Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business. I might ask the Chair, is the Senate in morning business?

I might ask, Mr. President, if we are not in morning business, then what is the parliamentary situation?

The Chair is assuming my intention, which I will ignore at this moment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, a Chinese proverb asks: How can one beam alone support a house?

The same can be asked about the housing market. The housing market includes homeowners, home buyers, and homebuilders alike. To support the entire housing market, one does best to support each of its several parts.

That is why I worked with my colleague, Senator Chuck Grassley, and other members of the Finance Committee to craft the housing tax provisions in the pending substitute amendment. These provisions address the several parts of the housing market. Our legislation would help homeowners, home buyers, and homebuilders. In so doing, our legislation would provide sounder support for the market as a whole. In today's economy, many homeowners are having difficulty paying the mortgage. About 4 percent of first-mortgage debt is delinquent. Another 1 percent is in default.

Last year, nearly 1.5 million homeowners defaulted on their first mortgages. That is up from 900,000 in the year before and 800,000 in the year before that. Defaults and foreclosures have contributed to the decline in housing prices. They have destroyed more than $2.5 trillion in household net worth in the space of a year.

Our legislation would help homeowners with a property tax deduction available for people who do not itemize their tax deductions. This new deduction would alleviate some of the burden of local property taxes, at a time when homeowners are struggling to pay their mortgages.

This new property tax deduction would provide a standard deduction for up to $500 for single filers and $1,000 for joint filers. It would be available to the more than 28 million families who pay property taxes but who do not itemize their deductions. These are middle- and low-income households. These are some of the same families in the housing market who most need relief.

For home buyers, our legislation includes a home buyer credit and mortgage revenue bonds. The home buyer tax credit provides a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of a home upon which foreclosure has been filed. The tax credit rightfully excludes second-home purchases and rental investments. It focuses on the principal residences of struggling families.

By targeting foreclosed properties, our provision would get families into vacant homes. By targeting homes that are near foreclosure, our credit may steer home buyers to those homes. That may make enough difference to help some families to get out of foreclosure and out of harsh eviction proceedings.

Our legislation also includes mortgage revenue bonds. We would provide an additional $10 billion of tax-exempt private activity bond authority. States could use these bonds to refinance subprime loans, to provide mortgages for first-time home buyers, and to provide multifamily rental housing.

This substantial increase for the States comes at a critical time. States are directly experiencing the effects of the economic downturn. With the financial crisis tightening up lending, this cash can provide much needed financing. That financing will once again help low- to middle-income households.

The subprime mortgage crisis and declining housing sales have forced many homebuilders to lose money. According to the most recent Labor Department report, construction and manufacturing are the hardest hit sectors of the economy. Construction shed 51,000 jobs so far this year, and manufacturing shed 48,000 jobs so far this year.

Construction employment alone is down 182,000 jobs since November. It is down by 356,000 jobs over last year. Overall, the private sector has lost 296,000 jobs over the last 3 months. That is a loss of 97,000 jobs a month.

For homebuilders, our package would allow businesses to carry back losses to profitable tax years. That would help the homebuilders hit the hardest by the housing market crisis. The pending amendment would allow troubled businesses to carry back net operating losses for 4 years, for tax years 2008 and 2009. That would allow them to receive quick tax refunds.

This tax relief would slow losses. These businesses would then have a quick cash infusion to meet payroll and other current expense obligations. We hope this relief would encourage these businesses to rehire some of those workers who have lost their jobs. This provision benefits both employers and employees.

As well, the net operating loss provisions in the pending amendment would allow homebuilders and other distressed businesses to take the book benefit of a net operating loss before claiming the amount on their tax return. This would help distressed businesses to obtain additional financing.

Now, these provisions alone would clearly not solve the housing market woes facing this Nation, but by helping homeowners, home buyers and homebuilders, we would take a significant step in the right direction. No one piece of legislation can solve all of our problems but inaction most certainly will solve none of our problems. That is why we must act. We should bring debate to a close. We should invoke cloture this afternoon. We should pass this much needed tax relief.

Let's not rely on one beam alone to support an entire structure. Let's pass this help for home buyers, homebuilders, and homeowners, and let's provide this much needed support for the housing market.

Mr. President, John F. Kennedy once said: ``Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer.''

President Bush has said that he intends to submit the implementing legislation for the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. He did so against the will of Congress, and he thus did not seek the right answer. He did not even bother with the Republican or the Democratic answer. The administration simply chose the easy answer. The administration's easy answer is also the wrong answer. It is the wrong answer for American workers. It is the wrong answer for the administration's relationship with Congress. It is the wrong answer for Colombian workers.

The Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is a good trade agreement

that will level the playing field for America's exporters. It will open the new export market for American products, including Montana beef, wheat, and barley, and it will bolster a close ally in a troubled region.

Expanding trade and supporting Colombia are important priorities. That is why the administration should have handled this agreement the right way. Had the administration sought the right answer, it would have worked harder to support my top priority: American workers. Had the administration not rushed forward with the easy answer, we could have had trade adjustment assistance in place before considering this agreement. We need expanded and effective trade adjustment assistance for America's workers. That is clear. That means ensuring that America's service workers--not just its manufacturers and its farmers-- receive the help they need.

Service workers make up 80 percent of our workforce. They have helped to build and support the knowledge-based economy that is the engine of America's growth. They work hard. They deserve our support in return.

Expanded and effective trade adjustment assistance must also cover workers whose jobs have been shipped offshore, not just as a result of trade agreements but others as well. It must raise the health care tax credit to make it affordable and accessible, and expanded and effective TAA--trade adjustment assistance--must double the training funds available to our workers.

Were the administration serious about this agreement, it would not have resorted to the easy procedural answers either. In high school civics class, they teach that the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce. Congress entrusted this power temporarily--and, I might add, importantly, conditionally--to the administration under something called trade promotion authority; that is, Congress did not write a blank check. By submitting the agreement now and against Congress's will, the administration abuses the power Congress granted it. By forcing Congress to consider this agreement now, the administration offends the trust of Congress and violates the compact that is the essence of fast track; that is, trade promotion authority.

When Congress extended trade promotion authority--or, as people call it, fast track--they did so on the condition that the administration would consult with Congress about the text of proposed agreements before it sent them up. Congress set up an informal markup process to apply before the administration formally sent up the legislation. That informal procedure is very important. It was to be conducted, again, before the administration formally sent up its legislative language. The administration has now completely bypassed that process. Now Congress has no opportunity to affect the language of the proposed agreement. This administration has said: It is my way or the highway.

Procedural checks and balances are the cornerstone of the congressional-executive relationship. It is the cornerstone of trade promotion authority. Democratic and Republican administrations have both respected this cornerstone. But today, this administration shattered this cornerstone. By so doing, they further diminish our trust.

By sending up the implementing bill today; that is, before consultation in the right way, the administration has failed to deliver the right answer for Colombia's workers. Colombia's workers must know that they can safely pursue equality and justice in the workplace, free from the violence that has plagued Colombia in the past.

The Colombian Government has made great strides in this area. The enforceable labor provisions in the United States-Colombia trade agreement are a critical step to ensuring further progress. We must make sure the Colombian Government takes these obligations seriously. They must show that these obligations are not just paper promises.

The normal congressional fast-track process of hearings and formal markups--which the administration has short-circuited--is an important time for Congress to air concerns, exercise its leverage. It allows Congress to ensure that the Colombian Government is committed to prosecuting labor violence. These hearings are important to accomplish that objective. It gives us real leverage to seek commitments from the Colombian Government and the administration to create a work environment in Colombia grounded in law and backed by action. It also allows Congress the chance to help the Colombian Government, through funding provisions included in the implementing bill, to create an environment where those who seek a better life through employment can flourish. Short-circuiting the process and forcing a premature vote on a trade agreement does nothing to help Congress accomplish these goals.

The President's unprecedented handling of the United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement raises extraordinary questions about how we can move this agreement forward. For America's workers, for the relationship between Congress and the President, for the Colombian people, Congress must now find answers. Finding the right answer has never been easy. By submitting this agreement as it did and when it did, the administration has sought the easy answer, but in the end, the administration has simply made it harder to find the right answer.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am not managing this part of the bill. I think Senator Dodd is talking to Senators. They are working out some provisions, so if he wants to proceed until they work it out.

Mr. President, I ask how much time the Senator from Tennessee would like to speak. If it is a short amount of time----

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, just a couple comments about the points made by the Senator from New Hampshire.

No. 1, it is not a $20 billion bill. That is not accurate at all. It is, first of all, about $6 billion. It is over 10 years. So it is much less than what the Senator makes it sound like it is.

Second, we all know the housing problems that occurred in this country--the subprime mortgage problems, as well as other mortgages in distress and home buyers in distress. The figure I saw was that about 10 percent of American homes are underwater, meaning the value of the homes for 10 percent of Americans is much less than the mortgage on their homes.

This is a very complicated problem. It requires a complicated solution. Senator Dodd is to be commended for the Banking Committee's provisions in this housing bill. We in the Finance Committee wrote the tax provisions in this bill, and they are designed to help lots of different areas, lots of different people, in lots of different ways.

One is the mortgage revenue bond provisions, which helps States finance new mortgages for people, homeowners. Another is the tax credit for distressed homes. That helps people. That helps home buyers. That is in this legislation.

Another is to help give a little break to people who do not itemize their income tax returns but have property taxes so they can get a break on their property taxes. So we provide in this bill that if you have property taxes, you get at least a $500 deduction against your income taxes if you are single, $1,000 if you are married, irrespective of whether you itemize or use the standard deduction. That helps people.

There is a business provision in here to give a break to homebuilders. Why? Because homebuilders are going out of business. This is not a typical homebuilders' housing cycle we are in now. This is atypical.

A lot of areas in our country are very distressed. A lot of homebuilders are distressed, laying off a lot of people. The number of construction jobs is down--in the hundreds of thousands. For homebuilders' jobs, it is of a similar magnitude. These are people with hammers and nails going out building houses who no longer are building any houses, and they are laid off.

So this bill--basically, in that one provision with respect to homebuilders--kind of evens things out a little bit so homebuilders do not have to lay quite so many people off and they can still keep building some homes, which helps prevent a further deterioration of the value of the homes in a certain area. This is nowhere close to solving the problem, but it helps a little bit. That is why this is in this legislation.

So we have several provisions we in the Finance Committee passed out to help individuals. This one helps businesses in the business of homebuilding and homebuilders employ people, and those are the people who have lost their jobs.

So we are trying to help that sector a little bit so those people who build homes--some of them--can get back to work and not be laid off and also so some homes that might otherwise not be built might now be built to help alleviate the problem.

Homebuilders are not the cause of the problem. The problem, frankly, is worldwide where cash was slushing around, which helped create this situation where lenders were very easily lending money. The terms were very easy. People were enticed into buying homes. Mortgage brokers, for example, were very aggressive in encouraging people to buy homes with no downpayments and whatnot.

But homebuilders--they are not the problem. They are building the homes. Now, they are feeling the pain, as a lot of other Americans are, and I believe--and I think the Finance Committee believes--this is one of several provisions which will help address the housing crisis a little bit. That is why I think it should be in this bill, and I very much hope the Senate approves the bill if not today, by tomorrow.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 8, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the situation in Iraq and progress made by the Government of Iraq in meeting benchmarks and achieving reconciliation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 8, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 8, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``S. 970, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the

Senate on Tuesday, April 8, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 8, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on April 8, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The adequacy of Representation in Capital Cases'' on Tuesday, April 8, 2008, at 10:15 a.m., in room SF-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness List

Michael Greco, Former President of the American Bar Association, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, Boston, MA; Bryan Stevenson, Executive Director, Equal Justice Initiative, Clinical Professor Law, New York University School of Law, Montgomery, AL; The Honorable Carolyn Engel Temin, Senior Judge, Court of Common Pleas of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Donald Verrilli, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 8, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Navy force structure requirements and programs to meet those requirements in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2009 and the future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, April 8, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ayesha Khanna, a detailee with the Finance Committee staff, be allowed floor privileges today.

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.

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.

That is on the Bill Nelson of Florida amendment.

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.

That is absolutely this Senator's understanding, and I will protect that Senator's right as best I can.

Mr. President, so the Senator from Louisiana does not have an amendment?

Not to the housing bill?

Later on today.

As far as this Senator is concerned, it is fine if this Senator is added.

Mr. President, as far as I am concerned, that is perfectly OK with me.

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.

I will be happy to yield.

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.

I think we should. I will devote my staff to that effort.

That is correct.

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. President, I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania. The last 10, 15 minutes has been one of the more edifying, constructive, and helpful explanations on various approaches. He made the statement that perhaps there should be more of that on the Senate floor, a point with which I strongly agree. I thank both Senators for that dialog.

Mr. President, Charles Dickens wrote:

Home is a name, a word,

it is a strong one;

stronger than a magician ever spoke,

or a spirit ever answered to,

in the strongest conjuration.

Simply put, we are here today to help families keep their homes. We are here today to move a package of tax provisions that will help those families to keep their homes. Our package does so with tax relief for homeowners, for home buyers, and for home builders. We are offering this Finance Committee tax package as part of the pending consensus amendment assembled by the two leaders and by Senators Dodd and Shelby.

Today, many American families find their home is threatened. A weak housing market has spread weakness throughout the larger economy. More than 5 million households now owe more than their house is worth. That is about 1 out of every 10 home mortgages. As prices fall, that number is expected to grow.

Our tax package seeks to stabilize the housing market by providing temporary, targeted, and timely tax relief to the housing market. We have developed a consensus package that is limited to four provisions and these provisions focus solely on our ailing housing sector. The Finance Committee passed the first two provisions early this year as part of the economic stimulus package.

First, our package increases the number of mortgage revenue bonds. Mortgage revenue bonds are tax-exempt bonds issued by State and local housing finance agencies. With the proceeds, these agencies can extend mortgages to home buyers at interest rates below the market rate. This will help. It will help homeowners avoid foreclosure and will increase first-time home purchases.

The subprime and affordable mortgage markets have virtually collapsed. As a result, demand for mortgages financed by housing finance agencies is increasing. State housing agencies can respond immediately to the growing risks of foreclosure. These agencies can issue more mortgage revenue bonds. That can provide States the option to refinance subprime mortgages, and additional mortgage revenue bonds can help clear out the glut of existing homes on the market through first-time home purchases.

Our proposal includes a second provision that the Finance Committee passed earlier this year. That is extending the carryback period for net operating losses, otherwise known as NOLs, from 2 years to 4 years.

Generally, cyclical businesses have profitable years followed by loss years. During a loss period, a company will carry back the net operating losses from the loss years to their prior profitable years. They will file a quick refund claim and that quick refund claim will act as a cash infusion that will allow the company to survive a loss period.

The housing industry in particular will greatly benefit from an increased NOL carryback period. The expanded period will allow builders to avoid selling land and houses at distressed prices, and it will provide less costly financing.

An increased NOL carryback period will improve business conditions for the eventual return of the housing market, and the expanded period would give the housing industry cash to meet payroll, which would certainly limit additional job losses.

Third, our proposal provides broad-based tax relief for low-income individuals and those who have already paid off their mortgages. Under our proposal, homeowners would be allowed to deduct local real estate property taxes from their Federal tax return, even if they don't itemize. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, more than 28 million taxpayers pay property taxes but don't itemize. Our proposal would provide these 28 million taxpayers a deduction for the amount of their property taxes up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for married filers. Most often, nonitemizers are low or middle-income people. Our proposal will also benefit those who are not likely to itemize because they have already paid off their mortgages. Senior citizens clearly would benefit. The Congressional Research Service estimates that nearly 130,000 property taxpayers could benefit in my home State of Montana alone.

Fourth, our package provides a home ownership tax credit for the purchase of homes subject to foreclosure. Behind each foreclosed property is a family kicked to the curb, and the suffering does not end there. Foreclosed and vacant homes are a blight on the neighborhood. They drag down home prices. They are targets for vandalism and burglaries. Congress should encourage people to purchase those properties. That will help to stabilize home prices and get the housing industry back on track.

Our proposal provides a one-time credit for taxpayers of $7,000. The credit will be claimed over 2 years and the home purchase would have to be made in the following 12 months. The short-term nature of this credit is critical to providing immediate stimulus. It also ensures that we do not oversubsidize the housing industry or exacerbate the current oversupply of residential homes.

This focused package of four proposals will go far. It will go far to address the housing downturn and economic weakness in our country. I am proud we have all pulled together on this with Senator Grassley and others, and I hope the Senate can pass it into law expeditiously.

A lot of irresponsible actions led to the housing crisis, but now a lot of responsible homeowners, home buyers and home builders are caught up in it. Tax relief and mortgage help to folks who played by the rules in the housing market is the right thing for Congress to do. The tax provisions in this package will keep property values up, keep folks in their homes, and keep businesses afloat, and those are all keys to handling the housing crisis.

In sum, this is an effort to provide tax relief to homeowners, home buyers, and home builders. It is an attempt to help families keep their homes. It is an effort to preserve an important word stronger than any magician ever spoke or any spirit ever answered to--the word called ``home.''

I urge my colleagues to support the package.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I might respond to the Senator from Georgia, I certainly appreciate those remarks. He is to be complimented for bringing the idea forward to me personally and to others. It is a major contribution to the solution we are providing here. We did have to tailor it down a little bit within the confines of the package. I thank the Senator from Georgia for being agreeable and for working with us to find a way to make this work.

Reserving the right to object.

I want to ask the chairman of the Banking Committee to read those amendments off one more time.

I object, Madam President. There is one in there I don't want on that list, so I object.

It is the Ensign amendment. Take that off the list.

It is not on there? OK, good. I am okay as long as that amendment is not on there.

Yes.

Madam President, I believe the Voinovich amendment is the pending amendment. I have spoken to that amendment and at this point cannot agree to it. It costs about $3 billion over 10 years. I have spoken to the sponsors and asked them to rewrite that amendment and talk to the Joint Committee on Taxation to get the score down to about $1 billion, and they are working on that right now. I very much hope they can get that amendment down to a billion because then it would be in a much more acceptable form. But right now, the size and scope of it is just too large. And I think it is appropriate, when we consider these tax amendments, to be somewhat prudent when we consider them and not go overboard. I do believe the current scope of the Voinovich amendment is too large, and they are very agreeable and are working with Joint Tax in amending the language to get it down to about $1 billion over 10 years.

Thank you very much.

I object.

Mr. President, all of us are concerned about ways to protect and to make our country more self-sufficient in the production of energy. We have made many attempts on this floor, in fact a major bill was voted on last year and was actually one vote shy of the necessary 60 votes.

Many of us are working here, including the Senator from Nevada, as well as the Senator from Washington, Senator Cantwell, to find a way to bring up a significant energy bill later this year. There are various candidate bills for that. One is something called the extenders, and I think that is one of several ways where we can get this done. Extenders is going to pass. That is not an idle bill. It is going to pass.

The amendment offered by Senator Ensign is unpaid for, and, to be honest, I frankly think the other body--some of them are called Blue Dogs--is not going to put up with it. We have to pay for an energy bill, and we are working on the offsets so we can get it paid for and so we can get it enacted into law.

So I think, at this point, it would be a mistake to bring up this version because it would not survive a point of order challenge, and I urge the Senator from Nevada to work with the Finance Committee, work with others together, in a concerted way, to get something passed rather than going solo and trying on his own to push something that is not part of a team but, rather, as an individual. Because individual efforts are not going to be as successful as team efforts, and so I urge the Senator to be a part of the team so we can get this thing passed.

Through the Chair, I will be glad to.

I deeply appreciate the Senator wanting to be part of the team. There is another number here called 60. And it is my judgment that with more working together on measures with others, the greater the likelihood we will get this passed. We all want it passed. Let us do it in the context and in a forum in which we can get it passed.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 401 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21 of the concurrent resolution for the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds out of my time.

This is not a proper amendment--

Mr. President, this amendment essentially indexes the capital gains exclusion for the sale of a home. The problem is that homes are decreasing in value, not that they are increasing, and most people who are trying to sell their homes have a much lower market value for their house. Therefore, this is not a necessary provision for them.

This amendment would apply to others who are not subprime candidates who are in good shape and have nothing to do with the subprime issue, and I don't think we want to index for them at this point. It is $50 billion that is the cost. It is unpaid for. This swallows up the housing bill. This is not the proper time, and that is why the point of order should stand because it violates the budget.

Mr. President, on my remaining time, the cost is $15 billion over 10 years.

We are taking 10-year numbers here. That is all we are talking about is 10 years, $15 billion.

Second, this is not targeted to people who need it the most. Who needs it the most are those people whose homes are declining in value, not those homes that are increasing in value.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows and interns on the staff of the Finance Committee be allowed floor privileges during consideration of the Foreclosure Prevention Act: Ben Miller, Blake Thompson, Bridget Mallon, Damian Kudelka, Emily Schwartz, Ezana Teferra, Kayleigh Brown, Mary Baker, Tom Louthan, and Tyler Gamble.

Mr. President, this amendment would maximize the budget's help for America's working families. It would use the surplus to provide tax cuts to every American taxpayer.

Our amendment provides for permanent extensions of 2001 tax cuts that help working families, including the 10-percent bracket, marriage penalty relief, the refundable child credit, the adoption tax credit, and the child-care tax credit.

Our amendment provides for a new property tax deduction available to any American homeowner, even those who don't itemize.

Our amendment includes tax relief for America's military men and women, room to prevent the estate tax from rising above 2009 levels, and protection from unexpected taxes for gulf coast hurricane survivors.

Turning surplus dollars into tax relief for American families is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the problem with this amendment is exactly what the sponsor said: It is exactly like Part B. Part B, as we know, is a premium that is paid with respect to doctors' examinations and Medicare reimbursement. Part D is the drug benefit. Part D premiums vary significantly nationwide according to geography and according to the plans offered. It is nothing like Part B.

To say we should pattern this off Part B is a statement not fully appreciative of the sophistication of the changes in the Part D. That is one reason not to support this amendment.

Second, any change in Part D is required to be in any Medicare bill if it comes up. We may want to make other Medicare changes. We don't want to be restricted to means testing.

Third, this should be considered broad health care reform, at least Medicare reform, and not be isolated in this case.

I strongly urge this amendment not be adopted.

Mr. President, this amendment is privatization of Social Security. This body rejected an amendment of this nature in 2006. We also voted last year and rejected it. The country rejected the privatization in 2005.

This will increase insolvency of the Social Security trust fund, not help it. Despite what the Senator said, let me quote what it says:

Providing participants with the benefits of savings and

investment while permitting the prefunding . . .

Essentially, this, as stated in the language, sets up private accounts for the benefits of investments and savings. We all know that the volatility of the stock market is not the best thing for seniors.

This is privatization of Social Security. We have voted on this many times in the past. I urge the same vote today.

Mr. President, the effect of this amendment is not as described. It is similar to the amendment on privatizing Social Security. He said it was not; it was. He says this amendment gives people health insurance. It does not. What does it do? This is a death spiral for companies that provide health insurance for their employees because this amendment will have the effect of causing, for companies that have health insurance for their employees, those employees to leave the health insurance they have and get their own, particularly if they are young and healthy, which will mean the insurance plan the company provides will not work, and that is why it is a death spiral. This will have the effect of hurting small businesses that provide health insurance for their employees because younger, healthier people will leave to get their own, and that will cause the employer-provided coverage to disappear.

This should not be done in middle of the night. We should have overall health reform, not this pernicious amendment.

Mr. President, I missed the rollcall vote for amendment No. 4198, to increase the Indian Health Service by $1 billion in fiscal year 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea,'' in favor of the amendment. I have cosponsored the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 2007, S. 2532, and know the need to increase funding for the Indian Health Service.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 70, if present, I would have voted ``aye.''

amendment no. 4347

Mr. President, I have been a strong proponent for repeal of the estate tax. Over the years, I have voted repeatedly to get rid of this tax. It harms American families, farms, and businesses.

Once I realized that repeal would not be enacted immediately, however, I worked to get a compromise for the American people. I am continuing that fight.

Last fall, during the farm tax markup, I announced my goal to develop a workable estate tax compromise that could be passed this year. I continue to be committed to that goal.

As chairman of the Finance Committee, I have been using the Senate process to fully analyze what we need to do. I have been holding hearings on effective estate tax reform.

The first estate tax hearing was held in November. The hearing focused on the scope of the problem. We had a second hearing yesterday to explore alternatives to our current estate tax system.

And in April, the Finance Committee will hold a final hearing to discuss reforms to our current system that go beyond rates and exemptions.

After those hearings, we plan to roll up our sleeves and begin working on an estate tax bill--a bill that will pass in the Senate. Once we develop that bill, we will have a markup in Committee.

My goal is an estate tax bill that will get enough support to pass. That goal will take time and work on both sides.

amendment no. 4170

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, Americans have important expectations for their public servants. They expect us to act for the common good. They expect us to advance our common values. But first and foremost, they expect us to have common sense.

Last week's Department of Defense tanker procurement decision raises serious questions of common sense.

As some of my colleagues have already discussed, the Defense Department last week awarded a $40 billion contract for a new generation of Air Force tanker aircraft to the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, or EADS, the parent company of Airbus.

Receiving this major contract is an enormous victory for the European company. It is a victory for thousands of French, German, and Spanish Airbus workers this contract will employ. It is also a victory for U.S. contractors who will work on the project. Yet I have serious questions about whether this is a victory for good American policy or American common sense.

My concern for this deal is not over the Defense Department's procurements. I leave that to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. I do not question the merits of one tanker plane over another. I leave that to my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. But I certainly am concerned and have serious questions about this deal from the perspective of international trade. This responsibility falls to me as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

The United States values competition and acknowledges the right of foreign companies, such as EADS's subsidiary Airbus, to pursue American markets and customers. American consumers, including the Federal Government, should have the right to buy the product that best suits their needs. That is only fair.

But Airbus is not just another company competing in open markets on the merits of its products. It is not just a commercial venture. Rather, Airbus is the product of four decades of explicit government- industrial policies to create a European aircraft industry, an industry designed not just to compete with American companies but to defeat them with massive government funding. Don't take my word for it. Former French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin himself publicly pledged:

We will give Airbus the means to win the battle against

Boeing.

True to Mr. Jospin's promise, decade after decade, project after project, European governments have injected massive amounts of subsidies into Airbus, including $15 billion in launch aid.

These subsidies underwrote between 60 percent and 100 percent of Airbus's commercial aircraft development costs, including the A330 aircraft on which this tanker aircraft is based.

These subsidies allowed Airbus to develop aircraft under terms unavailable to unsubsidized market participants or, as a former British Trade and Industry Secretary boasted:

We are not standing to one side and leaving everything to

the market. . . .

In fact, European subsidization of Airbus was so extreme and so anticompetitive that 3 years ago, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated a dispute settlement case in the World Trade Organization. The USTR does not file these cases frivolously. They do so when the damage is real, the case solid, and all other means of resolution have failed.

This case is still ongoing. A WTO panel is currently weighing the facts of the case, the effects of these subsidies on our aerospace industry, and the compatibility of these subsidies with international trade laws.

What defies common sense to me is that one arm of the administration,

the U.S. Trade Representative, argues subsidies to Airbus hurt our companies, skew global markets, and violate the rules of the game. Yet another arm of the administration, the Defense Department, rewards a subsidized company with a $40 billion contract to purchase illegally subsidized aircraft.

That is the kind of Government decisionmaking that does not add up. It is not common sense, and it raises serious and fundamental questions about how this administration goes about its business.

Does the right hand of the Government know what the left hand is doing? Does one agency respect international rules and their effect while the other one does not? What was USTR's role in this procurement decision? And why did the Defense Department appear to have disregarded it? These and other questions need answers, and I look forward to pursuing these answers with my colleagues.

Until we hear a full accounting of this issue, I am left with an uneasy feeling that last week's decision by the Defense Department does little for the common good or common sense.

Mr. President, I wish now to speak on an amendment I am going to offer when we get to the budget resolution. I will offer the amendment when we are on the resolution. I can either make my statement now or wait until we get to the resolution.