As Prepared For Delivery:

The course it has followed almost guarantees that it will be filled with the worst kind of gimmickry. And it is. The Senate may be the world’s greatest deliberative body, but this bill is anything but the product of deliberation. It is a jumble of disjointed ideas, unlikely to solve the crisis at hand, and it’s unpopular.

It turns out that the American people don’t like the idea of bailing out banks and their neighbors who gambled on home prices. The voters understand what is going on in Washington, better than we do.

What is more, several of the complicated tax provisions in this bill never benefitted from a full review by the Senate Finance Committee. Normally, this is a critical part of the Senate’s deliberation.

One example of a provision that could use more review is the new deduction for state property taxes. While it may be well intended, this new provision will complicate life for millions of American homeowners who will have to calculate their taxes in twice to find out which method results in lower taxes. This complicates tax filing, and any Senator who has said the tax code is too complicated should be ashamed to vote for this.

Because the Senate has not had any serious review of this provision, you also may not know that this provision also allocates more of the nation’s tax burden to residents of states that impose an income tax, such as Kentucky.

The states with the highest income taxes face the biggest relative tax increase, and this is illustrated in the chart that supporters of the provision hastily distributed. For example, the chart shows that 59 percent of Texan home owners, but only 23 percent of Maryland residents will benefit.

The Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee on which I serve is not even managing this bill, even though tax provisions account for about two-thirds of its cost. This is hard to explain.

Another provision that deserves far more scrutiny is the $4 billion in community development block grants that will be allocated to state and local governments to buy foreclosed properties. To begin with, this program is very poorly managed.

The Wall Street Journal called it among the worst-run programs in Washington, and there is a lot of competition for that title.

The White House called the program "ineffective" just two months ago, and when the HUD Inspector General testified before Congress in 2006, he explained that his agency had recently indicted 159 individuals and recovered $120 million of misappropriated funds. GAO also has criticized the targeting of grant recipients, which is a polite way of saying that the money is going to those with political connections and influence in local government. Adding money to this program is risky at best.

Let’s not have any illusions. This extraordinarily unwise grant of taxpayer money is really just a bailout for banks in disguise. It goes to states, but the ultimate beneficiaries will be banks that made risky loans.

Instead of selling foreclosed properties on the open market, these banks will have the luxury of selling to local officials with whom they may already have a relationship. These officials will be buying properties not with their own funds, but with "O.P.M." O.P.M. stands for "other people’s money." And, in this case, the O.P.M. comes from you and me, the American taxpayer, and millions of unborn Americans that we are saddling with even more debt.

Another provision that could benefit from more thoughtful deliberation is the $100 million of spending on counseling. Yes, counseling is a good idea before a homeowner signs a loan they can’t afford, but afterwards, their real problem is financial. It’s too late for counseling.

We also don’t know all that much about the non-profit groups that will get the money. Are some of these groups funded mostly by credit card companies? If so they will have a clear conflict of interest. Maybe they will actually advise people to abandon their homes to foreclosure in order to pay credit card debt. That would make the foreclosure situation worse, not better.

One thing is certain, no amount of counseling is going to put money in homeowners pockets that they don’t have. But my amendment that I have tried to get a vote on would do so, and that’s why I think it’s appropriate to redirect these public funds towards helping homeowners with the cost of refinancing.

If we are going to give away $4.1 billion in this bill, lets give it back to taxpayers and do so in a way that encourages homeowners to restructure their mortgages and keep them out of bankruptcy and foreclosure.

My amendment would do this. It would use the $4 billion in funding this bill uses to bail out banks and give it back to taxpayers while simplifying the tax code as well.

The Joint Committee on Taxation says that this amendment would be revenue neutral over 10 years. It is entirely paid for within the four corners of this legislation.

This change in the tax law that my amendment contains is strongly supported by the Mortgage Bankers Association, because it would get to the heart of the housing crisis.

Let me explain.

Often when people are searching for a home, they are more concerned about qualifying for financing than getting the best possible terms on that loan.

Millions of homeowners have taken out an adjustable rate mortgage that has low interest rates for a short periods of time, often 1, 2, or 3 years. These loans adjust to a much higher rate after the initial period. The assumption of many homeowners has been that they can refinance, later, into a conventional fixed-rate loan for 30 years. But, the tax code creates an obstacle to this.

According to Bank of America research published in the Wall Street Journal, more than $510 billion worth of adjustable rate mortgages - - including prime and subprime loans - - will reach the end of their fixed rate period before December of this year.

For the holders of these loans, the options are stark: refinance or default. It is unlikely that many of them can long afford the high interest rates on these mortgages after the fixed rate periods expire.

Unfortunately, our tax law has this exactly backwards. It encourages home owners to spend lavishly on a first-time financing, but it exacts a penalty when homeowners find they are living beyond their means and need to refinance.

My amendment would change this. It would allow homeowners to currently deduct the mortgage interest points that lenders typically charge in connection with a home mortgage refinancing.

For example, under my amendment, if a homeowner has a $200,000 adjustable rate mortgage and refinances into a 30-year fixed mortgage, paying 1% in points, the homeowner would have a $2,000 tax deduction for home mortgage interest paid.

Under present law, the homeowner would only be allowed to deduct $66. There’s no good reason to allow the deduction for home-purchase mortgages and to deny it for those who need to refinance.

My amendment would remove a significant financial obstacle to refinancing that would allow struggling borrowers to keep their homes. It would help americans get out of first mortgages that many have entered into without being able to shop for the best possible mortgage. Unlike some of the other provisions in this bill, it truly would help prevent foreclosures.

I urge you to vote for my amendment.