S10582 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 17, 2008 

boost infrastructure investments, build 

the critical infrastructure we need to 

make our economy go forward, but it 

will create jobs. As has been said many 

times before by people a lot smarter 

than I, a good job is the best social policy we have. A good job is the basis of 

the economy. 

What we are advocating today in the 

bill I cosponsored with Senator MIKULSKI is a way to get cars sold so they 

will create jobs all up and down the 

chain in the auto industry and provide 

a bridge to somewhere for the future of 

the auto industry so they will get their 

costs under control, keep them out of 

bankruptcy, and make the changes 

that are needed to be competitive in 

the national and the world market. 

I urge my colleagues to join with us 

in the legislation by Senator MIKULSKI

and also in pushing to use the TARP 

funds for investment in municipal 

bonds that will put people to work on 

infrastructure. 

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself 

and Mrs. BOXER): 

S. 3685. A bill to prohibit the selling 

and counterfeiting of tickets for a 

Presidential inaugural ceremony; to 

the Committee on Rules and Administration. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

come to the floor as chairman of the 

Rules Committee and as chairman of 

the Joint House-Senate Inaugural 

Committee. I come to introduce legislation to prohibit the selling and counterfeiting of tickets to the President’s 

inauguration ceremony. 

The inauguration of the President of 

the United States is one of the most 

important rituals of our democracy, 

and the chance to witness this solemn 

event should not be bought and sold 

similar to tickets to a football game. 

This is not a football game. This is a 

dignified and critical moment of transition in Government, a moment of 

which Americans have always been 

proud because it is, in fact, the 

strength of our democracy—the fact 

that all across this great land people 

go to the polls and elect the next President of the United States, they don’t 

take to the streets, they don’t take to 

weapons. They elect the next President 

of the United States. 

We have all read the news reports: 

Tickets bid on the Internet for $5,000 

apiece, some going as high as $40,000 

each. Internet sites today are selling 

tickets they do not have and will not 

have unless somehow, some way they 

obtain them. I find it unconscionable. 

These tickets are supposed to be free 

for people, for the volunteers who gave 

up their weekends, walking miles door 

to door to encourage voters to turn out 

at the polls on election day, for Members of the African-American community to see one of their own take the 

oath of office, the highest office in the 

land, for schoolchildren to witness history, and for the American public to 

watch this affirmation of our Constitution, this peaceful transition from one 

administration to another. 

This is going to be a major civic 

event of our time. Excitement is at an 

all time high, and every one of us has 

received more phone calls for tickets 

than we could possibly ever meet. People are desperate to become part of it, 

to touch it, to be around, to feel it, to 

listen to it, and they are coming from 

all over the country. We could have 

more than 1.5 million people descend 

on the Nation’s Capital for this inauguration. 

Congress has the responsibility of 

overseeing this historic event. So we 

must ensure that the inauguration has 

all the respect and dignity it deserves. 

These tickets are supposed to be free 

for the people. No one should have to 

pay for them. Once more, these tickets 

are not yet even available. They will 

not be distributed to congressional offices until the end of the week before 

the inauguration. And then the offices 

will require in-person pickup, with secure identification. But they will be 

free and they should stay that way. 

I can tell you what I am going to do. 

We will ask people to pick up their 

tickets the day before the inauguration 

in my office. Everyone will submit 

their name, their address, and their 

driver’s license. They must be who 

they are if there are tickets waiting for 

them. I believe this kind of procedure 

essentially deters unscrupulous people 

from selling these tickets on the Internet. No Web sites or other ticket outlets have inaugural swearing-in tickets 

to sell, despite what some of them 

claim. 

This legislation is aimed at stopping 

those who seek to profit by selling 

these tickets. It would also target 

those who seek to dupe the public with 

fraudulent tickets or those who merely 

promise but can’t deliver on tickets 

that they do not actually have. 

I want to say one thing. We are working now to see if there is any creative 

way we might be able to secure more 

tickets for the House and the Senate. 

We have followed protocol with exactly 

the same distribution system that existed in prior inaugurals, but it is clear 

that there are not as many tickets as 

there are requests. 

Those who violate the law under this 

legislation, if in fact it passes, would 

face a class A misdemeanor with a substantial fine, imprisonment up to 1 

year, or both. I am also very pleased to 

tell you, Mr. President, that eBay and 

StubHub announced last week that 

they will not allow the sale of inaugural swearing-in tickets on any of 

their Web sites. I want to take this opportunity to thank them and to commend them for leading the way. 

It is my hope that Congress will pass 

this legislation this week. I hope my 

colleagues will join me in supporting it 

on a hotline. I think it is very important to establish once and for all that 

tickets to the inauguration of the next 

President of the United States are not 

issues of commerce, they are free tickets to be given to the people. 

So I hope that this week this legislation can pass unanimously by this 

body. I send it to the desk and thank 

the Chair. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately referred. 

By Mr. SPECTER: 

S. 3686. A bill to establish an Office of 

Foreclosure Evaluation to coordinate 

the responsibilities of the Department 

of the Treasury, the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, the 

Federal Housing Administration, the 

Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System, and other 

Federal Government entities regarding 

foreclosure prevention, and for other 

purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. 

Mr. SPECTER. I am now introducing 

legislation captioned ‘‘The Foreclosure 

Diversion and Mortgage Loan Modification Act of 2008.’’ It would create 

an Office of Foreclosure Evaluation inside the Treasury Department, to coordinate a great many efforts. The core 

purpose of this legislation is to provide 

Federal endorsement and financial assistance for setting up programs such 

as those now in existence in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and similar programs which exist in New York, New 

Jersey, Ohio, and Connecticut, that 

suspend foreclosure until there has 

been an opportunity, under court supervision, to have the borrower and the 

lender sit down to try to work out a 

plan to avoid foreclosure. My full 

statement, which I will ask consent to 

place in the RECORD, goes into some 

great detail about the problems that 

exist at the present time regarding 

foreclosures. 

In addition to the legislation I am 

proposing, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has proposed a program aimed at preventing an estimated 

1.5 million foreclosures in the next 

year. I have talked to the FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair, and think her proposal is a good one. The legislation I 

am proposing and the program Chairwoman Bair has proposed would supplement legislation which is now pending 

in the Congress. Last October, Senator 

DURBIN and I separately introduced 

bills that would permit mortgages to 

be modified by the bankruptcy courts. 

However, Senator DURBIN’s legislation 

would permit the court to modify the 

principal sum. I think that goes too far 

and would have the undesirable consequence of making it more difficult to 

obtain a mortgage in the future. My 

legislation authorizes the bankruptcy 

courts to modify interest rates on variable interest rate mortgages. In many 

cases, there was not full disclosure to 

borrowers who took out these loans. 

Then they found that their mortgage 

went from $1,200 a month, for illustrative purposes, to $2,000. 

It is my hope that Congress would 

stay in session beyond just this week. 

It seems to me the economic problems 

mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY

November 17, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10583 

we faced last July, before we adjourned 

for the month of August, required our 

remaining in session; I urged the leaders of the Senate to keep the body in 

session during August. And, I urged the 

President to call the Congress back 

into session. It seems to me the problem of delinquent mortgages and foreclosures is critical at the moment. I 

noticed Senator DODD was quoted in 

the Washington Post last Friday as 

saying he plans to introduce legislation 

and that he thought the FDIC proposal 

was a good one. 

We are finding so many people are 

facing the threat of foreclosure. This is 

an issue which ought to be considered 

further. Congress ought to stay in session, ought to work these issues 

through, and ought to remain in session long enough to consider the details necessary to make a rational 

judgment on the proposal of economic 

aid to General Motors and the other 

companies. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

full text of my floor statement on the 

mortgage issue and the full text of the 

legislation be printed in the RECORD as 

if set forth in full on the Senate floor. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

FLOOR STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER ON INTRODUCTION OF THE FORECLOSURE

DIVERSION AND MORTGAGE LOAN MODIFICATION ACT OF 2008 

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to 

introduce the ‘‘Foreclosure Diversion and 

Mortgage Loan Modification Act of 2008.’’ 

The bill amends the recently passed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and the 

Housing and Economic Recovery Act passed 

last July to ensure that more attention and 

resources are given to the urgent need to 

prevent home foreclosures and to stabilize 

the housing market. 

The bill creates an Office of Foreclosure 

Evaluation in the Treasury Department. 

This Office will coordinate and foster foreclosure prevention efforts of the Treasury 

Department, the Federal Housing Finance 

Agency, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, and 

other federal agencies. The Office will also 

support and collaborate in foreclosure prevention efforts with state and local government agencies, state and local courts, and 

community based non-profit organizations, 

such as the State Foreclosure Prevention 

Working Group. 

The current economic turmoil began with 

a housing market collapse that has had devastating consequences across the entire financial system. Widespread mortgage modification will address the root cause of the 

current crisis. Despite talk and efforts since 

early 2007 to encourage voluntary loan modification, the pace of affordable and sustainable modifications has not been of sufficient 

scale to contain the harm to our communities and our economy. 

This month, HUD made a preliminary projection that only about 20,000 homeowners 

may be helped by the Hope for Homeowners 

program created as part of the Housing and 

Economic Recovery Act, instead of the anticipated 400,000. In October, a Federal Reserve Governor expressed concerns about the 

recent rise of shady companies that masquerade as non-profit foreclosure prevention 

organizations, and then charge distressed 

borrowers thousands of dollars for their services. Congress must act to ensure that homeowners are getting the information and help 

they need to prevent avoidable foreclosures. 

For the second quarter of 2008, foreclosure 

filings nationwide were up 121 percent over 

the second quarter of 2007. Comparing third 

quarter filings, the 2008 increase over 2007 is 

71 percent. Today there are more than 1.5 

million houses in foreclosure—three times 

the normal rate—and approximately 3.5 million other homeowners are behind on their 

mortgage payments. Too many families are 

losing their homes even when it makes more 

sense for the lenders to let them stay and 

make payments on a sustainable, modified 

mortgage. And despite reports from industry 

groups that there have been many modifications, consumer groups say many of these 

modifications simply spread missed payments over the remaining life of the loan, 

which has the perverse effect of raising, not 

lowering, the monthly payment. A recent 

Credit Suisse report found that of those 

mortgages where the monthly payments increased, 44 percent were more than 60 days 

delinquent after 8 months. By contrast, of 

those mortgages that received an interest 

rate reduction, only 15 percent were more 

than 60 days delinquent after 8 months. 

Similarly, of those mortgages where the 

principal balance was reduced only 23 percent were delinquent. . 

In some regions of the country the housing 

and job markets are holding up fairly well, 

but in other areas the increase in foreclosures is or will be devastating. But there 

is some good news: in some of the areas that 

have been hardest hit, there are newly instituted state-court based mortgage foreclosure 

diversion programs that require conciliation 

conferences between lenders and borrowers 

before a foreclosure or sheriff sale may proceed. In some places, there are hundreds of 

trained pro bono attorneys willing to help 

homeowners. Homeowners need these programs because, even though many states 

have housing financing programs, homeowners may not know about them and they 

may not know that lenders may offer modifications. A recent policy paper by the Mortgage Bankers Association of America showed 

that borrowers in 21% of foreclosures initiated in the third quarter of 2007 either could 

not be located or would not respond to repeated attempts by lenders to contact them. 

According to a report by Freddie Mac, 57 percent of late-paying borrowers do not know 

that their lenders may offer alternatives to 

help avoid foreclosure. 

The October 17, 2008 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing I held in Pittsburgh explored 

Allegheny County’s foreclosure prevention 

program, which is at an early stage. The 

Philadelphia hearing I held on October 24, 

2008 explored a program that was adopted in 

April 2008, and it appears to be working. In 

the Philadelphia Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Program’s first few months, there 

were 1,019 mortgage foreclosure cases scheduled for conciliation conferences. In 467 cases 

(46%), borrowers did not participate. Of the 

552 (54%) in which borrowers did participate, 

there was a ‘‘success’’ rate of 80%—meaning 

the homeowners remained in their homes as 

a result of settlement, postponement, or 

bankruptcy. Only 2 properties (.4%) were ordered to be sold at sheriff sale. The delays 

allow for more negotiation, or, in some cases 

for ‘‘graceful exits’’ so families can find a 

new place to live. 

The witnesses at the Philadelphia hearing 

testified about successful outcomes for 

homeowners. One witness, Tania Harrigan, 

testified that her family fell behind in mortgage payments when her husband was laid 

off. They filed for bankruptcy but could not 

afford to pay the fees; the bankruptcy suit 

was dismissed and the house was listed for 

sheriff sale for November 4, 2008. Through 

the Philadelphia foreclosure prevention program, the interest rate was lowered from 

9.75% to 7%, which reduced the monthly payment from $437 to $411. The lender waived 

$6,500 in late fees and the arrearage was put 

back into a new 30-year fixed rate mortgage. 

Another homeowner who was contacted 

through the program’s door-to-door outreach 

initiative had an adjustable rate mortgage 

modified from a 22% interest rate to a fixed 

rate of 6%. Another homeowner saw a reduction in her monthly payments from $1479 to 

$1124 after the interest rate went from 9.9% 

to 5.5%. These were ‘‘voluntary’’ in the sense 

that the court did not impose the terms of 

the modifications. But the court does require 

communication, research and preparation 

before the conference. The court makes foreclosure a last resort instead of the first step 

by ensuring that servicers or lenders are not 

simply ignoring alternatives to foreclosure. 

A city employee testified that, as a result 

of coordinated outreach, calls to the Save 

Your Home Philly Hotline, which sets up appointments with housing counselors, tripled 

from 150 per month at the beginning of the 

year to 460 per month currently. City-funded 

neighborhood assistance groups who have access to court foreclosure files go door-to-door 

to reach homeowners. The participation rate 

in the conciliation program for homeowners 

who answered the door and spoke to the outreach team was 73 percent, compared to 48 

percent for families that received no such 

outreach. The city also funds Community 

Legal Services to provide legal assistance to 

distressed homeowners and training to the 

hundreds of volunteer attorneys who represent clients pro bono. 

New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Connecticut 

and Florida have similar programs. As I’ve 

noted, Pittsburgh is also adopting a foreclosure diversion program. Common Pleas 

Court Judge Annette Rizzo in Philadelphia 

testified that she has had many inquiries 

about the foreclosure diversion program 

from numerous cities, states, and even from 

Sweden. These are good developments, and 

they should be nurtured. 

That is what this legislation would do. It 

creates a federal Office of Foreclosure Evaluation that will encourage and assist cities 

and states in adopting mortgage foreclosure 

diversion programs. The Office will also conduct an informational campaign so that 

homeowners learn of state and federal housing finance programs that are available to 

help them, as well as other resources such as 

free counseling and legal representation by 

community legal services groups and local 

bar associations. 

The states and cities are making progress, 

but federal assistance would help. The bill 

permits certain HUD Community Block 

Grant funds to be used for foreclosure prevention programs that provide free counseling and legal aid. Currently those funds 

may only be used for rehabilitation of vacant 

or foreclosed properties. There is also a provision that will free up funds so they may be 

used to support programs that provide legal 

advice and representation to homeowners in 

foreclosure actions; the current restriction 

on using funds for litigation is overly broad. 

Unlike some plans discussed in the press, 

this bill does not call for direct payments to 

borrowers. Rather, it makes federal funds 

available to support state and local foreclosure prevention programs that work. 

The bill also addresses another reason 

there are not more affordable and sustainable loan modifications—even though modifications usually leave lenders with more 

money than the 50 cents on the dollar that a 

foreclosure sale typically brings them. Up 

until the last 10 or 15 years, a mortgage loan 

mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY

S10584 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 17, 2008 

involved two parties—the borrower and a 

bank that both originated the loan and retained the default risk. If the individual borrower had trouble, it was in the bank’s interest to adjust the terms of the loan. But that 

is no longer the model. Through 

securitization, the risk of default has been 

transferred to investors. There is no longer a 

single entity that has an interest in reworking failing loans. The loans are pooled together and the stream of payments from 

those mortgages is divided up into securities 

owned by investors all over the world. A 

mortgage servicer manages the pools of 

loans and distributes the payments to investors. It is the mortgage servicer who has the 

ability to restructure a mortgage or foreclose on the property. However, the servicers 

do not have the same incentives that banks 

used to have. The way many pooling and 

servicing agreements (PSAs) are written, 

there may be no incentives for the servicers 

to restructure the loans. Servicers typically 

get paid a fee if they foreclose, but may have 

to absorb the cost of renegotiating the loans. 

One of the first steps the Office of Foreclosure Evaluation should take is to encourage servicers to use technology that would 

standardize the income to expense and loan 

resolution process to keep costs down. The 

Office also should determine what incentives 

may be needed to encourage servicers to 

modify contracts. It may ultimately be appropriate for the government to offer 

servicers a flat fee for each sustainable, affordable modification completed within a 

certain time period to help cover their additional costs. 

Perhaps a more significant roadblock is 

that servicers are worried they may be sued 

by some of the investors. Many servicers 

still are thinking that it is best to simply 

pursue foreclosures. Congress tried to address this concern in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and again in the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, by 

clarifying that, unless the contract or PSA 

clearly provides otherwise, the duty owed by 

the servicer to investors is owed to the entire pool and not to any individual groups or 

tranches of investors, but the servicers still 

appear to be reluctant or slow to modify. 

The concerns of the servicers or lenders 

may not be unfounded. Recently, lawyers 

claiming to represent investors are challenging the settlement between Countrywide 

and 11 attorneys general; the settlement proposes to modify the loans of 400,000 borrowers. An October 24, 2008 article in the New 

York Times reported that certain hedge 

funds are opposing loan modifications because it might hurt their investments. At 

least two funds recently have warned 

servicers that they might be sued if they 

participated in government-backed plans to 

renegotiate delinquent loans. Congress must 

take action to protect homeowners who are 

getting caught in the middle. So far disputes 

over loan modifications have been theoretical because most mortgage servicers are 

not aggressively altering the terms of loans, 

but as a matter of public policy, we cannot 

let fear of tort and contract claims cause 

grave harm to consumers and the entire 

economy. 

The bill addresses the litigation threat by 

requiring investors’ attorneys to conduct a 

careful inquiry into the factual and legal 

bases of their claims, including consideration of the recent statutory clarification 

that the servicer’s duty is to the entire pool 

of investors or beneficial owners. The attorneys also would have to obtain, as a prerequisite to filing suit, a certification from 

the new Office of Foreclosure Evaluation 

that the loan modifications in question were 

unreasonable or not permitted by restrictions on Real Estate Mortgage Investment 

Conduits under the Internal Revenue Code. 

This opinion would be admissible, but not 

conclusive. These administrative prerequisites should result in more uniformity, 

guidance and clarity regarding applicable 

legal standards and best practices for 

servicers, taking into account the public interest and current threat to our economy 

posed by barriers to reasonable modification. 

This is not complete immunity from suit. If 

the litigation threat continues to impede 

modifications, Congress may have to hold 

hearings to consider sufficient safeguards for 

servicers—taking into consideration the importance of having capital available for the 

mortgage market. 

In addition, although financial services industry groups have criticized arbitrary 

quotas in PSAs that limit the percentage of 

loans in a pool that may be modified, some 

PSAs do contain such quotas. These quotas 

may have seemed reasonable before the 

housing market crashed, but they do not 

make sense now, are against public policy 

and, to the extent these quotas are less than 

25% of the total, they are rendered unenforceable by this bill. 

Finally, to ensure we have reliable data regarding mortgage loan modifications, the 

bill requires mortgage servicers to report detailed data to the Office of Foreclosure Evaluation. The bill also requires the Office to 

submit reports to Congress. This data will 

help the Office and Congress understand 

whether voluntary efforts are sufficient, and 

what specific barriers there may be to caseby-case loan modifications, including specific provisions in pooling and service agreements that may be impeding reasonable 

steps to avoid foreclosures. 

In the end, case-by-case loan modifications 

may not be sufficient to appreciably slow the 

rate of foreclosures, in which case the government may have to consider other options. 

In that regard, I believe the proposal made 

recently by Sheila Bair, the Chairman of the 

FDIC, deserves close consideration. Ms. 

Bair’s proposal is based on the FDIC’s real 

world experience with 5000 troubled mortgages at IndyMac Bank, which the FDIC recently took over. Under the proposal, delinquent homeowners would have their mortgage payments reduced to as low as 31 percent of their monthly income. The modifications would be based on interest rate reductions, extension of the term of the mortgage, 

and principal forbearance—in that order. The 

same protocol would be applied to all delinquent mortgages, rather than having a caseby-case assessment of each mortgage. The 

Bair proposal may have the advantage of enabling rapid modification of large numbers 

of mortgages, stemming the tide of foreclosures. If a modified loan defaults later, 

the government would share up to half of the 

losses. The proposal would be funded under 

the $700 billion financial rescue package. I 

spoke to Ms. Bair last week, and she estimates her proposal could reach up to 2.2 million mortgages and enable 1.5 million homeowners to keep their homes. If effective, 

across-the-board rather than case-by-case 

modifications may be necessary. 

In the meantime, the Foreclosure Diversion and Mortgage Loan Modification Act of 

2008 will encourage servicers to engage in 

greater numbers of case-by-case mortgage 

modifications. This should be a goal those on 

both sides of the aisle can agree to. I urge 

my colleagues to support it. 

By Mr. REID: 

S. 3688. A bill to provide for additional emergency unemployment compensation, to amend the Emergency 

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to 

authorize loans to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers, and 

for other purposes; read the first time. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 

be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be placed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

S. 3688 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

TITLE I—UNEMPLOYMENT 

COMPENSATION 

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008’’. 

SEC. 102. ADDITIONAL FIRST-TIER BENEFITS. 

Section 4002(b)(1) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is 

amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘50’’ 

and inserting ‘‘80’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘13’’ 

and inserting ‘‘20’’. 

SEC. 103. SECOND-TIER BENEFITS. 

Section 4002 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) SPECIAL RULE.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If, at the time that the 

amount established in an individual’s account under subsection (b)(1) is exhausted or 

at any time thereafter, such individual’s 

State is in an extended benefit period (as determined under paragraph (2)), such account 

shall be augmented by an amount equal to 

the lesser of— 

‘‘(A) 50 percent of the total amount of regular compensation (including dependents’ allowances) payable to the individual during 

the individual’s benefit year under the State 

law, or 

‘‘(B) 13 times the individual’s average 

weekly benefit amount (as determined under 

subsection (b)(2)) for the benefit year. 

‘‘(2) EXTENDED BENEFIT PERIOD.—For purposes of paragraph (1), a State shall be considered to be in an extended benefit period, 

as of any given time, if— 

‘‘(A) such a period is then in effect for such 

State under the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970; 

‘‘(B) such a period would then be in effect 

for such State under such Act if section 

203(d) of such Act— 

‘‘(i) were applied by substituting ‘4’ for ‘5’ 

each place it appears; and 

‘‘(ii) did not include the requirement under 

paragraph (1)(A) thereof; or 

‘‘(C) such a period would then be in effect 

for such State under such Act if— 

‘‘(i) section 203(f) of such Act were applied 

to such State (regardless of whether the 

State by law had provided for such application); and 

‘‘(ii) such section 203(f)— 

‘‘(I) were applied by substituting ‘6.0’ for 

‘6.5’ in paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof; and 

‘‘(II) did not include the requirement under 

paragraph (1)(A)(ii) thereof. 

‘‘(3) LIMITATION.—The account of an individual may be augmented not more than 

once under this subsection.’’. 

SEC. 104. PHASEOUT PROVISIONS. 

Section 4007(b) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is 

amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘paragraph 

(2),’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraphs (2) and (3),’’; 

and 

(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting 

the following: 

mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY