Floor Statements

Mr. President, I see the arrival of my seatmate, a great friend, Robert C. Byrd, and with permission, I would like to speak for about 2 minutes, if that is all right. I know he has some important words.

Before he leaves the floor, I wish to commend my colleague from Iowa, Tom Harkin. Tom and I arrived in the Congress together 34 years ago in January of 1973. I have listened to him give eloquent speeches but none better than the one he just gave regarding Lyndon Johnson--not only the importance of the man but the importance of his work and what a better country we are today. We are not that more perfect union yet, but we are getting there. One major step in that direction was created by Lyndon Johnson and a guy by the name of Tom Harkin who has carried on that tradition as well. So he would be very proud of you. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his remarks this morning.

I have some brief thoughts before deferring to my seatmate and dear friend, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.

Let me just say to all, we often reflect on the impact this institution has had on the United States, on our beloved country. But on this day, I think we cannot help but consider the impact certain Americans have had on this institution and on our great Republic. At this moment, we reflect not on legislative accomplishments, which are Herculean, as Senator Harkin has identified--appropriately so, and with great eloquence--or even how that might have changed the fabric of our country--it certainly did--but, rather, on the strength of character required by those who made such achievements possible.

I wish to join my colleagues and others here today reflecting upon and paying tribute to one of this great institution's most revered figures on this centennial anniversary of his birth: the former Senate majority leader, the 35th President of this body and the 36th President of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Emerson wrote that:

None of us will ever accomplish anything excellent or

commanding except when he listens to this whisper, which is

heard by him alone.

If that is true, then when the whisper traveled through the winds sweeping across the Pedernales River in the plains of central Texas, Lyndon Johnson must have been listening carefully, indeed.

I think we all believe that a society such as ours should aspire to greatness, aspire to that more perfect union our forefathers envisioned. But Lyndon Johnson understood something else of what was required of leaders to get us there: the importance of building alliances, however unorthodox; the ability to find agreement, even with those whom we most disagree with; and perhaps most importantly, Lyndon Baines Johnson recognized that this institution could achieve the most remarkable of things if its Members were willing to do the kind of work that more often than not was decidedly unremarkable.

It was his Herculean skills in the legislative arena, of course, honed on this very floor and in these Halls, that proved such a complement to the wonderful rhetorical flourishes of those

who identified the great goals we must achieve. But armed with his skills--his maneuvering, his understanding of his fellow Members, of what they could tolerate, what they could agree with, how far they could move--Lyndon Johnson was able, in his very hands, to mold the successful results of which Tom Harkin spoke so eloquently. In the absence of that ability, a lot of these achievements would have been nothing more than rhetorical flourishes. It took the brilliance of a legislator--not unlike the skills of the gentleman who sits next to me here this morning, Robert C. Byrd--to be able to fashion and create the very legislative achievements we talk about. Indeed, it is often said that it took the hardscrabble southerner from Texas to broker a Civil Rights Act. I don't know of anyone who would disagree with that or with the long litany of legislative achievements Tom Harkin has identified. But I think it does in a sense a disservice to just identify what was perhaps Lyndon Johnson's greatest skill, and that was moving a political body reluctant to change, as most political bodies are.

To be sure, I would be remiss if I were not to mention my father's relationship with Lyndon Johnson as well. I sit at the desk my father occupied in this body for the more than 10 years he served here. But that relationship went back a lot longer than their years here. My father, as a young law school graduate at the outset of the New Deal, became the first State Director of the National Youth Administration in 1933, and Lyndon Johnson was a young man beginning his career in Texas politics and was running a similar program in that State.

Their relationship started in the 1930s and blossomed during their years in public service in this very institution. I am sort of a creature of this place, in many ways, having grown up here. I was a mere child of 8 when my father came to Congress in 1952, and then to the Senate in 1959, with my seat-mate, Senator Byrd. I sat in the family gallery in 1959 and watched him take the oath of office. Three years later, I sat on the floor, dressed like these young men and women, as a Senate page and watched Lyndon Johnson maneuver through this building. In those days, there were no television cameras or microphones that can carry your voice through the halls of this room and beyond. I would watch Lyndon Johnson at this table in front of me here. Members would gather around because you could not hear everything he said--intentionally, I might add, as he was careful that not everything he said was necessarily heard by everyone about the schedule of the Senate, or he may have been talking about achievements that were made. I was here for some of the all-night sessions when the civil rights debates were going on. I developed friendships, which I still hold today, with the other young pages I worked with in those early days.

Lyndon Johnson and my father and Lady Bird and my mother had a great relationship. I have shared with Lynda, Luci, and their families that I remember vividly Mrs. Johnson being at our home. My mother and she would meet with Mercedes Douglas, Justice Douglas's wife, to practice Spanish together. They had a great relationship over the years. I remember vividly, as well, President Johnson and Lady Bird Johnson hosting a surprise wedding anniversary party for my parents at a restaurant here in Washington one evening, as they celebrated their 35th wedding anniversary. So there are family ties that run long and deep.

I remember in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson very graciously invited my father and Hubert Humphrey to come to the White House on the eve of the Vice Presidential nomination in Atlantic City. There was no doubt that Humphrey would be the choice, but it was the gracious act of a President to recognize a friendship he had with this young man from Connecticut, going back to the 1930s, that he invited him to be part of that raising the expectation that he might be chosen as a Vice Presidential running mate for Lyndon Johnson. My father seconded Johnson's nomination in 1960 when I was a page, as well, and watching history unfold.

So it is with great joy that I come to the floor this morning to celebrate a remarkable life that made a huge difference. When students ask us--as they oftentimes do--``can any one person make a difference in the life of other people?'' you need look no further than the initials LBJ. It is a story of how one individual, as Tom Harkin said, born in the hardscrabble territory of central Texas, grew up and served in this body, managed this institution, produced the results he did, and became President of a country that allowed us to achieve the great achievements of the 1960s.

We are all beneficiaries of Lyndon Johnson's legacy. It is highly appropriate, not only today, this week, or in the year of this centennial anniversary, and with great frequency, to remind the young people sitting here today as pages that these great achievements didn't happen miraculously. They weren't given out with a gracious heart of those who fought. They were won in hard-fought battles that produced these results. Our generation, your generation, will have to fight hard, too, to make sure we are going to achieve good things and learn the lessons of Lyndon Johnson--how hard he fought to make a difference in his country and in the world in which we live.

I am honored to be joining those who today celebrate the life, celebrate an achievement our country benefited from, and as long as we survive as a republic, the legacy of Lyndon Baines Johnson. It is a great moment that we ought to remember and cherish for years and years to come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor the life and service of Elwood Lechausse of Manchester, CT, who died on Saturday May 17, 2008. Mr. Lechausse, known to many as ``Woody,'' enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1958, the day after his 18th birthday, and served with distinction in the 101st Airborne Division in both Turkey and South Vietnam.

Mr. Lechausse's service to his country did not end with his departure from the military in 1965. Following his honorable discharge from the Army, Mr. Lechausse dedicated himself to supporting his fellow veterans. For over 35 years, Mr. Lechausse was a tireless advocate for veterans issues, serving in leadership positions in more than two dozen veterans organizations, including serving as a senior member of the Department of Veterans Affairs Board of Trustees and the Secretary and Treasurer of the Connecticut Veterans Coalition from 1988-2002 and the Department of Connecticut Adjutant of the Disabled American Veterans.

Mr. Lechausse worked hard to educate his fellow Americans on the importance of honoring our veterans and recognizing the challenges they faced. Whether testifying before the U.S. Congress or speaking in the local classroom, Mr. Lechausse carried himself with a vigor and passion that spoke volumes of his dedication to advocating on behalf of his fellow veterans.

In 2003, Mr. Lechausse was named as a Connecticut Treasure for his work on behalf of Connecticut's veterans. In 2007, in recognition of the many lives he touched throughout nearly four decades of service, Mr. Lechausse was inducted into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame.

Mr. Lechausse was a valuable friend of my office, and all of us in Connecticut owe a deep debt of gratitude to Mr. Lechausse for his service to both his country and his fellow veterans. On behalf of the Senate, I offer my most sincere condolences to Mr. Lechausse's wife, Kathryn, his children James and Ralph, and all those who were touched by his tremendous spirit. With Woody's passing, Connecticut and the Nation's veterans have lost a powerful voice that will be sorely missed.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Cochran and others to introduce legislation that will build on one of the best service success stories of the last quarter century: AmeriCorps. Fifteen years ago, as he swore in the first class of AmeriCorps members, President Bill Clinton said, ``When it is all said and done, it comes down to three simple questions: What is right? What is wrong? And what are we going to do about it?''

Since that time, more than a half-million AmeriCorps members have taken it upon themselves to try and answer those questions in communities across this country.

They have done so by serving in a variety of settings from senior centers and veterans' hospitals to schools and afterschool programs. They have helped clean up our neighborhoods and rebuilt our houses. These members have sacrificed their time and energy to meet the fundamental needs of our nation.

Last year alone, 75,000 AmeriCorps members gave back to our communities, serving in over 4,000 schools, faith-based and community organizations, and nonprofits across the country. They also brought reinforcements--recruiting another 1.7 million community volunteers to work alongside them. Because of AmeriCorps, our communities have been strengthened, and our democracy fortified.

Unfortunately, as the hours AmeriCorps members have contributed to our communities have increased, the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award created to help members pay for their college tuition has remained flat at $4,725. Meanwhile, the average college tuition has skyrocketed. The education award previously paid for two years of college, but currently it does not even cover the cost of a single year. I am introducing the AmeriCorps: Together Improving Our Nation Act, ACTION, in part, to update the education award to keep pace with 15 years of tuition increases.

The ACTION Act will raise the education award to $6,185 and increase the award annually to match the average tuition at a 4-year public university.

That figure, $6,185 is the average cost of tuition at a four-year public university according to the College Board. The act will also make the education award tax exempt to ensure that students are able to use their entire award to advance their education.

In addition, to recognize service as a national priority, this legislation promotes the position of Executive Director of the Corporation for National and Community Service to Cabinet status and reestablishes the Corporation for National and Community Service's authority to partner with other Federal agencies. As partners of equal status, Federal Departments will be able to coordinate their priorities and have AmeriCorps members work to meet their needs.

For example, the Department of Education could use volunteers to help solve the ``Dropout Crisis'' and the Environmental Protection Agency could use volunteers to increase our energy efficiency.

As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I know that national service ought not to simply be virtuous, but rather, a resource with which we can carry out our most urgent national priorities, from tackling poverty to making our communities cleaner and more vibrant. We need to recognize service as a national priority, and with passage of the ACTION Act, we will.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Cochran and others to introduce legislation that will build on one of the best service success stories of the last quarter century: AmeriCorps. Fifteen years ago, as he swore in the first class of AmeriCorps members, President Bill Clinton said, ``When it is all said and done, it comes down to three simple questions: What is right? What is wrong? And what are we going to do about it?''

Since that time, more than a half-million AmeriCorps members have taken it upon themselves to try and answer those questions in communities across this country.

They have done so by serving in a variety of settings from senior centers and veterans' hospitals to schools and afterschool programs. They have helped clean up our neighborhoods and rebuilt our houses. These members have sacrificed their time and energy to meet the fundamental needs of our nation.

Last year alone, 75,000 AmeriCorps members gave back to our communities, serving in over 4,000 schools, faith-based and community organizations, and nonprofits across the country. They also brought reinforcements--recruiting another 1.7 million community volunteers to work alongside them. Because of AmeriCorps, our communities have been strengthened, and our democracy fortified.

Unfortunately, as the hours AmeriCorps members have contributed to our communities have increased, the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award created to help members pay for their college tuition has remained flat at $4,725. Meanwhile, the average college tuition has skyrocketed. The education award previously paid for two years of college, but currently it does not even cover the cost of a single year. I am introducing the AmeriCorps: Together Improving Our Nation Act, ACTION, in part, to update the education award to keep pace with 15 years of tuition increases.

The ACTION Act will raise the education award to $6,185 and increase the award annually to match the average tuition at a 4-year public university.

That figure, $6,185 is the average cost of tuition at a four-year public university according to the College Board. The act will also make the education award tax exempt to ensure that students are able to use their entire award to advance their education.

In addition, to recognize service as a national priority, this legislation promotes the position of Executive Director of the Corporation for National and Community Service to Cabinet status and reestablishes the Corporation for National and Community Service's authority to partner with other Federal agencies. As partners of equal status, Federal Departments will be able to coordinate their priorities and have AmeriCorps members work to meet their needs.

For example, the Department of Education could use volunteers to help solve the ``Dropout Crisis'' and the Environmental Protection Agency could use volunteers to increase our energy efficiency.

As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I know that national service ought not to simply be virtuous, but rather, a resource with which we can carry out our most urgent national priorities, from tackling poverty to making our communities cleaner and more vibrant. We need to recognize service as a national priority, and with passage of the ACTION Act, we will.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report on the Food, Conservation, and

Energy Act of 2008, a tremendously important piece of legislation that will set our Nation's agricultural policy for the next 5 years. It is an immense piece of legislation; and obviously, in any bill of this size, any Senator will find provisions with which he or she will disagree. I am no different. Nevertheless, on the whole it is a strong bill and a good compromise that my colleagues and their staffs have spent months preparing, and I hope, for the sake of our farmers and the country as a whole, that it will be approved by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the President.

The 2008 farm bill strengthens the safety net for farmers struggling with abrupt shifts in the agricultural market. In many ways, these farmers are the backbone of our economy, and we must ensure that they are adequately protected. Included in this safety net is an expanded Milk Income Loss Compensation, or MILC, Program, which is of critical importance to dairy farmers in my home State of Connecticut and across the country. The farm bill conference report would increase the MILC Program's payment rate for dairy producers when the price of milk falls below a statutorily set target price; it also allows for adjustments of that price when the price of feed increases. In addition, this bill creates important protections for specialty crop producers by providing nearly $466 million over the next 10 years to the Specialty Crop Block Grants Program. This new initiative is especially important for farmers in the State of Connecticut, as nearly 47 percent of our agricultural receipts come from nursery and greenhouse products.

I am particularly pleased that the conference committee adopted much stricter income limits on commodity payments by significantly lowering the adjusted gross income test. To qualify for benefits, individuals would have to prove that they earn less than $500,000 per year from nonfarming sources and only up to $750,000 per year in farm income. These new income tests will help ensure that the farm bill's safety net programs actually help the people that they were originally intended for: those small, family farmers who make up the backbone of American agriculture and who operate all too often on razor-thin margins.

I am also very pleased by the much needed attention this bill gives to nutrition programs, particularly those that serve American families struggling on the verge of hunger or food insecurity. All told, this bill provides over $10 billion in new money for nutrition programs. It beefs up the Food Stamp Program by stopping benefit erosion and expanding eligibility, and it provides more than $1 billion in assistance to local area food banks. In addition, to help children develop healthier eating habits, this legislation extends to all 50 States a program that provides fresh fruits and vegetables to underprivileged schools. I have seen the success of the Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Program firsthand, in its Connecticut pilot test. I know how vital fresh produce is to the health of all Americans; in the case of underprivileged schoolchildren, those who need it the most have gotten it the least and I am glad this bill goes a long way toward correcting that disparity.

Finally, the farm bill conference report aims to preserve our fragile environment by funding critical land conservation programs and investing in renewable sources of energy. To help American farmers act as responsible stewards of the land they work, this legislation allocates nearly $8 billion in new funding to help farmers and landowners be better and more responsible stewards of the environment. This bill also includes provisions to encourage the production of domestic biofuels, including funds to promote biomass crop production, loan guarantees for commercial scale biorefineries, and dramatically increased funding for biomass research and development. The farm bill's energy title in particular is critical to ensuring that our country finally breaks its longstanding over-reliance on costly and environmentally harmful fossil fuels.

In sum, I am satisfied that the farm bill takes great steps to protect our struggling farmers, our low-income families and children, and our threatened environment. In my view, the farm bill embodies an approach to agricultural policy characterized first and foremost by a concern for the long-term well-being of all Americans. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2008, at 3 p.m., in executive session, to conduct a markup of the following: an original bill entitled ``The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008''; H.R. 634, ``American Veterans Disabled For Life Commemorative Coin Act'' and an original bill to make technical corrections to title II of the SAFETEA- LU bill.

Madam President, I appreciate the Senator not objecting, but let me, for the purpose of the record, inform him that the committee print has not been changed. There were no verbal agreements. The bill was available a week ago for anyone to read. It was in the Congressional Record. It has been on a Web page as well so the public at large could read it here.

It is a long involved process, an involved process. The only reason we are meeting at 3 today is because of the request of the ranking member to delay the markup this morning. I am here to work out some additional provisions. I want to let my colleague know that. I appreciate my colleague very much. He is a very active and constructive member of the Banking Committee, but this is a product that has been available for people to review almost for a week now, before the markup actually was to occur this morning.

I appreciate his not objecting. We will see how things progress. Nonetheless, we will keep working at it, but his involvement will be critical.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the resolution of disapproval of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, recently issued rules on media cross-ownership. I want to commend my colleague from North Dakota for his leadership on this most important of issues. This resolution will nullify the ill-considered and hastily-passed rules pushed through by the FCC in December of last year.

Over the last several years, the effects of media consolidation have become extremely clear to the American people: Less local control and community-oriented programming; less independently produced programming; fewer divergent views and opinions; fewer minority-owned broadcast stations.

And now, the FCC has green-lighted further media concentration by voting to overturn a 32-year-old rule prohibiting the cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations--a rule that could impact markets in which nearly half of the American public lives and works.

Put simply, the FCC rule change would harm local and independent owners and help big media owners. In particular, the change further disadvantages minority media owners. While such owners control a mere 3 percent of the Nation's commercial TV stations, as many as 90 percent of minority media owners would be subject to these new rules. Further consolidation will simply reduce the number of opportunities for minorities to enter the market while putting those already in the market more at risk of being forced out by larger media conglomerates.

The FCC argues that this rule is necessary to ``save'' the newspaper industry. But as an internal FCC study showed, despite all the stories we are hearing about newspaper cutbacks, publicly traded newspapers earn 16 to 18 percent annual rates of return. An internal FCC memo found the industry as a whole to be profitable. That is to say nothing of the fact that the FCC has given no compelling reason for it to be in the newspaper business in the

first place. The FCC regulates the broadcast airwaves--and it should remain that way.

Perhaps most disturbing is the way the FCC went about implementing this radical new rule. First, it completely ignored Congress's bipartisan bill, the Media Ownership Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. Then it ignored the public. Indeed, the Chairman's proposed rule changes were first made public in an op-ed he published in the New York Times outlining the changes for the first time--which might have been helpful had the public comment period not already closed the day his column appeared.

Public comments are not merely a formality, Mr. President--they are a vital piece of the rulemaking process and an integral part of responsive, open government. Five years ago, more than 3 million Americans spoke out when the FCC voted without any public input whatsoever to allow a single company to own up to three television stations, a local newspaper, a cable system, and as many as eight radio stations in a single media market. In large part because of the public outcry, the courts overturned the rules.

Mr. President, it isn't more consolidation and homogenization the American people want from their media--it is less. No one can seriously argue that the consolidation of the media in recent years has been a good development for the fourth estate. As coverage has become increasingly superficial, people wonder more than ever about the quality of the information they are receiving from the media. And quite frankly, I do not blame them.

Must we act to ensure the strength and vitality of the American media in the 21st century? Absolutely. But that should be accomplished within an open and transparent framework as prescribed in the Media Ownership Act--a process that gives the public a voice in this fight. As the Senator from North Dakota has said, ``Localism and diversity of media ownership is vital in a democracy.''

Indeed it is, Mr. President. It is time to tell the FCC that this is no way to maintain a free, open and diverse media, and I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.

Mr. President, last week, the Senate had a fruitful debate on, and today the Senate will vote on passage of the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act. This bill extends the flood insurance program for 5 years, while making commonsense reforms so that flood insurance remains available to millions of Americans who live in flood- prone areas.

Though many people think of floods as confined to coastal areas, I want to let my colleagues know that in the last year, there have been flood claims in all 50 States. Every State has at-risk areas, and in the absence of private insurance, the National Flood Insurance Program is the only way for home and business owners to ensure they can rebuild after the waters recede.

The bill we are considering makes some tough choices, as I talked about last week.

In order to assure the continuation and availability of flood insurance, this bill essentially restarts the flood program. It forgives the $17 billion of program debt so that all policyholders will not face steep premium increases. All 5.5 million policyholders would have to double their premium payments just to pay the interest on this debt. To make a dent in the principal, premiums would have to increase many times over. Increases of this magnitude would drive untold numbers of people to drop flood insurance--at a time when we ought to be encouraging more people to purchase this critical coverage.

In an effort to avoid these steep premium increases, the bill forgives the debt. In addition, it reforms the premium structure so rates are actuarially based. Yes, this reform will result in some policyholders paying more for flood coverage, but the premium increases are much less than they would be if this bill were not to pass. If we do nothing, FEMA's $17 billion debt hangs over the entire program.

Last week, we accepted 11 amendments. We were able to accommodate Senators on both sides of the aisle--specifically Senators Menendez, Coburn, McCaskill, DeMint, Dole, Thune, Durbin, and Landrieu. Their amendments help to strengthen this bill and the flood insurance program. These amendments include provisions to ensure that FEMA does outreach when mapping changes occur, to make policy exclusions clear to home and business owners, and to strengthen the flood insurance advocate created in the committee-passed bill.

I want to thank Senator Shelby and his staff for working so closely with us on this bipartisan bill. I also want to thank the majority and minority leaders for agreeing to move to this bill, and for supporting our efforts last week to accommodate debate and amendments.

I especially thank the staff who have worked on this legislation. In particular I want to thank Lula Davis, Tim Mitchell, Tricia Engle, and Mark Wetjen on Leader Reid's staff, and I want to thank Rohit Kumar and Dave Schiappa on minority leader McConnell's staff.

Senator Shelby's staff have been invaluable, and I want to recognize the work of Bill Duhnke, Mark Oesterle, Mark Calabria and Jim Johnson. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of my own staff, including Shawn Maher, Jennifer Fogel-Bublick, and Sarah Kline.

As I have said, this is a strong bill that ensures flood insurance will be available for many years to come. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that families can rebuild their homes and their lives after a flood.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, a bipartisan measure that will guarantee our Nation's law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency medical personnel the right to bargain collectively with their employers. I want to thank Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy for their long-standing commitment to this critically important legislation.

Now more than ever, the risks taken by our first responders are greater than they have ever been. From the increased risk of terrorist attacks, to the catastrophic hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires that have ravaged our country from coast to coast, each and every day we ask more from our emergency workers, and they always rise to the challenge. These are people who have chosen to dedicate their lives to serving their communities--making the streets safe, fighting fires, providing pre-hospital emergency medical care, conducting search-and-rescue missions when a building collapses or a natural disaster occurs, responding to hazardous materials emergencies, and so much more.

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act provides these brave men and women with basic rights to bargain collectively, a right that workers in many other industries have used effectively to improve relations with their supervisors. This bill is carefully crafted to allow States a great deal of flexibility to implement plans that will work best from them. All it requires is that States provide public safety workers with the most basic collective bargaining rights--the right to form and join unions and to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions. It also will require a mechanism for settling any labor disputes. These are rights that a majority of States already provide these workers, and this bill does nothing to interfere with States whose laws already provide these fundamental rights.

This bill will allow States to continue enforcing right-to-work laws

they may have on the books, which prohibit contracts requiring union membership as a condition of employment. This bill even allows States to entirely exempt small communities with fewer than 5,000 residents or fewer than 25 full-time employees.

Importantly, this bill takes every precaution to ensure that the right to collectively bargain will not interfere with the critical role these workers play in keeping our communities safe. It explicitly prohibits any strikes, lockouts, or other work stoppages. But the key to this bill is truly to foster a cooperative atmosphere between our first responders and the agencies they work for. Cooperation between labor and management will inevitably lead to public safety agencies being better able to serve their communities. Unions can help ensure that vital public services run smoothly during a crisis, and this bill will further that goal.

I would add that this legislation enjoys enormous bipartisan support. The House passed H.R. 980 by an overwhelming margin of 314-97. Here in the Senate, our version enjoys the support of all my colleagues on this side of the aisle and many on the other side as well, including Senator Gregg, the bill's sponsor. In an era ruled by party-line votes, this speaks to the great importance of this legislation. That is because we recognize the unique and essential role these workers play in every single community, and we recognize that by granting them these basic rights they will be able to better serve those communities.

This bill addresses some of the most critical concerns of our Nation's first responders. It goes beyond negotiating wages, hours and benefits. In this circumstance, for this group of people, it means so much more. It means that the men and women who run into burning buildings, resuscitate accident victims, and patrol the streets of our towns and cities can sit down with their supervisors to relate their real life experiences. They can discuss their concerns and use their on-the-ground expertise to help improve their service to the community. Granting our first responders this basic right is not only in their best interest it is in all of our best interests. It will allow these men and women to better serve their communities by fostering a spirit of cooperation with the agencies and towns that employ them.

When tragedies have struck us, from the September 11 attacks to Hurricane Katrina, it is these workers who are the first people on the scene and the last to leave. We owe them everything, and all they have asked of us in return is dignity and respect in the workplace. They stand with us every single day on the job, and it is time we stand with them. I urge all my colleagues to join me and the millions of first responders who form the backbone of our nation's homeland security by voting to pass this crucial legislation.

Mr. President, it is an honor to come to the floor today to celebrate Yom HaAtzmaut, Israel's 60th Independence Day.

Today, on its 60th birthday, we recognize that Israel remains an island of openness. Its success belongs to all the Israeli people and is more lasting than anything that ever happened on a battlefield.

With politics that are open and vibrant, markets that are free and fair, and laws that hold for weak and strong alike, for six decades, America has been a good friend to Israel. Indeed, it only took us but 11 minutes to recognize this new state, this new ally, in May 1948.

This is a matter imbued with great personal meaning to me, Mr. President. As my colleagues are aware, my father, Tom Dodd, spent over a year as executive trial counsel in one of the most remarkable court cases the world has ever seen--the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals. He stood face-to-face with men who committed the most terrible atrocities imaginable. Indeed, they were so horrible many were convinced they had could not have taken place--that is, until my father set out meticulously proving that they had.

It would have been impossible to be unchanged through that confrontation with evil, and my father was no different. I know how often he spoke of it to me. And I think it was impossible for anyone to go through the Nuremberg Trials without wondering, at some point or another:

What if those 6 million had someplace to go; what if there had been a country to take them in--no questions asked; what if there had been a nation willing to stand up for them when no one else did?

Only 2 years after my father came back from Nuremberg, 60 years ago today, that nation was born. So in a small way, I share some of my past with Israel, because my father had his part in the events that proved-- at the price of tremendous pain--the necessity of a Jewish state. My father learned that necessity, and I learned it through him. In the years since, nothing has dampened the force of that lesson. How could I forget?

For nearly 60 years America and Israel have been two nations that can look across the gulf of history and space and language, and still see, in each other, themselves. That enduring bond is what we celebrate today, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, may I inquire what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I wish to inform my colleagues we are open for business. I know there are amendments that Members have they would like to be considered. I am more than happy, with my colleague, the ranking member, Senator Shelby, to try to consider those amendments and deal with them expeditiously.

Last evening, we entered a unanimous consent agreement which requires that all amendments be offered,

debated, and voted on by the close of business today. The close of business today can occur any time between now and midnight. I suspect most Members, knowing there may not be any votes tomorrow--I forget exactly what the leader said about that. I think there is a possibility of no votes tomorrow depending on the schedule and agenda. If that is the case, if we deal with these amendments between now and the early part of the afternoon, we can complete the business of this bill until next week when we will have votes on energy issues before final passage of the flood insurance bill.

Again, I am willing and anxious to consider the amendments. I know several people have amendments. They offered some of them last evening and debated them to some degree. So we are prepared to enter into a little more debate and get to some votes. My idea is, to satisfy the convenience of Members, to try to consider three or four of these amendments and then hold a period of 45 minutes or so to vote on three or four items at a time rather than bring Members over every half hour for a 15-minute vote. We will try to deal with several amendments and then have a period of voting before considering the second tranche of issues.

I know Senator Shelby is in the vicinity. We are here to entertain these proposals.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in response to Senator Coburn's earlier comments, I thank him for his courtesy in withdrawing the amendment. He is raising a very legitimate issue about how we get greater compliance, as Senator Shelby pointed out, and achieve greater actuarial soundness in a program that is in desperate need of that.

The bill does something else. In fact, we voted on it last evening. I believe Senator Landrieu and Senator Dorgan offered an amendment that would have stripped out the mandatory requirements of people being required to pay premiums if they live in these high-risk areas. That amendment was defeated pretty soundly here. It is less than a dollar a day, about $316, I think, to a maximum of $350 a year under our bill for about 350,000 dollars' worth of coverage: $250,000 for the property, $100,000 for contents.

The House bill actually goes out a bit higher. Senator Vitter wanted to raise that number. Senator Shelby and I opposed that amendment. I am not unsympathetic to Senator Vitter's suggestion in certain high-cost areas that $250,000 ought to be a bit higher.

But the point Senator Coburn is making is that we want to get people here to contribute. We have 25 percent of the claims that are coming from these risky areas where only 1 percent of policies are actually being paid. So one out of every four dollars that is going out for coverage under the flood insurance program is in these areas, and yet less than 1 percent of the premiums are being paid out of those areas.

So, clearly, if you are going to be actuarially sound, you get that many claims out of that area, you have to get more compliance. How do you do that? Our bill does not go as far as Senator Coburn's does, but in our bill we require, as we do under a lot of similar areas, that the banks be required to collect these premiums, in fact, even hold them in escrow so we have a better assurance that we are going to get a lot more compliance with that approach.

But I am certainly sympathetic to the goals of ensuring that we get as much compliance as possible, and how you do that is a legitimate debate. I appreciate his raising the issue.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Coburn budget point of order occur at 12 noon today, with 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote equally divided and controlled by myself and Senator Coburn or our designees.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Let me underscore the point that, some 23 years ago, I was a new Member of this institution sitting in that last chair over in the corner, and I offered a pay-as- you-go budget. I think I got 24 votes in 1983 or 1984. I have strong feelings about whether we will be accountable and whether we pay for what we want to do. My colleague from Oklahoma certainly raises a point I have raised for as long as I have been here and tried legislatively to insist upon some accountability in how we do things. With this program, obviously the problem we are in is by attaching these additional costs onto the premium cost today, we make it prohibitive for a lot of people. So we were faced with a choice which was not one I would have preferred. But we have ourselves in a position in this country today where we are spending almost that amount of money every month on the conflict in Iraq, and we are not paying for it, something Harry Truman would not have tolerated. In the war in Korea, he said we would go to Korea provided the American taxpayer was willing to pay for it.

Every 8 weeks we are accumulating a debt and passing it on to my 3- year-old. The Senator knows I have young children. Every 8 weeks we are asking my daughter to assume the financial responsibility of this conflict. In addition to this program, we are trying to make a difference in people's lives, where they may lose their homes and their life's possessions. That is certainly one I would like to see us account for, but we are facing a situation today where I have to try and move this along. But I would hope that on a whole host of these issues, where we are talking about deficit financing or financing things without paying for them, that we would apply the same standards so we have this kind of uniformity to our concerns. And certainly, the $2 billion every week, the $12 billion every month, the $24 to $30 billion every 2 months is another example of what happens when we ask the American taxpayer in the future to assume a responsibility. It is a legitimate point the Senator raises. I identify with it. In my tenure, I have tried to do something about it. Hopefully, we have done that, Senator Shelby and I.

I appreciate his kind comments about our effort in this bill to put this program on the kind of footing that never causes us to come back here again under similar circumstances and make a similar request for excusing a responsibility that FEMA had to borrow from the Federal Government to meet that $17 billion worth of obligations after the storms of 2005, which devastated a good part of the country.

At the appropriate time, we will have a vote on the Senator's motion. In the meantime, we have some other amendments that I think are coming. I know Senator Nelson and Senator DeMint and others have some amendments. I am happy to consider those as soon as they come over.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I made this point about an hour ago. We all are familiar with what happens toward the end of the week here. I know Members are asking me what time we will be adjourning. That is a leadership decision, obviously. But we are required now, under the unanimous consent agreement of last evening, that all amendments will be considered by the close of business today. As I pointed out earlier, that close of business could occur at any point between now and midnight. But I suspect most Members are making plans to probably head back to their respective States for Mother's Day weekend sometime late this afternoon or early evening. If you have amendments on this bill, I urge you to come to the floor and offer them. Coming over at 3 o'clock, there is no guarantee that you are going to have the opportunity to make the case on behalf of the proposal, to the extent you would like.

I urge Members on both sides to come to the floor. I appreciate the fact that last evening several did make their case, and we are scheduling votes for early this afternoon on those matters. In the meantime, I would like to line up other votes on these matters so we could conclude work on this bill at a reasonable hour this afternoon that would allow Members to meet their travel obligations. In the absence of that, we may be here until very late this evening, which I know will throw a monkey wrench into people's plans. We are here. We have been here. We will be here. But we have been in a quorum call waiting for Members to come over with their ideas. Coming around 4 or 5 this afternoon and wondering whether we are going to leave 15 minutes later is not going to happen. I urge Members now to be here and make their case or let us know that you don't intend to offer the amendment, in which case we can clear the decks and get to the few votes we have remaining and move on. One way or the other, we are happy to accept.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I should begin.

Mr. President, let me first of all say on this motion by our colleague from Oklahoma that Senator Shelby and I, and I believe most of us here, don't have a philosophical disagreement. I think we all appreciate the fact that we have ourselves in a situation where we have massive deficits that are growing by the hour. We have seen it in a number of areas. This is one in which we are actually forgiving a debt. Obviously, to do so, it is going to require at some point for us to pay for this debt and obligation. Senator Coburn says we ought to be doing that under the pay-go rules. As someone who has over the years authored, in fact, legislation requiring pay-as-you-go proposals, I am very sympathetic to this idea. I would like to see us apply it more uniformly in many ways.

Senator Shelby and I are doing our best to take this program, which is absolutely critical, and to put it on a sound actuarial footing and, by doing so, move us forward. We can't do that if we don't have an excuse, if you will, on this debt that is out there today. We have raised the cost of premiums to a prohibitive level.

So I am moving to waive this point of order the Senator from Oklahoma is making, with the full understanding that it is a legitimate point he is making. But if we are going to succeed with this program and get it done, we can't do otherwise. We will be stuck with a program that will be far too costly.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support us on the motion to waive.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we have a window here. I see Senator Thune and he has the possibility of offering his amendment. I think Senator Boxer wants to express herself on that. She may be on her way over. If my colleague from South Dakota is prepared to offer his amendment, or talk about it, that would be helpful. Anybody else who has amendments who would like to offer them--I see the Senator from North Dakota.

I am glad the Senator clarified that. We have about five or six, based on what I know. There will be five or six votes at the most, as of now.

That is the Senator's problem.

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. I am familiar with the community. As my colleague will recall, at his invitation, I gave the commencement address at the University of North Dakota a few years ago and arrived a day or so early. I had an opportunity to visit the mayor and actually see the city that went through that remarkable devastation of flood and fire, simultaneously, in fact, and the rather remarkable recovery and great spirit that exists in that community.

Here is what we are doing. There are those who believe if you have any kind of a dike, dam or levee, that you should not have to pay for flood insurance. We cannot tolerate that in a sense. We have 130 dams, levees, and dikes that are at great risk of one kind or another in these residual risk areas. About 25 percent all the claims against the flood insurance program come out of these residual risk areas, not the coastline. Clearly, having dikes, levees, and dams help.

The fact is, the reason there is a dike, levee or dam is because it is in a residual risk area. Anything made by man or nature, there is no guarantee in perpetuity it is going to survive, even the 250 years about which we talked. What better example than Louisiana. We spent millions of dollars on a system down there that didn't work, ultimately. The idea of having someone pay a maximum of $350,000 worth of insurance--actually, the average cost is $316 a year. Less than a dollar a day for this kind of coverage is something we feel is dispersing that risk, bringing the cost in for the program.

Let me say to my colleague from North Dakota, he makes an interesting point. We are, in fact, in discussions with the other members of the committee on this very point, where you might be able to prorate, it seems to me, some of these costs based on the quality of that dam, dike or levee. I cannot subscribe to the notion of eliminating it altogether, but certainly when you have a state-of-the-art facility, then as a result of that, there is less of a risk. There still is risk. So you may bring down the cost of that risk.

We are negotiating about doing that as a way to recognize those kinds of contributions. So there would be some prorating.

I think it is a very good idea and suggestion and one about which I have not had a chance to get into a long conversation with Senator Shelby. I like the concept, the idea.

Remember this. The insurance program, putting aside whether you think the cost is high or low, without the insurance program, and if things don't work and you lose your home, there is no program of Federal disaster relief that rebuilds your home.

What the insurance program does for $316 a year is it gives you a chance to rebuild your home and the contents you lose. There is no disaster relief program the Senator from North Dakota and I have been a part of that provides that kind of assistance to homeowners affected by natural disaster.

This insurance program has great value to these people who live in these areas. It is a cost but actually has a value. I think the numbers ought to be higher than $350,000. I live in a higher cost area. So a $250,000 home in my State is less than the median cost of a home. I would like to see those values go up again. I presume in North Dakota $250,000 may be more a median cost of a home.

The idea that you are going to get for that $316 a year $350,000 back to rebuild that home of yours has value. I think prorating, based on the condition of dikes and levees, makes good sense. We will try to work on it.

I think we are on the same page.

I thank my colleague. It is a very good suggestion; once again, a very good suggestion.

The door is open for business. If anyone has amendments, we would like to have Members come over and offer the amendment. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes, I withhold.

Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, he raises a very good point. In fact, I had a discussion with Senator Dorgan on a similar issue, but the same point of an equity interest involving the cost of premiums where you have a very well-built levee and should the premium be the same as one with a 50-year-old levee--that is a legitimate point, it seems to me.

We talked earlier with Senator Vitter about costs and values. We disagree with him on that issue, but he makes a case, as the Senator from South Carolina does, that we need to strike this balance well so we are not locking in permanent costs, and not also falsely contributing to a rise in the cost of real estate in a time when we are dealing with oversupply and trying to move properties.

I am sympathetic with what my colleague is trying to achieve. There is an equity interest he has identified that I think has legitimacy. The question is, How do we satisfy that in a actuarially sound program?

I commend him for the idea. I am grateful to him for withdrawing the amendment. It gives us a chance to work on it and examine it in a way that will hopefully satisfy him. I cannot promise him this, obviously, because the Senator from Alabama and I have to deal with the House. I come with an open mind to the equity issue he raises with his amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to Durbin amendment No. 4715, as modified; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Durbin amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' amendment at the desk be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order except as provided in the previous agreement with respect to the McConnell and Reid amendments; that the previous order with respect to rollcall votes on Monday, May 12, be modified to reflect that the previously ordered votes occur on Tuesday, May 13, after the Senate convenes and following the opening sequence of events, there be 60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the leaders, or their designees, prior to the commencement of the votes ordered under a previous order; that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in the sequence, each succeeding vote be limited to 10 minutes in duration; that other provisions of the previous order remain in effect; provided further that if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to H.R. 980, then all postcloture time be yielded back, the motion to proceed be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, after the vote on the Durbin amendment, there will be no further votes today, no session on Friday, and no votes on Monday. Let me turn to the Senator from Illinois.

Madam President, I think we are prepared to vote on the Durbin amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled, ``Goods Movement on our Nation's Highways.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 8, 2008, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``More Work, Less Resources: Social Security Field Offices Struggle to Deliver Service to the Public''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century'' on Thursday, May 8, 2008. The hearing will commence at 9 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 8, 2008, to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, May 8, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 8, 2008, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``From Candidates to Change Makers: Recruiting and Hiring the Next Generation of Federal Employees.''

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, what is the present business of the Senate?

Mr. President, my colleague from Louisiana would like to enter into a discussion. Before we make any additional motions, I yield the floor to my colleague.

Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from Louisiana and the Senators from Mississippi for their willingness to sit down and try to consolidate this so we will have a finite number of amendments that we can work through that are their particular concern. I pledge to him, as I have to his colleagues from the gulf States area as well as other coastal State Senators representing coastal areas of the country, I am determined, as I know Senator Shelby is, to move through this bill, to give each of these amendments fair consideration, to make sure there is a full opportunity to debate them. There will be a full hearing on them. I cannot pick outcomes, but certainly the right to offer amendments, to be heard and debate them and vote on them, I am determined to make sure that happens. From my conversations with Senator Reid, the majority leader, I can tell my colleague that he is determined as well to make sure there is that opportunity, that there is going to be a full discussion and debate. My only advice is the sooner we get going, the greater likelihood we get through that process. He has my assurance that I will do everything to make sure that opportunity will be there.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Before I make a motion, I will wait for the Senator to let me know.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it has been a half an hour since we had the colloquy about moving forward on the flood insurance bill. My commitment to the Senators from Louisiana and Mississippi was that we would move these amendments along. In fairness, I have to say, if it takes a half an hour to obtain approval on a unanimous consent to vitiate or at least to deem the 30 hours that remain on the motion to proceed to expire so we can move to the body of the bill and amendments--I know the majority leader wants to consider this bill. He would like to do it in the normal, routine way. Amendments are offered, debated, voted on, and move on to the next amendment. But here it is, a half an hour since we entered into that colloquy. We are here on Wednesday to complete the bill. There are about 20 amendments I am aware of--6 or 7 on the Republican side and easily that number on the Democratic side--that Members want to be considered.

If this bill is not done, the program expires. I can't, obviously, predict the schedule. The majority leader has that responsibility. But knowing what work we have to do in the remaining weeks, it may be difficult to get time. The majority leader has been extremely generous in providing this time so we could reconstitute the flood insurance program. In the absence of doing so, the flood insurance program will expire, as we move into hurricane season. This is the opportunity to deal with it. I have made a good-faith commitment that I will allow for these amendments to come up, be debated, and voted on up or down. But it will be hard to fulfill that obligation if I can't even move to have the time on the motion to proceed considered expired.

For those listening, I appreciate if we could get an answer quickly and then bring up the amendments. Then let's move on them.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be deemed expired, the motion to proceed be agreed to, the motion to reconsider laid upon the table, and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 460, S. 2284, the National Flood Insurance Act amendments.

Senator Shelby, my ranking member, will be here shortly. We now invite Members to come and offer amendments. We would like to get time agreements, if we could, under each amendment so we could give our colleagues an indication of how much time may be necessary.

Mr. President, I call up the substitute amendment and ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, again, we would like to have Members come over and offer amendments so we can move along. The leader has indicated he wants to complete this bill over the next day or so. We would like to do it and do it under the normal procedures where amendments are offered and debate and votes occur thereafter. The Senator from Alabama and I are prepared to entertain amendments. There are some 20 of which we are aware. The sooner Senators come over and offer their amendments, the quicker we will be able to dispose of them.

Again, I thank Senator Shelby and the members of the committee. This is a matter that deserves our attention. We are only a few weeks away from hurricane season. We are literally having to pay on a debt of $17 billion. That is causing the rise in the cost of insurance to a point where people have a hard time paying, if the program exists at all. This bill forgives that debt, which we have to do, and then reestablishes a program that people will pay into so they can have that kind of coverage.

In the alternative, if we don't do that and we end up with the kind of devastation we see happen all too often--you only had to look at the morning newspaper and what happened in Myanmar, where literally thousands lost their lives, but certainly we saw it here in 2005 with the sweeping hurricanes that poured across coastal States and the damage we are still wrestling with in many areas--if we end up not adopting this legislation and getting this work done, those costs could fall on the backs of every taxpayer in the country.

That is why this insurance program exists. That is why it was created some 45 years ago. It has worked tremendously well. We need to once again put it in place. That is our goal and our purpose. The sooner we deal with the amendments, the greater the opportunity to reestablish this critical program for the country.

I yield the floor.

We are ready to proceed.

The vote was 90 to 1, a rare occasion.

Mr. President, I wish to make note before the Senator steps aside that last year Senator Carper of Delaware held a very good hearing on the subject matter, and as chair of the full committee I am very grateful to him, one, for doing that but also for bringing his sense of knowledge and understanding to this issue. It is reflected once again in his comments this morning. So I did not want the Record to not include his contribution to this effort. I am very grateful to him for that.

Mr. President, we are about to go into recess here for the weekly lunches. I say to my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Wicker, and those who are interested in the addition of wind coverage in this flood insurance bill, I am not sure of the fate of this bill now in light of some of the motions that have been filed on a bill where I hoped we could deal straightforwardly with flood insurance issues. So it may all have come to naught, anyway, in all of this, which I regret deeply. But putting aside that possibility, I want to respond briefly on the wind request. I am very sympathetic to this request. It is a very legitimate issue to be raised about the damage that wind does. There was some $17 billion in claims on flood, of course; in fact, more than that. We are in arrears in that amount. We have no idea what the cost of this program would be with wind, if we add wind.

That is my problem with agreeing to the amendment of Senator Wicker and others. All of us who live in coastal States are fully aware of the kind of damage wind can produce. But in candor to my colleagues, if they turn to me and say to me: ``How much does this cost?'' I cannot answer. I am stymied in a sense to respond to the question. The estimates run high and low. What I am committed to doing--and I want my colleague from Mississippi and others to know this--we have a commission we have adopted in this legislation specifically for the purpose to getting at the bottom of this so we can develop a program that clearly would cover those kinds of circumstances.

There will be more debate and discussion. But I say to him, in candor, I am sympathetic. He makes a point I have made and others have made over the years, to those of us who live within 100 miles, as so much of the country does, of our coastal regions.

I have listened to Gene Taylor, a Congressman from Mississippi. He has come to my office and laid this out for me in detail. Senator Schumer of New York has talked about it, as well as Senator Martinez has talked about it, the damage done in their respective constituencies as a result of wind damage.

The simple problem I have, if one of my colleagues turns to me and says: Can you tell me what this will cost under the program? I cannot answer the question. We are right now trying to, of course, excuse the $17 billion worth of debt that FEMA owes. That is part of the premium costs people are paying in. We need to get a program in place, because on June 1 hurricane season starts. In the absence of any program at all, this entire expense can fall in the taxpayers' laps.

We are all painfully aware of how damaging Mother Nature can be. The headlines of every newspaper in the country today are of course about the devastation in Myanmar where thousands have lost their lives. I presume with 120-mile-an-hour winds that ripped through these communities, it was not only flood damage that caused the tremendous destruction.

This can happen. It is happening all over the globe these days. So we need to address this. But in terms of this bill and trying get this piece done, it poses a significant burden for me as the chairman of this committee. This bill passed out of our committee unanimously and not without expressions being made by Senators Schumer and Martinez about the wind issue.

Again, I am sensitive to their concerns. The flood program covers 5.5 million homes and businesses, and the wind program would substantially increase the number of policies provided by the Federal Government, taxing the administration of the program and putting taxpayers on the hook for greater losses, without any question.

In 2005, the hurricanes resulted in $17 billion in flood claims, an amount that completely overwhelmed the flood program. We collect $2.5 billion in premiums each year. About $1 billion of that is administrative costs. So when you are down to a fraction, you get $17 billion in claims on flood, how much would you have to raise those premiums to include the potential wind, where wind damage was five times that of flood in 2005, in those hurricanes that ripped through?

Again, I do not know the answer to those questions in terms of cost and what it would be. But it could literally price the program out of the possibility of people affording it. And what makes the program work is that people pay into it here that allows us to deal with these kinds of catastrophes without going to the Federal Treasury to pay for them. So an expansion of this size could literally overwhelm this program, the flood insurance that is at a significant risk of sinking under the weight of wind. Flood insurance is already in a precarious position. I want to make sure anything we do here will work to stabilize that program.

I am committed to finding a solution. In fact, had it not been for the housing crisis I have been literally spending 98 percent of my time on--and the Presiding Officer is a member of our committee--we are consumed with this issue of how we deal with foreclosures, which is also a problem, I might add, in some of the very States we are talking about that are facing these problems coming to hurricane season.

We would have spent a substantial amount of our time on these related issues, the catastrophic issues our colleagues from Florida talk about, my good friend, Bill Nelson, raises all the time that the people of Florida care deeply about. We will get to that. The problem is that the window is closing on our time to do things. This program expires in September, the flood insurance program--there is no program. So we have a limited window to get this right.

I deeply regret that people have come over offering cloture motions. The energy issue is huge. But when you end up messing up a piece of legislation such as this, despite my offers to everyone to have up-or- down votes on related amendments, to wind and flood and these problems here, it does not help.

An awful lot of people are going to get hurt. An awful lot of costs are going to go up. A lot of damage is going to be done because we cannot spend 24 hours around here doing one thing, and that is deal with flood insurance.