[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.
____________________