[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12559-12561]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 6049, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, an act to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives 
     for energy production and conservation, to extend certain 
     expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, 
     and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12:30 p.m. shall be equally divided and controlled by the two 
leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I have townhall meetings all around 
Louisiana on a very regular basis. At these meetings we discuss a 
number of crucial issues facing all of us. Lately, of course, it has 
been dominated by sky-high gasoline prices and the need for a coherent 
energy policy. But what I hear more than anything else as I reach out 
to my constituents all around the State, the biggest, most important 
sentiment I hear is: When are most folks in Congress going to stop 
playing political games and actually act? When are most folks in 
Washington going to stop posturing and arguing just toward the next 
election and take care of the people's business? Unfortunately, I 
believe this exercise we have going on on the Senate floor is yet 
another example of the posturing and of the political gamesmanship that 
feeds that understandable frustration.
  We are going to have a vote coming up later today on the Democratic 
tax extenders bill. This is a pure political exercise and a pure waste 
of time. Whether you are for it or against it, whether you like most 
provisions in it or not, one thing is perfectly clear: This Democratic 
partisan bill is going nowhere. It doesn't have the support in the 
Senate. In addition to that, there is a veto threat--a very crystal-
clear veto threat--from President Bush. That is for substantive 
reasons. There are significant objections to the bill--I share most of 
them--with what is included in this package, things such as a huge 
earmark to build a train in New York, a new tax break for trial 
lawyers, expansion of the Davis-Bacon Act, and $55 billion of taxes.
  The point isn't the substance. Whether you agree with the substance 
or not, the point is this bill is going nowhere, and therefore to call 
it up again and again and to posture and to make speeches is just a 
political exercise and a waste of time. It is perfectly clear from the 
vote we took last week that this package doesn't have near the 60 votes 
required in the Senate to pass it through the process.
  If that weren't enough, it is perfectly clear that President Bush 
will veto the bill. Of course, to override a veto doesn't simply take 
60 votes, it takes two-thirds of the Senate--67. So it is perfectly 
clear that it is going nowhere, and here we are again posturing, making 
political speeches and political points on the floor.
  I have a radical idea. Let's come together in a bipartisan way. Let's 
come around a consensus bill and actually pass it through the process 
and get it signed by the President. I believe the Grassley bill, which 
has been introduced in the Senate, is the basis for that sort of 
bipartisan discussion and real work.
  This is particularly important for many of my constituents in 
Louisiana because many of those Louisianans, as well as folks in 
Mississippi and elsewhere, have been suffering from a very unfair 
situation. They are actually paying a tax penalty because of the 
enormous losses they suffered during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. What 
am I talking about? It is this: In 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the 
gulf coast with enormous ferocity. A few weeks later, Hurricane Rita 
struck southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas. Of course, as we all 
know, many folks suffered enormous and tragic losses. Many folks I know 
personally lost their entire homes and virtually all of their 
belongings. Of course, folks in that situation legitimately could take 
a big loss on their next tax return. As a result, in 2005, people did 
what you would expect them to do: They filed loss deductions on their 
tax returns for that year because of these enormous and tragic losses.
  Push forward to 2007. The good news is that the American people 
responded to the enormous tragedy and Congress responded, representing 
the American people. One of the most important things the American 
people funded, one of the most important things Congress passed, was 
help for these folks I am describing who suffered uninsured losses. In 
Louisiana, it became known as the Road Home Program. In Mississippi, 
there was a similar program called the Housing Assistance Program--
grants, help from the American taxpayers to help cover uninsured 
losses.
  So what is the problem? The problem is that under present Federal 
law, the IRS says that you have to add that check many of these folks 
got in 2007 to their income and pay taxes on it because under present 
Federal law that is taxable income. If it was simply a matter of 
counteracting, equalizing the tax benefit these same individuals gained 
by claiming a huge loss deduction in 2005, that would be fair, but it 
went far beyond that in many cases. It increased many of these 
individuals to a higher marginal tax rate. Because of the size of the 
help, it pushed them into a whole other tax bracket. It subjected many 
taxpayers to the AMT, which they would not have been subjected to 
otherwise. It phased out certain deductions for them. It even subjected 
some individuals' Social Security benefits to additional taxation. It 
made many taxpayers ineligible for Federal student loans. So it didn't 
simply counteract and equalize the tax benefit some folks got in 2007 
by claiming a very large loss deduction; it went

[[Page 12560]]

beyond that in thousands upon thousands of cases.
  So on top of Katrina, on top of Rita, on top of unimaginable--to most 
of us--personal tragedy, what happened is these folks got a tax 
penalty. That is ridiculous. We need to fix that. There is a clear 
sentiment and a clear majority in Congress to fix that. That fix for 
the Road Home Program in Louisiana and for the Housing Assistance 
Program in Mississippi is included in this Grassley tax extenders bill, 
which can be a bipartisan product, which can garner bipartisan support, 
which can gain far more than 60 votes in the Senate, and which can and 
would be signed into law by the President.
  This is enormously important for tens of thousands of Louisianans. 
This is enormously important for many folks in Mississippi. These 
aren't simply run-of-the-mill folks; these are by definition folks who 
suffered through some of the worst losses due to Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita. In that context--as they wait year after year simply for a fix so 
that they aren't penalized by the tax man on top of everything they 
suffered through because of the hurricanes--in that context, how dare 
anyone play political games. How dare anyone posture and make political 
speeches rather than simply trying to come together and do the people's 
business. But again, that is what is going on here on the floor.
  We have a tax extenders package which has provisions that many folks, 
including myself, have major objections to: A huge earmark to build a 
train in New York, a new tax break for trial lawyers, an expansion of 
the Davis-Bacon Act which would hurt our economy, and $55 billion of 
tax provisions. I cannot support that Baucus package because of those 
clearly objectionable items. More importantly, about half of the Senate 
can't support it for that reason, and therefore the Senate isn't near 
the 60 votes required to pass that on in the process. Even if it were, 
as I said before, President Bush has made it crystal-clear that because 
of these controversial provisions, he would veto the bill. So this 
package is going nowhere. To revote on this package is to waste time 
and play political games. I don't know why the majority leader is 
determined to do that, but he is doing that today. He has even talked 
about doing it a third time.
  I urge the majority leader and all of my colleagues to act for the 
good of the American people, to come around a consensus package that 
can be passed and be signed into law, not to simply try to score 
political points, make more speeches, and waste even more time on the 
Senate floor.
  All of the American people deserve that. But, surely, folks who 
suffered enormous losses because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita deserve 
that even more. Surely, those folks deserve the relief contained in 
both bills, but also the relief that can actually be passed and signed 
into law in a bipartisan consensus package.
  Let's do the work of the American people. Let's put people before 
politics, and let's pass this important legislation by moving on to a 
consensus bill that can gain far more than 60 votes in the Senate and 
be signed into law by the President.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, I would like to 
make a simple point. He mentioned various provisions he would like to 
see enacted. I suppose most of them concern his State of Louisiana, as 
they appropriately should. Let's ask ourselves, what is the 
parliamentary position we are in now? It is very clear.
  The vote before us, which will be taken soon today, is very simple. 
It is whether we move to the next step to get on legislation. It is 
called a motion to proceed. It is true it is a motion to proceed to a 
House-passed bill. If the Senate lets us proceed--including the Senator 
from Louisiana--to that bill, then I will offer a substitute and 
presumably we will be on the substitute. I thought it was not only the 
prerogative of the Senate, but it is an opportunity for Senators to 
debate amendments and for Senators to offer amendments--amendments to 
strike certain provisions or amendments to add certain provisions. That 
is called legislating. It is debate. Before we can do that, we have to 
get onto the bill. We cannot pass legislation until we can get on the 
bill.
  So I am asking my good friend from Louisiana if maybe the better 
alternative--nobody is playing politics. We are trying to get ourselves 
into a procedural situation so we can debate legislation and pass 
legislation for the good of the country. I ask my good friend from 
Louisiana if he might consider voting for the motion to proceed so that 
we can get on the legislation and so that other Senators can offer 
amendments to improve the legislation and so the Senate can vote.
  Mr. VITTER. If the Senator will yield, I appreciate his comments. I 
would be open for that path forward if there was assurance from the 
majority leader that there would be that full opportunity for 
amendments, particularly on the crucial objectionable items that I 
outlined. Unfortunately, to date, there has been absolutely no 
assurance in that regard. In fact, the majority leader, through his 
actions, has taken the opposite course time after time after time, as 
the Senator knows, by filling up the tree. So if we could take that 
path forward, with the assurance to have votes on amendments regarding 
those clearly objectionable matters, that might be productive. 
Unfortunately, that hasn't been the assurance the majority leader has 
offered to give, and it hasn't been his practice.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will ask another question. If we vote for the motion to 
proceed, with the assurance and understanding that there would be the 
full opportunity for amendments, but also, I think, in the spirit of 
comity and good faith--sometimes amendments are blocked because they 
are not good-faith amendments, such as on abortion and other issues 
that have nothing to do with the bill. They are political amendments. 
The Senate has, unfortunately, come to the point where because they 
offer political amendments, with nothing to do with the issue at hand, 
the majority leader is sometimes forced into that situation in order to 
set up a procedure to minimize the possibility of the occurrence of 
those political amendments. So it is a two-way street. It is my 
objective--and I would counsel the majority leader to allow amendments. 
That is the way the Senate should operate.
  There has to be a good-faith understanding on the Senator's side of 
the aisle on good-faith amendments.
  Mr. VITTER. I only say to the distinguished Senator, if the majority 
leader would come to the floor and guarantee amendments on the 
substance of the bill, on the train to New York and the Davis-Bacon 
provision and down the line in terms of all those highly objectionable 
issues I outlined a minute ago, which go to the substance of the bill, 
I will be all ears. Unfortunately, that has not been his practice on 
prior issues or in this situation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Maybe we are making headway because the substitute 
amendment I will offer would not include Davis-Bacon, or may not 
consider some provisions the Senator is addressing. Again, to go back, 
there has to be an understanding on the Senator's side of the aisle 
that the amendments offered would be good-faith amendments and not 
obstructive political amendments.
  I thank the Senator for the dialog. Maybe we have made a little 
headway so we can get enough support to proceed to the bill.
  Mr. President, Samuel Johnson called a second marriage ``the triumph 
of hope over experience.'' Actually, that is where we are today. The 
Senate seeks a similar triumph of hope today because we are here again 
to consider the vote on a motion to proceed to H.R. 6049, the Renewable 
Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. This time I hope for a better 
result. And maybe somewhat, based on the discussion I just had with the 
Senator from Louisiana, we can find a way so that we can proceed to the 
bill and pass these very important provisions.
  This bill will foster clean, new energy sources. This is a bill to 
extend some

[[Page 12561]]

very important tax provisions that benefit American families and 
businesses. This is a bill on which I hope to offer an amendment to 
stave off certain tax increases under the alternative minimum tax.
  Last Tuesday, we tried to do this same thing--move to this bill--but 
we fell short of 60 votes. Many of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle were against moving to the bill. That meant we could not even 
get on the bill; therefore, we could not offer amendments to improve it 
and pass it to help many Americans and individuals in businesses. 
Again, that meant we could not even discuss the merits of the bill. 
That meant we could not consider my substitute amendment, which would 
have addressed several Senate priorities, including a couple on the 
other side of the aisle.
  This bill contains a robust energy package, with more than $17 
billion in incentives for alternative energy, efficiency, and clean 
coal. This package is important for our environment and our energy 
security, and it is important to facilitate the transition to a carbon-
controlled economy. If we don't get this bill, we cannot do any of 
that.
  This bill would extend expiring individual tax provisions, including 
the teacher expense deduction and the qualified tuition deduction. The 
bill would also extend expiring business tax provisions. These include 
the R&D tax credit and the active finance expensing provisions.
  These business provisions help to keep America competitive in a 
global economy. These business provisions help to maintain and create 
jobs. If these individual and business provisions are not extended, 
millions of families and businesses will face tax increases. If we 
don't pass this bill, many individuals and businesses will find their 
taxes going up.
  The bill is paid for with two revenue raisers that have very broad 
support. It is also sound tax policy. The arguments against this bill 
this week may as well be the same as last week's arguments. Last week, 
we heard that we should not increase taxes to pay for tax cuts.
  As I said before, and will say again, these revenue raisers are not 
tax increases. The first revenue-raising provision in the bill is the 
delay of the effective date of the worldwide allocation of interest. 
This provision would delay application of the interest rule, which was 
not supposed to go into effect until next year.
  Many of the companies that will benefit from this provision told me 
they would rather have the business extenders than early applications 
of the worldwide application of interest.
  Why? These companies realize that because of the firm position of the 
House of Representatives, we need to offset extending these valuable 
tax benefits. To make that point more clear, this body knows the House 
has been insisting that offsets be utilized to pay for some of these 
tax reductions that will pass with this bill. That is a political 
reality, something we all face. That is partly why these offsets are in 
this bill, including delaying application of worldwide allocation of 
interest.
  These companies have weighed the costs and benefits, and they have 
made the choice in favor of the tax extenders in the bill. The second 
revenue-raising provision addresses offshore deferred compensation. 
This provision would prevent hedge fund managers from deferring income.
  This is not an increase in tax on hedge fund managers. Rather, it is 
a change in the timing of when income tax will be applied. This is a 
timing issue, not a tax increase. Therefore, I believe it is sound tax 
policy.
  Last week, we heard that we should not need to offset extending 
current tax benefits. This is a curious argument. It is curious because 
the Senate paid for extending expiring tax provisions in the recent 
past.
  We paid for extenders in the JOBS Act in 2004, we paid for extenders 
in the Tax Relief Act of 2005, and we paid for extenders in the 
military tax relief bill that Congress just passed and presented to the 
President on June 6. We have done that. So this week the Senate is 
faced with a choice that, in my opinion, is relatively easy. If we can 
get to H.R. 6049, if the Senate will vote to get to the bill, we could 
then take up my substitute amendment.
  My substitute amendment contains the provisions that I have talked 
about, plus a 1-year AMT patch--making sure people don't have to pay 
the AMT in the next taxable year, and that is without any offsets. So 
by going to the bill and seeing it through, Congress would take care of 
a lot of families and a lot of businesses.
  We need to decide whether we will develop new jobs and new 
medications. We need to decide whether we will help teachers, families, 
and schools. We need to decide whether we are going to make energy 
independence a priority, or we can continue to allow hedge fund 
managers to defer, without limitation, their compensation for investing 
other people's money.
  Let's show America we can make the right choice. Let's give American 
families and businesses reason for hope. Let's not give them the same 
experience they received last Tuesday. Let's proceed to this important 
tax relief bill for many American families and businesses.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum calls prior to 
the recess be charged equally to both sides, and I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________