Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005

Mr. President, as the majority leader stated a moment ago, I also thank Senators Stevens and Inouye, who worked here very late last night as we got to the end of the debate on the Defense bill. Of course, under the rules we have established, we could speak on that bill for up to 30 hours. Those 30 hours will be coming to an end at 9:15 under the rules of cloture.

Throughout the 30 hours as we debate this very important bill which funds our military men and women and continues their operations moving forward and helps to try to find a solution in Iraq and allocates resources to keep our military strong, we also have been talking a great deal about keeping strong right here at home, particularly keeping strong in the areas that need strength and support right now. That area, of course, is the gulf coast of our Nation, the great energy coast, the great trade coast, the great commerce coast. There are so many important parts of that coast, but the largest city, of course, in the middle of that coast is New Orleans, my hometown.

We have spent a lot of time this week talking about how we can get the help we have promised to this region, to all the people of this region who have suffered. The poor have been crushed, the middle class are staggering, and even wealthy individuals with substantial businesses wake up every morning in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama thinking, How are we going to get through this day to keep our business open, our employees employed, and take care of the community we have served so proudly for so long?

It is very hard to describe the magnitude of the destruction. Nothing anyone has seen on television captures it. I have watched a lot of television--not as much as I would like because we are busy doing other things, but I have seen a lot of what has come over on the television from CNN, from FOX, from MSNBC, I have listened to NPR, and I have tried to listen to the television. I have been there so many times and seen so much myself, I keep thinking I wish there were some way I could take a bigger camera or make a 4-hour movie to describe to this Nation the depth of the destruction along the gulf coast. Unfortunately, in situations such as this we cannot make a movie quickly. There will be many movies made and many books written. We cannot make one, though, in the next few days or weeks.

I was very fortunate to find the National Geographic special edition to describe our situation as my colleague, Senator Vitter, and I asked for help, more direct help, more immediate help, real help that we need to begin this long, complicated, difficult, and challenging rebuilding effort. I was very fortunate to find this National Geographic issue. We have sent copies to all of our colleagues. I thank the National Geographic again and mention that I just found out this morning that all of the proceeds from the sale of this special edition National Geographic entitled ``Katrina, Why It Became A Man-made Disaster, Where It Can Happen Next,'' all the proceeds are going to the victims of Katrina--and Rita because that storm came after Katrina hit--and will go to help the victims along the gulf coast from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, to Alabama. We so appreciate that effort.

In searching for ways I could describe the depth of the destruction, there are some pictures in National Geographic that give people some idea of what we are faced with. Again, these pictures cannot quite tell the story. While this looks like blocks and blocks along the gulf coast, this is probably the city of Waveland. It could be parts of Biloxi. It could be parts of Pass Christian. I am not exactly sure where, but it is somewhere along Mississippi. You can tell how pretty their beach is. We have a different kind of coastline in Louisiana.

The reason I have been spending so much time on this Defense bill talking about this issue is this is our war. This is our Baghdad. This is a picture of parts of New Orleans with water as far as the eye can see. There is another picture that shows the city in the background and the depths of flood around it. This picture is a graveyard in New Orleans. Of course, we bury our dead above ground because there is so much water we cannot even dig a few feet down to bury them. This picture is one of our graveyards.

Looking through the National Geographic, when you see the pictures of destruction, I don't know if the camera can see the depths of the destruction, the industrial canal, the Lower 9th Ward in New Orleans. These pictures could be shown from the western side of our State to the eastern side of our State, to New Orleans, to the gulf coast of Mississippi, into some parts of Alabama, and into some parts of Texas. Two million people have been displaced and are searching for high ground, for stability, for housing, for jobs. From the cities they fled, from communities they fled, in boats a lot like this. They are searching for housing, apartments, jobs, safety. Most important, what they need is help, real help--not promises, not photo-ops, but real, serious help.

Let me show some other pictures of people who need help. This is a gentleman in Lafitte. I would say he needs a little help. He may be interested in some tax breaks that people have offered around here. I don't know at this exact moment what tax breaks might help him, but a fireman would be good or someone who could help drain out some of the water--maybe one of his employees from Lafitte, which does not have a tax base, who is about ready to go out of business, maybe someone who works for the little town of Lafitte that was created by Mayor Tim Kerner's father, the father of Lafitte who helped create this town. I actually went to his funeral last week. He served with my father. When he was mayor of Lafitte, my father was mayor of New Orleans. We went to his funeral to pay respects to the family. His son now is mayor of Lafitte. I don't know how long he will be mayor because Lafitte does not have a tax base to stay in business. This man used to live in Lafitte. If this town folds because we cannot get a loan to them, that is all they have. I don't know where he goes, but he is looking for help.

This is a woman--I am sorry I don't know her name, but there is a picture and description of her in the magazine. This woman looks pretty self-reliant to me. She obviously looks troubled and anxious. She is doing what she can to carry her two children to safety. People all over the gulf coast did this, basically by themselves, with limited support. A lot has been said about people not helping people, but David Johnson, who was unable to work, is carried from his home in eastern New Orleans by Mickey Monceaux. The authorities say the water is leveling off as Lake Pontchartrain empties in the gulf. We have had people helping each other during this time, being as self-reliant as possible.

Here is another picture. National guardsman Jon Eric Miletello comforts his grandmother. This young man probably--because most of the National Guard in Louisiana have pulled triple and double duty in Iraq--probably just got back from Iraq. You can see how much he loves his grandmother, the way he is looking at her to help her get out of the floodwater.

I don't know what city she lives in, but I can promise you that National Guard specialist would appreciate it if this Congress could take a billion dollars of the $43 billion that is sitting in a bank account going nowhere, doing nothing, and lend it to the cities and the towns and communities on the gulf coast to help his grandmother figure out what she might do in the next few weeks and months and years. We are not certain about what his grandmother's future is, but we would like some time to figure it out.

I know a lot of people have died in Iraq. I have had 42 soldiers die in Iraq. Our elected officials have gone to as many funerals as we can possibly go to. We have written as many letters to their families, and called them. We have had about 942 people die from this disaster.

Our challenge right here at home--and not to underestimate in any way the lives that have been given to protect this country. We want to get our soldiers home and protect them. That is why we are passing this bill, and that is why I am not holding this bill. I can't hold this bill because we have 30 hours of debate, but I have taken time through this 30 hours to talk about the war right here at home.

``Here lies Vera. God help us.'' In New Orleans, as people were dying with no place to go, the neighbors built makeshift coffins. This one could still be there. It was there when a National Geographic photographer took it maybe a week or two ago. It could still be there in a neighborhood in New Orleans. Many of the bodies that are yet unidentified are in the prison at St. Gabriel. That awesome and gruesome situation is being worked out as I speak.

In the midst of all of this tragedy and destruction of cities and towns and high water and inadequate FEMA response, my colleague and I came to the floor and have been working through the week in meetings and letter exchanges and telephone calls, working with Senators, trying to work with the House, trying to work with the administration to say: OK, we know things aren't working as well as they could. What can we do to try to fix it?

We came up with a suggestion. Let's take a billion dollars from the $43 billion that FEMA has sitting there that has already been allocated and move it to an already established loan program to give the cities and counties and sheriffs and law enforcement the help they need for 3 months, just 3 months,

while we go on vacation again. Just give them 3 months. Lend them some money to keep their lights on, to keep their cities and their communities and the hospitals open until we can figure out a long-range plan.

We may have to refinance some debt. We may have to close areas down permanently. We hope not, but maybe we will have to. We are going to have to do a lot of things we never thought we would have to--such as build a good levee system. We will have to do that. So we came to ask for a loan under the program that has been established since 1972.

We have basically been told--even after working through the night, after offering a variety of different compromises--I am sorry, to the Louisiana delegation; I am sorry, to the Mississippi delegation; I am sorry, to the Alabama and Texas delegation, but the only way that we will lend you the money is if you pay it back under different terms than anyone has before and that anyone will be asked to do in the future.

With 45 minutes left in the debate, still the only way that we can get 3 months of operating expenses, under a program that already exists, with money that we have already allocated that is sitting in a bank account doing nothing, is to agree to tight-fisted lending policies that have never been applied to anyone else in America and, according to the draft that I saw last night at 2 o'clock in the morning, will not be applied to anyone in the future. But for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas, the Gulf Coast States--and not all of Alabama but just the regions hit by the storm--for those counties, the only way you all on the gulf coast can get the money is under a new, tight-fisted, basically what one could describe as higher interest rate loans because there is no way under any circumstance, according to the draft I have seen, no matter how dire your situation, that you could ever be given any reprieve whatsoever to not have to pay the whole thing back.

Some people have classified this latest offer from the Republican leadership as a compromise. A compromise is an effort to do the best you can for people while preserving some important principle. This is no compromise; this is an agreement between the rightwing and the far rightwing, people who are holding the power and are not willing to use it on behalf of people who need help. The gulf coast of Louisiana has been hit by the worst hurricane in the history of our country. Then we were hit by a disastrous break in a levee system that was not supported, not built to standard, and not invested in by a nation, and in some measure by our own selves, but in large measure by a nation that refused to recognize the importance of this levee system, not just for the people of Louisiana and the southern part of Mississippi but a levee system to continue to bring trade and commerce and jobs and wealth to a nation that needs and was actually built on the banks of the mighty Mississippi River.

Despite decades of speeches from members of our delegation about the importance of investing in levees and even agreeing to take some of our own revenues generated off of our coast to invest in hurricane protection and levee protection, we were in large measure left to fend for ourselves in a way that while the Federal Government contributed money, those moneys kept getting less and less relative to other spending and other priorities in Congress, until we were left with a second-rate levee system. Now we have a major disaster on our hands.

It is extremely important that the people of our country know that there is a way that we can rebuild this region; that there is a way that we can pull together to do it. When we make suggestions as simple as getting $1 billion to go through a loan program that is already established with money that has already been appropriated, when we are told, that is too much to ask, we can't do that, we can't afford to do it because the people of the gulf coast just have to understand that you have to take this on terms and conditions that no one has been asked to before and no one will be asked to after, is a hard thing for this Senator to accept.

A historian once described New Orleans as an inevitable city in an impossible location. That pretty much captures where we are today. We are having an inevitable debate that places the people of Louisiana and the gulf coast in an impossible situation. We are asking for a 3-month loan to keep our cities and communities operating, for our sheriffs, for police, for firefighters, for critical city workers, for some of our hospitals that, despite the worst storm in the world, stayed open, kept their lights on, kept serving people, and are sustaining a region of this country that is vital for the future of the Nation. We ask for a loan, and we get nothing but empty promises and tight-fisted lending policies when we need help.

We have been stuck by the worst natural disaster. We now have a third-rate FEMA operating, a second-class levee system, and now, to pour salt on the wound, a tight-fisted lending policy applied only to us. I am asked, basically: Senator, take it or leave it. That is a hard question to ask any Senator--take it or leave it. That is why I have taken all of these 30 hours to consider what our options are, to try to bring our case to the American people, to ask the country: Is this fair? I don't believe it is, but life isn't fair.

Our job is to try to make it more fair. That is why I am here. I don't know, I hope that is why everybody else is here. But that is why I am here. I would hope that my colleagues would think, particularly in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, that that is why we are here.

Talking about Senators, I thank the Senators who worked through the night trying to come up with a real compromise, a compromise with dignity, a compromise with some hope, a compromise that would give our cities some hope that somebody in Washington is listening. The junior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, who has no immediate interest other than he was a former Governor, a former House Member, he spent time on my and Senator Vitter's behalf on the House side trying to talk to the leaders of the Republican Appropriations Committee to say: Why are you asking for new terms for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas when you have given these terms before to others?

We know we are asking for the cap to be raised. The cap has been raised before. There is a $5 million loan cap on a program where our cities, not only New Orleans, which is the largest, but the parishes of Jefferson and St. Tammany and St. Bernard and Plaqueman--their monthly operating budget in the city of New Orleans is $20 million. So ask me what borrowing $5 million would help? A week? That is what we would be able to borrow, 1 week?

So we have asked for the loan cap to be raised so the cities can borrow some money, and the parishes and the sheriffs, which are not included specifically in the language of the ``compromise'' that has been offered, they are not specifically included. It has been inferred that our sheriffs are included. But our sheriffs are elected. They are different from the rest of the country. They perform a tremendous service to our State and to our parishes. They were the ones who carried people on their backs to safety. They were the ones who helped keep law and order. They didn't do everything perfectly, but they did the best they could under a very difficult circumstance. They are not even specifically in the compromise. If we can't keep law enforcement operating, if we can't keep our lights on, if we can't keep some running water in what pipes we have left, if we can't keep the mayors and the parish councils at work having meetings, turning on city hall, trying to mop out their city halls, could anybody here tell me how we begin to rebuild a region without basic, essential community services? I don't know.

I know the private sector can do a great deal. But you know what the private sector people coming into my office tell me, whether they are big business or small: Senator, we need lights. We need water. And, Senator, please tell them to stop sending us bottled water; I need for the water to go on in my business because my employees want to come back to work, but I can't bring them back to work without water. If we lay off the sewage and water board and the people who work to turn on the water, how in the heck are we going to get water and electricity on? If you are trying to give a

tax credit to a small business or big business, I don't think it is going to work very well.

The Democratic leader, Senator Reid, worked through the night. The junior Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, worked through the night. Senator Barack Obama came down here at 1:30 in the morning and asked if there was something he could do. Senator Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas, who has been a great voice for us, although her State was not directly impacted, has come to the floor many times this week to say the 75,000 citizens who were evacuated to Arkansas would be well cared for and well taken care of but has asked for some help with their health care system as Arkansas struggles to provide health care services to these individuals, and they have been turned down time after time.

I have a word for the people of Louisiana. The men and women I mentioned are your true friends as Senator Vitter, my colleague from Louisiana, and I have worked together to try to forge the best possible arrangement we could make for the people of our State. Without a bit of self-interest, they have fought for you. They have searched throughout the night for a true compromise.

I am proud to serve with these colleagues of mine because they do not believe the people of Louisiana should have to trade their dignity for cash. But that is basically what we are being asked to do, in the opinion of this Senator. In other words, Senator, you can have the loan for the people of your State, but you are going to take it under a tightfisted policy that has never been applied before to anyone and, by the way, according to the script that we are going to give you, it won't be applied to anyone in the future, but only for you--for Louisiana, for Mississippi, for Alabama, for the poor, for the middle income, and for the rich. Only for you all in the South is this going to be applied. Take it or leave it.

I hope the people of Louisiana, whom I have proudly represented for so long, can understand why I spent the evening here and why I am going to continue to stay at this desk as often as I can in between trips home visiting with local elected leaders trying to help organize meetings, supporting all the local officials--Democrats and Republicans, Black and White, urban and suburban, rich and poor citizens to try to help us rebuild a State that is not only a State we love, but a region that the country needs, even though the country refuses to understand how valuable we are to them.

I think people can understand why the situation is as critical as some of us are trying to show. The devastation is enormous. It is unprecedented. Our options are limited. FEMA is not working. The Red Cross is getting very mixed reviews, and I say that with the greatest respect for a very great organization. But we are getting very mixed reviews about the Red Cross. We have 50,000 people in shelters with nowhere to go, no housing available even if you presented vouchers. I am not saying we do not need them, but it is not an option that is working well because our cities are so full of people who have left the south of our State to find shelter, to find jobs, to find stability, and to find their families because the old voucher program is not working very well.

We have people in hotels. That causes problems with the business community because when they have conferences or visitors, they cannot get their own executives into the hotels to do business in the city.

I have talked a lot about New Orleans. I have talked a lot about Lafitte, Grand Isle, Plackman, St. Tammany, and Calcasieu, but let me, for a minute, talk about Baton Rouge, our capital city, and Lafayette, the heart of the Cajun culture in our State, and Monroe, the home of my husband and our home for 6 years, and Shreveport. These are our other major cities that sit to the north in our State. These cities were struggling to pay their bills to make things work for their communities, some of them growing quite fast and doing quite well but, as we know, when counties and parishes grow, their school systems are strained and their transportation systems are strained.

They were managing just like we all manage and do the best we can. And then overnight, the city of Baton Rouge, under the great leadership of Kip Holden and a great council, ended up getting 150,000 new citizens in 1 week--150,000 new citizens in a city of 350,000. They might need to borrow a little money. When you try to move in Baton Rouge from one part of the city to the next, the traffic is back to back. Lafayette is the same way.

So I do not want the people of my State to think I am not aware that there are not impacts everywhere. Again, this is a program that has existed for the benefit of everybody in this country, and we have asked to take $1 billion from FEMA and move it--not new money, but money that is sitting in FEMA's bank account that they cannot spend, and give it in loans under the same terms and conditions as other States to which it has been given, and we are told ``no.''

From the authorization of this loan program in 1974 through December 31, the Federal Government disbursed nearly $100 million in 42 loans. Of that amount, millions have been repaid, some of it has been canceled, 7 were fully canceled, 3 were partially canceled, and 29 remain outstanding, of which one has been partially canceled.

This is a program that has worked for everybody in every disaster-- earthquakes, hurricanes--but when the people of the gulf coast ask for it under the leadership of the tightfisted House of Representatives, the only way we can get the loans is under new terms at basically a higher interest rate. The higher interest rate is reflected in the fact that there will be no forgiveness, under any terms, whatsoever written into the law.

It is not available to sheriffs, and it is not available to hospitals--not explicitly available to law enforcement. You might interpret it, someone could make the argument, but we have read the proposed language, and it is not in the bill.

Some people have said this is a way to help law enforcement. They are not in the draft I have seen. We tried to put them in and that was rejected.

Not at this minute, but I will in just a second. I will be happy to yield in a moment.

So we have worked through the night, Mr. President, trying to come up with some available options for the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas as they seek to work through a very complicated and difficult situation to try to pull efforts together to make loans available for 3 months.

I have shown this picture throughout the week. That is why, as I close over the next few minutes, I would like to show it again. You can find this picture in the National Geographic, ``A World Upside Down.'' This is Long Beach, MS, a week after Katrina hit. This is Mrs. Leona Watts. The National Geographic says that her home ``rests amid the bones of the home where she has lived for 61 years.''

The National Geographic goes on to say:

Many Mississippians felt abandoned in the days after the

storm as national attention--and relief efforts--seemed

locked on New Orleans.

I have asked throughout the week if the city of Long Beach or the cities in Louisiana can get some infusion of cash to help them go through. I don't know what kind of tax credits and other possibilities could help here, at least not in the next few weeks or few months. I am confident that targeted strategic tax cuts can help to rebuild this city.

I am almost certain that in Mississippi--I am not completely certain--that the State could actually borrow money to help this situation. But I do know one thing because I was State treasurer of Louisiana for 8 years: Our State is prohibited from borrowing money for operating expenses because our constitution states that it is fiscally irresponsible because, under normal circumstances, it is irresponsible to borrow money for operating expenses if you are a State. You should borrow money to invest in ports, roads, and infrastructure, not to maintain a lifestyle. Every family knows that. So in Louisiana we have not allowed it for quite some time.

So if I have stood on the floor a little longer for some people and tempers have gotten a little short, I have to stand here to try to explain that while

our State might be in a position to borrow money, although they got a report last week that they are $1 billion short in their own revenue, but even if they were not $1 billion short, the Constitution of Louisiana does not allow the State to borrow money.

The State's largest city is laying off thousands of workers by the day. In the city that we keep saying we are going to stand up for, people are being laid off, the city that people still visit for photo ops to say, We are with you, we are not abandoning you, we are there.

My colleague and I come here to ask for $1 billion out of $43 billion to give a loan for 3 months for police, fire, law enforcement, to get the lights on and to get the water through the faucets. And we are told: Sorry, the only way that we will give you that money, the only way we will lend you that money is under new policies designed especially for you that no one in the past and no one in the future has to accept. But you, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, have to take it or leave it.

So through the night, we offered one compromise after another--a real compromise.

Again, the Senator from Michigan is in the Chamber. He helped through the night. Senator Reid was particularly supportive, and I have said thank you to Senator Stevens who is not now on the floor but will be here. He was quite patient through a difficult night. This is a difficult bill.

We have had to take some time, as we have gotten it at the end of the debate on defense, to talk about this. It was our only option. We said just lend us the $1 billion under the same old and good and steady and traditional programs. That was not accepted.

We have said if the Senate would come together and act, my colleague and I have made it clear that we want the money to be for sheriffs, for several of our hospitals that are in a desperate situation, to allow the cities and parishes to borrow money, and we would be willing, or I would be willing, to send two bills over to the House with Senator Vitter and Senator Frist's name on both of those bills so the Senate could go on record saying we are ready to act. And if the House wants to pass either one of these, they can pass one and send it to the President's desk and then they can decide whether we should be treated the same or treated differently. And I would live with that. I have made my point clear, I believe, and I have made myself clear in representing the State. We should be treated the same way. But if the House of Representatives decides that we should be treated a different way, if the President of the United States wants to explain why we should be treated differently, I would be happy to send two bills over and let the House of Representatives, under the control of the Republican leadership, decide what they want to do. But that was not acceptable.

So I have stayed here through the night working on as many suggestions as Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, and my colleagues for whom I have a great deal of respect, suggested, and yet at this hour, a few minutes before the 9:15 vote, the only ``compromise'' we have is for the people of the gulf coast to take it or leave it--under different terms than have ever been asked by anybody before and will not be asked of anybody in the future.

Last night when I pressed this issue of whether we would be treated the same way, we were told that we could be and we would be. But when we read the bill, the text, it says in added language on page 2--it is a very short bill, so I want to read it for the Record. This is the new provision that has been offered to us:

Provided further, notwithstanding section 417(c)(1) of the

Stafford Act, such loans may not be canceled.

. . . notwithstanding section 417(c)(1) of the Stafford

Act, such loans may not be canceled.

That language has never been in any act, and before anybody tries to say, well, we are lifting the cap, the cap has been lifted before. Loans have been extended. Never has this language been put in. But this is the Republican leader's tight-fisted money policy that says ``such loans may not be canceled.''

So the people of my State are in a pretty tough situation--and the people of the gulf coast. We have had a category 5 storm, the breaking of a levy system, everything people have worked for, hoped for, dreamed of--destroyed.

The Federal Government sent us a third-rate FEMA, offered a second- rate levee system, and now a tight-fisted lending policy, and then criticized us for not being more self-reliant.

This woman lived in this house for 61 years. The reason I like to keep showing this picture is she looks a lot like my grandma. And because I know, because I know how self-reliant my grandmother was, I am just going to assume that she was a lot like my grandmother, Loretta Landrieu. My grandmother never graduated from eighth grade. She worked her whole life three jobs. She raised 2 boys and 19 grandchildren. She never asked the Government for any money. When she died, she had $19,000 in the bank. She gave each one of her grandchildren $1,000, and she bought us a little camp for $15,000 on Lake Pontchartrain. In 42 years, the 8 of us raised 37 children in that little camp, with no air- conditioning, and we had a great time. Then as we grew and the family grew and we got a little more prosperous, we put in air-conditioning and we expanded it.

But this is what my grandmother, if she were still alive, this is probably what she would be looking at right now. And I have to listen to people in Washington, the power in Washington, the Republican power from the White House, to this Senate, to the House, tell me that people in the gulf coast area need to be more self-reliant. This woman has lived in this house for 61 years. She has probably paid the mortgage. She has probably raised children, worked in her church, never been late for her taxes, just like my grandmother was--every Sunday morning of her life in church. The Catholic Church that she went to doesn't exist anymore. It was washed away in the 29 feet of water that came over Slidell, LA. And I have to listen to the Republican leadership tell me: Just rely on faith-based institutions and private sector involvement.

Our faith-based institutions have done great work. I am so grateful for the many missionaries and churches and synagogues that have come to help. The church in this neighborhood is gone. Maybe another church from Ohio will come down, or Michigan, but this lady's church is gone. Our churches are gone. Our synagogues are gone. And our businesses that are always there to help, that have been helping, that have been keeping people on their payrolls when they had no money coming in the front door, keeping their employees on the payroll, putting up trailers, putting up tents so their employees could come and sleep in the parking lots so they could work in the offices, we are not self- reliant enough.

So this Senator comes to ask for $1 billion to lend to the communities such as this, and I am told: Sorry, Senator, we can't loan you the money the way we have lent it to everyone for the last 30 years. And by the way, when we do it again in the future, we are going to lend it to everybody under the old program, but just for you we have a special deal. Just for you all we have a special deal.

Here is another man who needs help, and for him we have a special deal--the Republican leadership. We lent money to everybody in America since 1974 under certain terms, but for you, you get a special deal. For this lady walking out of the Superdome--I think this is the Hyatt in New Orleans; I think this is where this is--she is doing the best she can. Obviously, she only has two arms and she has two babies and she is carrying them both--with one blanket, a bottle, and a bottle of water for two babies. No store open, and she comes here to ask for help, and I am told by the Republican leadership in power: Sorry, we are going to lend you the money but under different circumstances.

How much time do I have remaining?

How much time do I have remaining, please?

I thank the Chair.

This is the National Guard, Jon Eric Miletello. He has probably pulled double duty in Iraq because our National Guard has been there, trying to stand up Iraq, standing up water systems in Iraq, putting down sewer systems in Iraq, so he comes home and this is what he finds: his grandmother in 5 feet of water. And when we come here to ask for a loan for this town to help

them out just for 3 months, we have to get a different deal.

So in the last 3 minutes I am going to ask the Senate, since they said that they would do this, they want to help, to send this over to the House. Let the House make the decision. Let the House leadership make the decision whether they want to lend us the money under the traditional program or give us yet a special deal for people of the gulf coast.

So I am prepared to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1855, and for that bill to be read and passed. This bill would allow the Stafford Act money to be given under the same terms and conditions as it was to everyone else.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate would send the bill over to the House to say that such loans may only be canceled with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, so that they could be canceled but only Management and Budget could make that decision.

Mr. President, those are the best ideas we have had. They are obviously not enough. I thank my colleagues for their patience. I understand it has been a difficult time, but this is a difficult situation, and I know that we have held everybody here a day longer than they thought they would be here. We thought we would get out of here about 10 o'clock last night, or 11. I thank Senator Stevens for his patience. He has been very patient, and Senator Inouye, as they have managed this bill. I thank Senator Frist for the hours of discussions that he has had, but I will say in closing that when you have power, Mr. President, I believe that we should use it in the wisest and best way. I don't think the work we are doing here is the wisest and the best. It may be the best we can do, but this Senator does not think it is what we should do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the pending measure, H.R. 2863, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, will provide our men and women in uniform with the equipment, benefits, and programs they need to carry out their critical missions at home and overseas. Having said that, I must again voice my dismay at the Senate's inability to authorize these appropriations. Critical programs and benefits have not been authorized. The authorizers layout the priorities, and the appropriators fund. Unfortunately, this time honored practice is not being upheld.

As I look over the bill, I see that, as reported in the Senate, it trims $7 billion from the administration request, leaving that amount available for nondefense appropriations. I am pleased that the cuts are reductions for programs that were underexecuted in the last fiscal year. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, the bill also includes a large number of unauthorized and unrequested provisions. I hope that the sponsors will carefully reconsider these damaging provisions as the bill works its way through the legislative process. While I appreciate the hard work and the laudable intentions of the members of the Committee, we must all be alarmed at these appropriations earmarks. They limit the ability of our Defense Department to expend needed resources according to its funding priorities.

I have already spoken at length during debate on this bill, so I will not take up much more of the Senate's time again. I am pleased that the Senate recognizes the importance of America's greatest strength, the acknowledgment that we are different and better than our enemies. We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise would undermine both our security and our greatness as a Nation. The Senate spoke with a strong voice this week, and I urge the conferees to include the detention-related amendment in the conference report that will be sent to the President.

With Americans deployed across the globe fighting terror, deployed at home in recovery of Hurricane Katrina, and with looming budget deficits, the Senate faces some tough choices. We must maintain our fiscal responsibility while providing for our military needs. The cost of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq demand a new fiscal sanity in our appropriations bills. A half-a-trillion dollar budget deficit means we simply cannot afford business as usual. We simply cannot continue the binge of pork barrel spending that consumes an ever growing proportion of our federal budget. While the cost of an individual project may get lost in the fine print of lengthy bills, together, they all do real damage. Collectively, these earmarks represent a significant burden to American taxpayers.

Some of the more egregious examples of earmarks, either in the bill or in the accompanying report, include:

The bill includes language to provide $10 million for the Joint Interagency Training Center-East and the affiliated Center for National Response at the Memorial Tunnel in West Virginia.

The bill includes language to provide $3.5 million above the President's budget request to procure aircraft and aviation equipment for the Civil Air Patrol.

The bill includes language to provide $19,000 above the President's budget request to procure vehicles for the Civil Air Patrol.

The bill includes language to provide $3 million to support the National Museum of the United States Army at Fort Belvoir, VA.

The bill includes language to provide $2 million for the installation, repair, and maintenance of an on-base and adjacent off- base wastewater/treatment facility at Naval Computer Telecommunications Area Master Station, NCTAMS, in Hawaii.

The bill includes language to prohibit the procurement of foreign ball and roller bearings. This ``Buy America'' restriction with regard to the procurement of ball and roller bearings may cost the taxpayers more than purchasing ball and roller bearings from a foreign source.

The bill includes language to direct the Secretary of the Army to fully plan, budget, program finance the Non-Line of Sight Future Force cannon and re-supply vehicle program, NLOS-C, in order to field this system in fiscal year 2010. Furthermore, the bill language directs that if the plan to field the Future Combat System, FCS, in fiscal year 2010 is delayed then it directs the Secretary of the Army to develop the NLOS-C independent of the broader FCS development timeline to achieve fielding by fiscal year 2010. Moreover, the bill directs the Army to deliver 8 combat operational pre-production NLOS-C systems by the end of calendar year 2008, in addition to those systems necessary for developmental and operational testing. Section 8103 to H.R. 2853 Separating the Non-line-of-sight cannon, NLOS-C, program from the Future Combat System, FCS, will increase costs and program risk because it invalidates one of the key underpinnings of the FCS program which is to have a family of systems based on equipment commonality. The original concept for the development of the manned ground vehicle was to design and produce a common chassis for all manned ground vehicles. Separating NLOS-C from FCS fundamentally changes this principle and further complicates the development of this already complex and yet critical Army weapons system. Furthermore, bisecting FCS will increase development and sustainment costs and negatively impact systems interoperability. The AirLand Subcommittee on the Senate Armed Services Committee is the appropriate subcommittee of jurisdiction in this matter. Although we had hearings on FCS in the subcommittee this year, we did not hear expert testimony in support of this specific provision. As a result, I intend to offer legislation to repeal this provision in the Defense Authorization bill at the appropriate time.

The bill includes language that authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to spend $32 million to make upgrades, repairs, and build additions to buildings and other types of infrastructure associated with military ranges in Alaska.

The bill includes language to provide $12.9 million in grant money and directs the Secretary of Defense to spend the money for the following: $850,000 to the Fort Des Moines Memorial Park and Education Center; $2 million to the American Civil War Center at Historic Tredegar; $3 million to the Museum of Flight, American Heroes Collection; $1 million to the National Guard Youth Foundation; $3 million to the United Services Organization; $2 million to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission; and $1 million to the Iraq Cultural Heritage Assistance Project.

Section 8062 of the General Provisions. The text states that, ``each contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the current fiscal year for construction or service performed in whole or in part in a State which is not contiguous with another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the national average rate of unemployment as determined by the Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous with another State, individuals who are residents of such State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills.'' I am not making this text up. Let's call a spade a spade. This provision directly protects the jobs of only Hawaiians and Alaskans.

And 2.2 million for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration. You don't need to have the exploration skills of Lewis and Clark to see that this is a path to higher deficits.

And $65 million for the Additional Procurement of F-15s. The Air Force has decided to procure the F-22 to replace the F-15. Yet this earmark keeps the F-15 production line open, so I question the necessity of the F-22 procurement in the numbers of aircraft and at the funding levels requested by the Air Force. Apparently we just decided to pay for both.

And $2 million for the Air Battle Captain Program at the University of North Dakota. This provision sends students from West Point to North Dakota for their flight lessons. Instead of letting flight schools compete for the ability to train these cadets, we have earmarked their training to North Dakota. We are putting parochial interests over the necessity to provide the best training possible for the best price to our Army cadets.

And $8 million for repairs to a specific building at Rock Island Arsenal. I can think of 8 million reasons why the military, not the Senate should allocate funds to fix their priorities.

And $10 million for repairs to utility tunnels at Fort Wainright. The tunnels aren't broken, mind you, but the owners would like new doors put on them. This appropriation looks to me like an open door to fiscal irresponsibility.

The damage these earmarks do is deadly serious. They pull money away from legitimate funding priorities and they waste taxpayer dollars. Each year, many of the same earmarks appear in appropriations legislation, and each year I come to the floor and point them out to my colleagues. Some of the appropriators' favorite projects include:

The $25 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network. I remember only 2 years ago when this particular project was given $23 million dollars. Some things never change.

And $2 million for the brown tree snakes. Once again, the brown tree snake has slithered its way into our defense appropriation bill. This funding does not belong in the Defense Appropriations Act.

There are many earmarks that funnel dollars to worthy medical research programs, such as breast cancer research, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these items to be in this piece of legislation. This type of critical research should be funded through the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill. Our soldiers and sailors need to be provided with the best equipment, housing, and support possible. Scarce defense dollars should be used for these defense purposes, not others.

I could go on and on--and on and on and on--listing all of the examples of pork in this legislation. We simply need to reassess our priorities.

This year's bill also includes a number of ``Buy America'' provisions. For example, it prevents the foreign purchase of welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain four inches in diameter and under. Another provision ensures that all carbon, alloy or steel plates are produced in the United States. Whew. I know we'll sleep better at night knowing that all of our carbon plates are manufactured in the U.S. Yet another section prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing supercomputers from a foreign source.

I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. Every year, Buy America restrictions cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers $5.5 billion. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies, and from an economic point of view they are ludicrous. Free trade is both an important element in improving relations among nations and essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from long- standing trade partners.

Some legislative enactments over the past several years have had the effect of establishing a monopoly for a domestic supplier in certain product lines. This not only adds to the pressure for our allies to ``Buy European'' but it also raises the costs of procurement for DOD, and cuts off access to potential state-of-the-art technologies. In order to maintain our troop strength and force readiness, the DOD must be able to be equipped with the best technologies available, regardless of country of origin. This would ensure both price and product competition.

Defense exports improve interoperability with friendly forces-- increasingly necessary as we operate in coalition warfare and peacekeeping missions. Exports lower the unit costs of systems to the U.S. military, and provide the same economic benefits to the U.S. as all other exports--well paying jobs, improved balance of trade, and increased tax revenue. These are really issues of acquisition policy, not appropriations matters. There is no justification for including these provisions in the Appropriations Act.

This bill spends money on Lewis and Clark and funnels cash into military museums. It protects the mooring chain industry and ensures that we only buy American ball bearings. There is enough pork in this bill to feed an army--if only that we used our defense appropriations to do that. I suppose it is more important to appease local constituencies and special interests.

I wish it were not necessary for me to come to the Senate with every appropriations bill to criticize the amount of unrequested spending in the legislation. I do so because I believe it is critical for American taxpayers to understand where the money in their pockets is really going. I urge my colleagues to stop ``porking up'' our appropriations bills. In a time of huge spending deficits and scarce dollars, it is long past time to stop feeding at the trough.

Mr. President, although I support passage of this year's Department of Defense appropriations bill, I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has not been allowed a full debate on the Defense authorization bill. It is unconscionable that the Defense authorization bill that is so critical to our men and women in uniform has been allowed to languish for over 5 months. The appropriations bill includes funds for many important items I strongly support, including vital equipment for those in uniform facing daily dangers in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, vital defense policies are contained in the authorization bill, including policies with a direct impact on military families, such as pay and benefits. The Senate's strong bipartisan efforts to make TRICARE available for the Guard Reserve are also a part of the Defense authorization bill. I therefore urge the majority leader to bring the Defense authorization bill back to the floor so that the Senate can fulfill its obligation to our troops and to the American people.

I am also frustrated that the administration continues to rely on emergency supplemental funding for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to delay even those funding requests. The administration did not even request the $50 billion ``bridge fund'' included in this bill by the Appropriations Committee even though the Pentagon will soon run out of money for the war effort. This week, Senator Byrd eloquently explained, once again, why the administration should include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the regular budget. Congress cannot budget responsibly or perform its oversight duties adequately if we continue to rely on supplemental spending bills, which essentially put the costs of war on our national tab. The Senate has insisted on three separate occasions that the administration include war costs in its budget submissions and the administration has ignored the Senate three times. I was proud to cosponsor Senator Byrd's amendment demanding accountability for the fourth time and was gratified that the Senate adopted it.

I am proud that the Senate sent such a strong message to the administration about the treatment of detainees. The lack of a clear policy regarding the treatment of detainees has been confusing and counterproductive. It has left our men and women in uniform in the lurch with no clear direction about what is and is not permissible. This failure on the part of the administration has sullied our reputation as a nation, and hurt our efforts to promote democracy and human rights in the Arab and Muslim world. I was proud to vote for Senator McCain's amendment on interrogation policy because it should help to bring back some accountability to the process and restore our great Nation's reputation as the world's leading advocate for human rights.

I am also pleased that the bill coins a modified version of Senator Graham's amendment, requiring that the administration report to Congress about the procedures used by the tribunals at Guantanamo Bay to determine whether individuals held there are enemy combatants. The modified amendment also makes a very important clarification, ensuring that the tribunals may not consider statements obtained with undue coercion.

This bill also contains a provision I authored establishing the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps, CLRC, pilot project. It became abundantly clear after the attacks of September 11, 2001, that the U.S. Government had a dearth of critical language skills. The 9/11 Commission report documented the disastrous consequences of this deficiency that, unfortunately, we still have not made enough progress in addressing 4 years after the 9/11 tragedy.

CLRC is designed to address the Government's critical language shortfall by creating a pool of people with advanced language skills that the Federal Government could call on to assist when needed. The National Security Education Program completed a feasibility study of CLRC and concluded that the concept was sound and ``an important step in addressing both short- and long-term shortfalls related to language assets in the national security community.'' It also recommended that a 3-year pilot project be conducted to work out any potential problems. My amendment establishes this pilot project. I want to thank the managers of the bill for working with me to include this important measure and thank Senator Coleman for cosponsoring my amendment.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for continuing to work with me in assisting the families of injured service members. I was pleased that Congress included my amendment on travel benefits for the family of injured service members in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005, P.L. 109-13. My amendment corrected a flaw in the law that unintentionally restricted the number of families of injured service members that qualify for travel assistance. Too many families were being denied help in visiting their injured loved ones because the Army had not officially listed them as ``seriously injured,'' even though these men and women have been evacuated out of the combat zone to the United State for treatment. The change in the law now ensures that families of injured service members evacuated to a U.S. hospital get at least one trip paid for so the families can quickly reunite and begin recovering from the trauma they have experienced.

The family travel provision in P.L. 109-13 was sunset at the end of the 2005 fiscal year, H.J. Res. 68 continues to make this travel provision available until November 18 of this year. I was concerned that Congress may not pass the necessary legislation to make this travel benefit permanent before November 18. However, the distinguished Chairman assured me that he would continue working to extend this benefit in fiscal year 2006 until it becomes permanent through the Defense authorization process.

There are provisions in this bill with which I disagree, and the Senate rejected a number of amendments that

would have made this bill better. We continue to waste billions on Cold-War-era weapons systems designed to counter the Soviet Union while not fully funding the needs of the military personnel fighting our current wars. However, on balance, this legislation contains many good provisions for our men and women in uniform and their families, and that is why I support it.

Mr. President, I was pleased to join with the distinguished Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, in offering an amendment that has been accepted as part of the managers' package in the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense appropriations bill.

Specifically, this amendment would require the Office of Management and Budget, along with the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, to conduct a study on ``improving the response of the Federal Government to disasters.''

I believe this study is essential as it is clear to me that there were breakdowns at every level in our response to Hurricane Katrina.

Moreover, it is critical that the Federal Government improve its response to future disasters.

The study required by this amendment would: review the Federal Government's ability to coordinate and expedite its response efforts; evaluate the role of our military in responding to disasters; consider establishing criteria for ``automatically triggering'' the

military's participation in emergency response efforts; and look at increasing the role of the U.S. Geological Survey in preparing and responding to future disasters.

In addition, the amendment requires that the Office of Management and Budget prepare a report based on the study that includes: recommendations for improving the Federal Government's response in future disasters with a focus on the military; and proposals for legislation or regulations to implement these recommendations.

Lastly, I would like to express my disappointment that the amendment does not direct the study to analyze the role of the National Guard in responding to disasters.

While I wholly join those colleagues of mine who have commended the untiring and dedicated work of the National Guard in responding to the recent hurricanes, I believe that including an assessment of the National Guard's capabilities is critical to understanding the broader implications of our government's emergency response mechanisms.

As the principal resource available to States to assist in disaster response efforts, it would seem vital to consider the Guard's capabilities under both State and Federal control, and the mechanisms currently established for mobilizing out-of-State Guard units to assist in any response.

Part of such a review would certainly have included a proper evaluation of whether the National Guard currently has the necessary resources and equipment to respond adequately to disasters.

The study required by this amendment is not about placing blame or pointing fingers; there is plenty of fault to go around. Rather, it is about assessing our capabilities to respond to future disasters, and addressing our weaknesses.

As I have said in the past, we need to ensure that we have a system in place that allows the Federal Government to come in immediately with the full force of its resources and assume primary responsibility for response and relief.

Now is the time to prepare for future disasters.

The study and report required by this amendment will provide us a roadmap for enacting the necessary reforms within our Government to make sure we never again have to observe the failures like we experienced during Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. President, in fiscal year 2002, Congress provided $5 million in the Department of Defense appropriations bill to transport and distribute wheelchairs to the victims of overseas conflicts, landmines, and crippling illnesses if matched by private funds. These funds were allocated from amounts provided to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, DSCA. Since that time, the DSCA has worked with a nonprofit organization called the WheelChair Foundation to deliver over 120,000 wheelchairs to nearly 100 countries, including 5,810 to Afghanistan; 2,400 to Iraq; and over 3,900 to Jordan.

I believe it is vital that we plan and invest not only to win the wars we fight, but also to win the peace. In that regard, this program has been an unqualified success. The hope and chance for a new life that a wheelchair can provide to someone who could never afford one has value beyond measure. Additionally, this program gives us the opportunity to leverage Federal support with the efforts of the nonprofit sector to accomplish more than we could do alone.

The funding specifically earmarked for this initiative in fiscal year 2002 will likely be exhausted within the year. The legislation we are now considering would provide the full amount of the President's request for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid of $61 million. It is our hope that funding will be available for this activity in the coming fiscal year if appropriate humanitarian needs are identified.

I understand the concerns that my colleagues have regarding poorly understood illnesses that have affected military personnel in nearly every conflict since the Civil War, and most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I want to lend my support to this important research.

AM2 and coatings removal technology

I say to the distinguished Senator from Montana that I appreciate him bringing these important programs to my attention and to the attention of the Senate. I look forward to working with him on these and other important matters that affect our military and national defense in the days and weeks to come.

I move to reconsider the vote.

If I may have a moment, I thank our staff for their dedication and hard work putting this bill together. I point out to the Senate the people I am going to name are our staff. They work with both Senator Inouye and me. We work as a seamless team in the subcommittee: Sid Ashworth, Charlie Houy, Lesley Kalan, Brian Wilson, Brian Potts, Kate Kaufer, Mark Hoaland, Alycia Farrell, Katy Hagan, Betsy Schmid, Nicole DiResta, Mazie Mattson, Janelle Treon, Kate Fitzgerald, Jennifer Chartrand.

Let me recognize a very dedicated, wonderful staff person of our subcommittee, Mazie Mattson, who is now going to retire after 25 years of working for Congress. This is Mazie's final Defense bill. We are extremely grateful to her for her sincere loyalty and tireless efforts and very gracious support she provided to each and every one of us on both sides of the aisle on our subcommittee. She will be greatly missed. We wish her family and her husband, Bill, all the best. We thank you very much, Mazie. Thank you very much.