terrible situations in 
Detroit, in California, in Las Vegas, in Sacramento, thousands and 
thousands in San Bernardino, CA. But as I said, some of these 
homeowners could have gotten themselves in trouble. They might have 
done things they should not have done. I do not know. Maybe some people 
were victims of fraud. That will be worked out, I hope, through some of 
the legislation we are passing.
  But the reason I pull this chart up is to say that even in the worst 
area in the country right now for foreclosures, which is Detroit, 
Dearborn, MI, with 42,000 homes--these are official numbers--only 4.9 
percent of the houses in this whole area are basically in foreclosure 
or for which there is a threatening pending foreclosure.
  I bring this contrast to show you that down on the gulf coast, those 
numbers are dwarfed by what Katrina and Rita and the subsequent levee 
breaks did to our homeowners. In St. Bernard Parish, almost 55 
percent--not 4 percent, not 10 percent, not 20 percent but 54 percent 
of the homes in St. Bernard Parish--had damage exceeding 30,000. Some 
of these homes were only worth $50,000. Some were worth $350,000. But 
they are basically completely damaged.
  In fact, the sheriff and the parish president told me that there were 
only five homes undamaged in the whole parish after Katrina and Rita--
after those waters went down--5 out of the 67,000 people who live in 
this parish.
  For Cameron Parish, almost 50 percent of their households have had 
completely devastating damage to their homes.
  So, if you can, picture a place that does not have just a spattering 
of houses and weeds and emptiness but places that have blocks and 
blocks and miles and miles of homes that are empty and gutted with the 
windows and doors open and the families gone. People are struggling to 
come back with a very inadequate Federal framework right now to help 
them.
  I know we have sent down a lot of community development block grant 
money. After a lot of contortions that everybody went through, we 
finally crafted a plan to give each of these homeowners, if they 
qualified--they had to prove they owned the land; they had to prove 
they paid taxes; they had to prove they were actually the right 
homeowner--we gave them a grant, no more than $150,000. The average is 
about $60,000 for Mississippi and Louisiana. Our plans are similar but 
not the same.
  But you can imagine the problem with a family who owned their house 
outright, they had no mortgage. It was worth $350,000 or $400,000 or 
$500,000, and the most grant they could possibly get is $150,000.
  So we are far away from trying to make people whole. Why should we 
try to make them whole? Again, it is nothing they did. They did not 
cause the hurricane. Some of them did not even live in floodplains. 
Some of the families did not have flood insurance because they were 
told by their mortgage holder and their bankers they did not need it. 
They were told by the Federal Government they did not need it.
  So my amendment is an attempt to help these homeowners by not adding 
a penny to the underlying bill, which is a wonderful thing--that we do 
not have to add any money to the underlying bill because I know we are 
trying to keep the cost of all this down. But all my amendment would do 
would be to allow there to be a third reason that bonds could be issued 
at the State level.
  In the underlying bill, the first reason, which is a good reason, is 
to allow first-time home buyers to buy some of the homes that have been 
foreclosed on that are sitting empty in neighborhoods. So what a good 
way to kind of get these homes back in circulation, to allow first-time 
home buyers with limited incomes--it is $65,000 in my State. I am not 
sure what it is in everybody else's State, but that would be a lot of 
families with teachers, firefighters, nurses, et cetera. They are not 
very wealthy but not poor middle-class families. These families could 
come in and buy some of these homes. That is a great idea.
  I used to be the State treasurer. I issued these bonds. It works. It 
is a happy thing when people can buy a home. The underlying bill also 
allows these bonds to be issued to build more multifamily dwellings. 
This is a desperate need in Louisiana because while we spend a lot of 
time talking about our homeowners who have lost homes, we had over 60 
percent of the population in New Orleans, maybe between 50 and 60 
percent who were not even homeowners. They were renters. Some of them 
were very wealthy renters. They chose to live in nice places, but a lot 
of the people in New Orleans--my hometown--were poor, and they could 
not afford a home, so they were renting. Their places have been 
destroyed, and we now have a growing homeless population of historic 
proportions.
  So the provision in the underlying bill that gives the opportunity to 
issue bonds to build multifamily dwellings is great. We can build for 
the elderly, who really need affordable housing in the country. I also 
believe the underlying provision allows for the building of places, 
rentals for the disabled, which is also a growing need.
  But what my amendment simply says is, there will be a third option 
for these bonds, and it will help to refinance homes that have been 
destroyed along the gulf coast in basically the storms of 2005. That is 
what the current amendment says.
  But let me say that I am very open to modify my amendment, if the 
leadership wants to do that, to allow the use of these bonds to go to 
basically any home that was destroyed by a disaster in the whole 
country. I think it would be a very good use of these bonds because, as 
I said, there is not a lot of help outside of just general insurance 
that helps people to rebuild. If people have insurance, fine; they can 
rebuild their home from insurance proceeds.

[[Page 5182]]

 But many people who had their houses destroyed by tornadoes or flash 
floods or hurricanes or earthquakes were not required to have insurance 
by the current law, and if they already paid off their mortgage, even 
if they were required to have insurance, they weren't required to after 
they paid off their mortgage; so a disaster hits and there is no way.
  This is not a grant. This is not a giveaway. It is an opportunity to 
provide mortgage lending for people who may want to buy some of these 
homes that have been destroyed. They are not foreclosed homes; they 
were destroyed and owned basically now by, in our case, Government 
entities that are trying to recirculate these properties back into the 
housing market.
  So that is basically what my amendment does. I hope we will have an 
opportunity, of course, as the day goes on, to maybe speak about it 
more or to have a vote on it next week, whenever the Senate decides to 
proceed.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut. As I was saying before he came 
in, the amendment I am offering now adds no cost to the underlying 
bill. It takes the mortgage provision piece and makes it applicable for 
trying to help with homes that were destroyed in a disaster. Right now, 
we are trying to help with homes that were destroyed, if you will, by a 
foreclosure situation. We are also hoping to build multifamily housing, 
which is great.
  All we are asking for with this amendment is to basically add a third 
voluntary--not mandatory but voluntary on the part of the States if 
they want to include disaster, without adding any additional expense to 
the bill.
  So I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I hope we will take up this 
amendment whenever we can.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before the Senator from Louisiana leaves, 
first of all, let me commend her generally. All of us at one time or 
another have faced natural disasters in our State, but I can't recall 
anything, at least in recent memory, that would compare to what the 
Gulf State have suffered and particularly what the State of Louisiana 
has suffered. I know some may say: Well, every time there is a bill up, 
that Senator from Louisiana has an amendment to help her folks in 
Louisiana. That is how it ought to be. They are very fortunate indeed 
to have a fighter such as Mary Landrieu in their corner.
  As she said, this wasn't any disaster. This was devastating. For 
those of us who have been there, as I was, and as one who has been 
there on several occasions since then, it still is stunning to me to go 
down and see the devastation still exists. In most disasters, within 
weeks or months after the occurrence, it is amazing how recuperative 
areas are; however, despite the Herculean efforts of many in her State 
and others, the devastation still persists.
  Certainly, those who have lost their homes suffer the most 
devastating impact of all, in many ways, because that is the center of 
a neighborhood, it represents the ability of a family to survive and 
stay together. All the elements and qualities we like to attribute to 
being an American family are associated with our homes. The fact that 
so many have been destroyed as a result of these disasters is something 
all of us are mindful of, and if we are not, the Senator from Louisiana 
reminds us of it on a daily basis. We thank her for that.
  We are certainly going to do everything we can to accommodate and be 
supportive of this effort. As she points out, it doesn't expand the 
program financially. It operates within the financial constraints as 
the amendment has been crafted. Right now it is focused on the Gulf 
States, those areas that were adversely affected. My inclination is to 
keep it that way. That is not to suggest other States may not have had 
similar occurrences, but I think because of the uniqueness of what 
happened there, we need to recognize that in this effort. I would be a 
little uneasy about expanding it. Not that that is without merit, but I 
think particularly in this case, with this one occasion we are talking 
about a particular compelling case which has been made.
  So once again, I thank her for fighting on behalf of our fellow 
American citizens who happen to be her specific constituents. We thank 
her for it. Over this weekend, we will take a look at it, and if there 
are any questions we have about it, I will get back to her, but I will 
be urging Senator Shelby and others to be supportive of this idea.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I 
will follow his advice and keep the amendment tailored, and if he 
changes his mind, he can let us know. I appreciate his attention to 
this matter.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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. 4384 to Amendment No. 4387

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that the Sanders amendment at the desk, No. 
4384, be called up, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself and Mr. 
     Brown, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4384.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide an increase in specially adapted housing benefits 
                         for disabled veterans)

  At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. _. INCREASE IN SPECIALLY ADAPTED HOUSING BENEFITS FOR 
                   DISABLED VETERANS.

       Section 2102 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``$10,000'' and 
     inserting ``$12,000''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting 
     ``$60,000''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting 
     ``$12,000''.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Brown, Schumer, and Harkin be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, first, I wish to commend Senator Dodd and 
Senator Shelby for their work on this legislation. In particular, I 
wish to congratulate them on the provisions already in the bill to help 
our servicemembers and veterans. I also wish to thank Senator Akaka, 
the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and Senator Burr, 
the ranking member, and their staffs, for helping to clear this 
amendment.
  The amendment I am offering today will provide another piece of 
needed help to disabled veterans trying to stay in their homes. This 
amendment increases funding for a VA grant program that assists 
disabled veterans needing to adapt their homes to accommodate their 
disabilities. As the Presiding Officer knows, many thousands of 
soldiers, coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan as amputees, who are 
blind and who have a number of disabilities, and this amendment 
attempts to address some of those problems by helping them adapt their 
homes so they can live in those homes with their disabilities.
  This amendment is supported by some of our Nation's largest veterans 
organizations, including the VFW, the DAV, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans 
of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of America. It is also important 
to note the policy changes we are advocating are contained in the 
independent budget, the document authored every year by many of the 
same organizations. It is also a policy that has the unanimous support 
of the majority members of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, 
which endorsed this policy change in

[[Page 5183]]

the 2007 and 2008 Views and Estimates letter to the Budget Committee; 
in other words, this policy in this amendment has broad support.
  Veterans with certain severe service-connected disabilities are 
entitled to what are known as specially adapted housing grants of up to 
$50,000. Veterans with service-connected blindness only or with loss of 
use of both upper extremities may receive a grant of up to $10,000. The 
authors of the independent budget note increases in these amendments 
have been sporadic, despite the increases in real estate costs. In 
particular, veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are finding 
the current VA program does not cover the cost of adapting their homes 
to accommodate wheelchairs or loss of vision, to create physical 
therapy space or other needed changes.
  This amendment increases the specialty adaptive housing grant to 
provide $10,000 in additional benefits for those veterans eligible for 
the $50,000 grant and $2,000 in additional benefits for those veterans 
eligible for the current $10,000 grant. So we are raising the cap on 
each program to $60,000 and $12,000, respectively. According to CBO, 
for fiscal year 2009, this amendment would cost about $6 million.
  The Senate is now debating an important piece of legislation to try 
to bring relief to so many of the middle-income Americans who are 
struggling to keep their heads above water in today's economy and 
housing crisis. I think, given the context of this bill, certainly we 
can reach out to disabled veterans to adapt their homes so they can try 
to live as full lives as possible.
  I wish to again commend Senator Dodd, Senator Shelby, and the Banking 
Committee for the proveteran, proservicemember provisions already in 
this legislation, and I ask that my colleagues support this small 
additional benefit. I ask for my colleagues' support on this amendment, 
and if it is appropriate, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me commend my fellow New Englander for 
this idea. You wonder how something such as this persisted as long as 
it did. I wish to commend our colleague for discovering it and finding 
it out. Senator Shelby is not here this afternoon, but his staff is 
around, and we have been talking with them. I think this will 
overwhelmingly be accepted. This should not require a recorded vote.
  I was telling the staff I am one of six children. My oldest sister 
Carolyn was born legally blind. When I arrived at the House of 
Representatives in the mid-1970s, I remember as a freshman I discovered 
you couldn't be a foreign service officer if you were legally blind. We 
managed to change those regulations. How silly a rule it was. Unrelated 
or related, I guess, to some degree here, but I thank my colleague from 
Vermont for raising this.
  I appreciate his kind comments about Senator Akaka. Senator Kerry and 
Senator Coleman offered some ideas as well on the veterans housing 
issues also. I am told by Senator Shelby's staff he is very supportive 
of this as well. This isn't a large amount. It may not be a banner 
headline for some, but the Senator from Vermont is going to make a 
difference in the lives of some families and some individuals. It may 
not be thousands. Even if there are a few hundred, it makes a 
difference.
  So at a moment such as this, on a Friday afternoon, when most people 
have headed off for home, let the Record record and history record that 
the Senator from Vermont made a difference in the lives of a handful of 
people with this amendment. I thank him.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator for his kind remarks.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues who have 
worked so hard this week on the housing stimulus bill. I particularly 
want to commend my friend from Rhode Island--Senator Jack Reed--for his 
tireless work on simplifying mortgage disclosures so that mortgage 
applicants will have in plain English--not fine print or jargon--the 
most important terms of the loan including the maximum monthly payment 
possible. This provision was included in the bipartisan substitute 
amendment and I congratulate Senator Reed.
  For months, as America has sunk deeper and deeper into economic 
distress, hard-working people all over this country have wondered what 
they are going to do to make ends meet--and why their Government wasn't 
doing more to help.
  For families already strained by rising health care and gasoline 
costs, and with many struggling to care for an elderly parent or put a 
child through college, the latest economic downturn is fast becoming 
the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
  In my State of Rhode Island, where affordable housing was already in 
scarce supply, thousands of families face foreclosure, eviction, and an 
uncertain future. For the 12-month period ending in December 2007, the 
foreclosure rate in Rhode Island increased by a staggering 238 percent. 
More than 12 percent of subprime loans in my State were in foreclosure 
in December 2007. The foreclosure rate among subprime loans in Rhode 
Island is 15 times higher than the prime loan foreclosure rate.
  This is a crisis that strikes at the most vulnerable. As I talked to 
Rhode Islanders during the recent recess, I heard over and over again 
about the difficulty of making ends meet in this fragile economy. And 
as they watch things get worse, they wonder why our Government would do 
so much to keep the investment bank Bear Stearns from going under, but 
so little for them and their neighbors.
  There are some in this city, and in this building, who believe that 
if we simply let the markets correct themselves, all will be well. I 
have great faith in market forces, and I've seen firsthand the power of 
American industry and American ingenuity to work great good in our 
country and our world. But we in Government should know by now that 
market forces need disciplined constraint, and that the American people 
deserve better than to see their homes swept away by a financial 
typhoon while Congress stands idly by. They need our help.
  Earlier this week, after hard work and good-faith negotiations, 
Senators Dodd and Shelby reached a compromise on legislation to soften 
the blow of the residential real estate collapse. In addition to 
Senator Reed's disclosure provision, the bill now before us includes $4 
billion in funding for community development block grants to assist 
States and municipalities in purchasing and rehabilitating homes that 
have been foreclosed upon, and $100 million for pre-foreclosure 
counseling. It also includes Federal Housing Administration reform that 
will increase the availability of FHA-backed mortgages, offering an 
alternative to the subprime market for more middle- and lower-income 
families for whom buying a new home might otherwise be out of reach.
  This agreement is a strong start, but it failed to include a 
provision authored by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois that would permit 
bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of a primary residence mortgage. 
I was proud to cosponsor Senator Durbin's amendment, which included 
this provision, and was disappointed that the amendment lost a 
procedural vote yesterday. I plan to support my colleague from Illinois 
as he continues his efforts to enact this important change to the 
bankruptcy code.
  As my colleagues know, unlike most contracts, including mortgages on 
vacation homes and family farms, bankruptcy judges cannot currently 
modify the terms of the very contract most dear to families facing 
bankruptcy, their principal residence: the place they call home, where 
they raise their children, know their neighbors, and live their lives.
  Simply put, this provision would fix this glaring anomaly in section 
1322(b)(2) of the bankruptcy code so that primary residence mortgages 
are treated like most other secured debts. Like any secured creditor, 
the mortgage holder would be entitled to adequate protection of his or 
her property interest during the chapter 13 case. The modification of 
the mortgage would be limited by market prices and rates and to a 
repayment term of no longer than 30 years.

[[Page 5184]]

  Given the cost of foreclosures--which may average as high as $50,000 
per incident--it would seem that this amendment to the bankruptcy code 
would benefit all parties to a mortgage. Passing this measure could 
help more than 600,000 families facing bankruptcy stay in their homes.
  As we continue to consider this housing stimulus package, we have an 
opportunity to help millions of families weather this crisis and get 
their lives back on track. I will continue to fight for meaningful 
relief for middle-class families threatened with the loss of their 
homes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am told, and I could be corrected, but I 
think we have probably completed any amendments to be offered on this 
legislation at this juncture. I will wait for instruction from the 
leaders on how they want to proceed, and while we are doing that, I 
note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the 
substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

        We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute 
     amendment No. 4387 to H.R. 3221:
          Christopher J. Dodd, Harry Reid, Mark L. Pryor, Max 
           Baucus, Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Claire 
           McCaskill, Patrick J. Leahy, Daniel K. Akaka, Ken 
           Salazar, Sherrod Brown, Bryon L. Dorgan, Evan Bayh, 
           Edward M. Kennedy, Jon Tester, John F. Kerry, Bill 
           Nelson.

                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now send to the desk a cloture motion on 
the bill itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

   We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to 
a close debate on H.R. 3221, the Housing bill.

          Christopher J. Dodd, Harry Reid, Mark L. Pryor, Max 
           Baucus, Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Claire 
           McCaskill, Patrick J. Leahy, Daniel K. Akaka, Ken 
           Salazar, Sherrod Brown, Bryon L. Dorgan, Evan Bayh, 
           Edward M. Kennedy, Jon Tester, John F. Kerry, Bill 
           Nelson.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote on the substitute amendment No. 4387 occur at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, 
April 8; further, that the mandatory quorums for both motions be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________