Floor Statements

I thank the Senator from Virginia for his comments on the pending nominations.

But I wanted to take a moment to speak about the housing bill that passed. It was a very significant piece of legislation. On behalf of the people of Louisiana, I wanted to come to the floor to specifically thank Senator Dodd for his extraordinary leadership and tenacity in getting this bill through the floor of the Senate. It has been stuck for weeks. He got it unstuck this morning and passed it, and it has significant relief for homeowners throughout America, to help us stem the foreclosure rate, to stem the tide of economic downturn in many counties throughout our country. But for Louisiana, it has some very special relief. Part of that bill was actually crafted by Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley as chair and ranking member of the Finance Committee, and there was a big piece of that in this housing bill. In that Finance piece was a tax relief provision that is, in my view, central, crucial, and vital to the recovery, ongoing recovery of South Louisiana and the gulf coast.

We added this language to the Foreclosure Prevention Act back in April, where it passed the Senate on a 74-5 vote and I am pleased to see that the combined housing package preserves this critical assistance.

In short, the legislation ensures that hurricane survivors are treated both fairly and with dignity as they struggle to rebuild their lives.

As you know, when these storms, Katrina and Rita, hit, now 3 years ago, they were unprecedented in the size and scope of the destruction. This country has not seen anything like it in well over 100 years, and hopefully we will not see anything like it for another 200 or 300 years. When we went to the Federal toolbox, if you will, to see what tools were available to help the 250,000 homeowners who lost their homes, many did not have insurance because their homes were paid for, or they were not in the flood plain. They lost everything, their homes, their business, their place of worship, the schools their children went to. So when we went to the toolbox, there were not adequate tools to help them. We have been crafting those tools slowly. It has been agonizing for people who are waiting for us to give them a hand.

Many of these taxpaying, hard-working citizens are not asking for charity; they are asking for a chance to get their business back, get their feet back underneath them.

As you know, I am sure it is this way in Virginia. Most middle-class and upwardly mobile families have most of their net worth tied up in their home. So when their home is considered destroyed and the contents as well, it impacts the financial stability of that family.

That is why I have stayed focused on homes, on home rebuilding, and on small businesses, because it is the backbone of our recovery. I am proud to say that in this bill, we were able to deliver $1 billion of relief, literally $1 billion of relief to homeowners who you could argue deserve more help than almost any group of homeowners in America.

Again, these homeowners are suffering kind of a double whammy. Not only did they go through Katrina and Rita, but they are also now in an atmosphere of a slow real estate market; in some places a market that is spiraling downward because of the atmosphere of the country and the economy; although actually at home our economy relative to the country is doing pretty well.

This underlying bill provides relief to homeowners along the gulf coast who had their homes destroyed after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. In 2005, thousands of people along the gulf coast took casualty loss deductions on their tax returns due to damage that their properties sustained from the hurricanes.

In 2007, many of the same people began to receive payments to cover uninsured losses to their property under Louisiana's Road Home program, Mississippi's Housing Assistance program and similar programs in Florida and in Texas.

The IRS has concluded, however, that individuals who took the casualty loss deduction in 2005 and subsequently received a grant payment must add the value of the casualty loss deduction their 2007 income.

This decision not only increases the amount of taxable income but also: increases an individual's tax rate by bumping them into a higher tax bracket; subjects certain taxpayers to the Alternative Minimum Tax; phases out deductions; subjects an individual's Social Security benefits to additional taxation; and makes a taxpayer ineligible for Federal student load aid.

So this relief was absolutely essential. Take the example of two very similar families--the Jones and the Smiths. Both earn $75,000 a year and both had homes that suffered substantial damage in Hurricane Rita. Both of the families received a road home grant of $75,000 in 2007 to cover uninsured losses to their homes. So at this point, they are exactly the same.

In 2005, however, the Smiths took a $75,000 casualty loss deduction which entitled them to a refund of about $7,000.

According to the IRS, the Smith family had to add the value of their 2005 casualty loss deduction, totaling $75,000, to their 2007 income. So what is the result of this?

The Smith family had to pay $25,000 in taxes while the Jones family will

have to pay about $7,000 in taxes. That is over a 350-percent increase in taxes. Not only did the Smith's amount of taxable income increase, but they were bumped into a higher tax bracket so their rate of taxable income increased.

So what does this bill do? This bill would permit taxpayers to amend their 2005 tax returns to reduce or eliminate their casualty loss deductions. By eliminating or reducing their casualty loss deduction, they will not have to pay taxes on their road home grants. A current IRS regulation forbids individuals from amending their returns under this circumstance.

So what effect would the bill have upon the Smith family. At the outset, they will not have over a 350 percent increase in their taxes. They will, however, have to pay back their refund they got in 2005, which would be about $7,000 in addition to their normal taxes.

So by no means does this bill allow a free ride or any sort of ``double dipping.'' They still have to undo their casualty loss, but they will not be providing the IRS a windfall in taxes.

Finally, behind the numbers, it is important to remember that these are real people who have undergone a traumatic event, having their homes destroyed.

The Smith family, before Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus came to their aid, would have had to pay over $24,000 in taxes. These families literally are struggling to pay their electric bill, their utility bills, trying to pay double mortgages, rent and a mortgage on a house trying to keep their house together. They could not have possibly come up with $25,000. That is what we have corrected it.

I thank this Senate for sending special care and attention to a group, hundreds of thousands of homeowners. It is not millions, it not tens of millions, but it is hundreds of thousands of homeowners along the gulf coast who would truly benefit immediately and correctly. This money will go into their pocket and hopefully they will be spending it on their new home or their new apartment or using it to pay back bills they had to charge to their credit cards to literally survive these last several years.

This bill also extends an important provision to spur investment in residential and commercial property along the gulf coast. In response to Katrina and Rita, Congress enacted legislation that would permit bonus depreciation on new buildings.

In order to take advantage of the bonus depreciation, investors needed to start construction on the property by December 31, 2007, and have the property placed into service by December 31, 2008, for lesser damaged counties and parishes and by December 31, 2010, for the most damaged counties and parishes.

However, replacing the basic infrastructure needed to begin this construction has been slow and difficult. New environmental standards, building codes, and the high price of insurance and labor have delayed new construction. Many projects are planned, but these delays have resulted in few actual construction starts.

This bill would simply remove the commencement date to ensure that the gulf coast can sustain and strengthen its recovery in the housing and commercial sectors. It does not change the completion date. By doing so, we can continue to build new residential and commercial properties that are necessary to our recovery.

I know this overall bill contains many critical parts to address our Nation's housing troubles but I thought that it was important to personalize how this bill will help thousands of people struggling to rebuild on the gulf coast.

I am very proud of the Senate. I do believe we should give tax relief when it makes sense. This most certainly makes sense. And $1 billion is a lot of money. I know we are struggling to balance our budget, but I think this was a very worthy expenditure. I thank Senator Dodd again, thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus particularly for remembering the families on the gulf coast and for helping them to achieve substantial tax savings by the passage of this bill. It will go a long way, with the other provisions in this bill, to help our recovery that is underway in the Gulf of Mexico.

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

Mr. President, the evening is getting late, and we have taken some significant action tonight. But I wish to speak for a moment and ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes on the supplemental bill.

Mr. President, we passed, by an overwhelming margin, a supplemental emergency spending bill that will fund our ongoing operations in Iraq and in other parts of the world and will send some money stateside.

In the view of this Senator, we have shortchanged, even with our good effort that was just made, shortchanged some real ongoing serious emergencies here at home.

As far as the gulf coast is concerned, I voted for the bill because I have always believed that half a loaf is better than none.

In the bill, in large measure because of the work of Members on both sides of the aisle, we have a significant amount of money toward the construction of levees that failed and put a great city and region and regions throughout the gulf coast at risk, particularly the New Orleans metropolitan area. I know people get tired of reviewing the details, but less than 3 years ago, several significant levees along the great port system in the city of New Orleans, levees that should have held collapsed, and 80 percent of the city went under water. The water is long gone, but the pain is still there. The rebuilding is still going on. The anxiety of homeowners, renters, small business owners and large business owners, and industrial investors is still there, questioning whether the Federal Government's commitment to not only fix the levees, restore the levees and bring them up to the standards that were promised decades ago, if that promise is going to be kept.

This bill gets us part of the way there, but we still have an awfully long way to go. In the underlying bill we passed, in large measure crafted by House leadership--and I am disappointed in this view of the House leadership--they put in only a portion of the very critical levee funding that is needed for us to go forward, to restore these levees to 100-year flood protection. I don't know how to explain this, but 100- year flood protection is the bare minimum for the United States. There are a few areas that are enjoying 200- and 300-year flood protection in this country, but very few. Most do not have, as you can tell by the flooding going on now in States such as Missouri and Iowa and parts of Illinois, most places don't have the 100-year protection.

For a reference point, I wish to impress upon my colleagues that this is a minimum standard. The country of the Netherlands, which is so small it could fit inside of Louisiana, a powerful economy but a small nation, has flood protection for its people against storms that happen once every 10,000 years. We, the United States of America, cannot claim that we have flood protection for 99 percent of our people against floods once every 100 years. I am going to say again, as I have said 100 times on this floor, incremental funding, nickles and dimes, a few hundred million here or there, is not going to get the job done. In the long run, it is going to cost the American taxpayer billions and billions of dollars more.

So here we go again, after the flood, after the storm, after the promises, after the speeches, after the lights, after the photographs, the bill is passed, but we do not have the whole amount of money necessary to reconstruct the levees as promised by the President and as spoken to on numerous occasions by many Members of the House and Senate. We do have $5.8 billion in this bill, $1.16 billion for the Lake Pontchartrain vicinity which is a long, ongoing project, I think started back in the 1960s. We do have $920 million in for west bank levee which was started back in the 1960s. We have $967 million in the southeast Louisiana flood control project that was started in the 1990s. We have $2.9 billion of flood control and emergency projects, modifying drainage canals, installing pumps, armoring levees, improving protection at the inner harbor canal, federalizing certain non-Federal levees in Plaquemine Parish, the long parish that sits at the toe of the boot in Louisiana, reinforces and replaces floodwalls, repairs and restores floodwalls. The problem is the match that is required because of the House action. The Senate reduced the match required by the State of Louisiana and extended our payment terms. Instead of requiring the State of Louisiana to pay a higher level of 35 percent, the

Senate had suggested, I think wisely, that we revert back to the historic share, which is 25 percent. No one in Louisiana thinks we have to get these projects for free. Everyone in Louisiana understands we have to step up and pay our share. No one is objecting. What we simply asked for was a reasonable share, a historic share, not 35 percent but something like 20 or 25 percent. And most importantly, we had asked that we be allowed to pay it over 30 years.

But, no, under the House version that was very ill-conceived and very poorly thought out, the terms are tougher than historical standards and will require the State to come up with a greater match, 35 percent, and require us to pay it over 3 years.

I submit for the Record a letter from the president of Jefferson Parish, Aaron Broussard, a parish now of a half million people, as well as a letter from Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

I wish to read part of the Governor's letter:

As proposed in the House bill, the State of Louisiana would

be faced with a $1.8 billion cost share over the next three

years for hurricane protection. This would result in a 4000

percent increase [not 4, not 40, not 400] over the state's

pre-Katrina contribution toward hurricane protection efforts.

I know it is not the intention of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee or the Speaker of the House or the majority and minority leaders in the House to make Louisiana pay 4,000 percent more than we were paying before the storm, when we are in an economic situation that is far more challenging than we were before the city and many of our parishes went under water and 1 million people were displaced in the southern part of our State, but that is exactly what they did.

I am going to leave here, along with my colleagues, but I am going to come back and find a way, with the goodwill on the floor of this Senate, working with Republicans and Democrats, to come to some reasonable terms for the people of Louisiana so we can pay a reasonable share and have a longer period to pay it back.

I know we are one Nation and we all have to support each other's projects, but to put this in perspective, many of us here have funded over the last maybe 15 years a project that is rather famous and well known called the big dig in Boston. That project is an eight-lane highway under the city of Boston that extends for 3.5 miles. We all spent money to do it. It cost $14.8 billion for the big dig. I asked in this supplemental for $8 billion to help build 200 miles of levee to protect up to 2 million, roughly, people from losing everything they have worked for and their

parents and their grandparents have worked for, because when those levees break, nothing is saved, and insurance does not even begin to cover the cost of what people have lost. We had to be told in this supplemental discussion that we weren't a priority or we needed to wait. It couldn't fit in this bill. Sorry, we couldn't do it. Sorry, we couldn't find the appropriate cost share.

I am happy for projects like the big dig and other projects around the country. I know some people think I am wearing out my welcome, but it is my job to represent the people of my State. I intend to do it as fairly as I can. I have to say, the President was the one who came to Jackson Square. I didn't go to Jackson Square and turn the lights on and make a promise to the American people that these levees would be rebuilt. He did. Then many Members of Congress came down, Republicans and Democrats, and took shots with a lot of people and said they would rebuild these levees. We want to rebuild our levees. We are willing to put up our share. But the people of Louisiana, under no circumstance, can pay a 4,000-percent increase. Under no circumstance can our State come up with $1.8 billion every year for the next 3 years out of our general fund.

I want to make one more point about the levees. The people on the other side of the levee are not in high-rise condominiums. They are not lying on the beach sunbathing, and they are not frolicking in 2 feet of water for recreational purposes. The people on the other side of these levees are running the greatest port system in North America. They are engaged in fisheries and transportation and oil and gas. They are the men and women who unload the ships that come from all over the world to support the economy of this Nation.

We have work to do when we get back here. I am going to go home for a week. Then I am going to come back, and we are going to work on finding a better way for us to reduce the cost share and extend the time for us to repay our portion so we can get these levees built and give comfort and keep our promise to the people before we have to mark the third anniversary of Katrina, which will be August 29.

We have time, but we don't have a lot of it. It is almost July. The third anniversary will be August 29. I want to put the Senate on notice that I am going to do everything in my power not to allow us to go home for August until some provisions have been made. There are two options. The President can, by executive order, do this. I am asking him to. I am sending him a letter tomorrow asking him to do it. If he doesn't, then every bill that comes to this floor will be subject to an objection by me until this situation is corrected. It is as if you did not give us any levee money, because without us being able to put up a match, the project can't go forward. Some provision will have to be made. I wanted to go on the record tonight saying I am willing to work toward any compromise that will be reasonable and look forward to doing that when we return.

In addition, there were provisions that the Senate graciously, under Senator Byrd's leadership, had put in this bill to continue to help us with other elements of our recovery. The criminal justice provision was stripped out by the House. The health care provision was stripped out by the House. These amounted to literally a few hundred million dollars in the scheme of things.

It is not a great deal of money, as these bills go, that are hundreds of billions of dollars. But it was important money to the city of New Orleans and the region and to hospitals that have never closed from the time that hurricane swept through and destroyed so much in its path. Oschner Hospital stayed open. West Jeff and East Jeff opened very soon, as soon as they could, and have continued to provide indigent care, losing millions and millions and millions of dollars, and yet cannot get the proper reimbursement necessary because of what they did.

FEMA only provides help to public entities. Oschner is technically not a public entity, but it was the only hospital that stayed open, and the doctors and the nurses did the right thing. All they have been-- since doing the right thing--is punished because their board has lost money, money, money, month after month after month. I have pleaded their case on any number of occasions. Senator Leahy, Senator Harkin, and others have been very gracious to try to include help. But it seems as though at certain points it always gets stripped out.

So we are going to come back, and I am going to ask again for some health care funding and some criminal justice funding and work with Senator Grassley, Senator Harkin, Senator McCaskill, and others to fashion better remedies for the thousands of homeowners in other parts of this country who have also been disappointed by levee systems that should have held and failed, by Federal bureaucracies that promised help and did not show up.

I know only too well the pain that is going on right now in other parts of the country. I have lived this nightmare for 3 years in south Louisiana and in Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas. So we do have some work to do when we get back, and I look forward to working with you and others to accomplish that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to extend my remarks.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor of the Senate tonight to pay tribute to a man who had a significant impact on the civil rights movement in my State and our Nation. Justice Revius O. Ortique, a native New Orleanian, passed away on Sunday, June 22, 2008.

At the height of his long and distinguished career in 1992, he was the first African American elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court. But the road was not easy nor was the path to success clear.

Justice Ortique served his country for 4 years as an Army officer in the Pacific theater during World War II. He returned home as part of a great generation his longtime friend Sybil Morial notes for its ``desire to bring about change.'' He attended college at Dillard University, earned a master's degree in criminology from Indiana University, and then earned a law degree from Southern University.

It was a challenging time, to say the least, to be a young, African- American attorney in our South, but Revius Ortique rose to the challenge with determination to change the landscape for African Americans in our city--helping to desegregate lunch counters and neighborhoods, city halls and corporate boardrooms, throughout Louisiana and the South. He served his community as the president of the Urban League of Greater New Orleans for five terms and was also president of the Community Relations Council, a group of local leaders focused on bridging the racial divide and making our city stronger.

Justice Ortique's efforts to heal the divisions of our community soon garnered rightful national attention. He became president of the National Bar Association in 1959. From that post, he had President Johnson's ear--a direct voice to power, speaking for millions of African-Americans. Moved in some measure by Ortique's urging, President Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to be the first African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice and appointed eight other distinguished African Americans to Federal judgeships.

The first African American to be appointed to the Civil District Court bench in New Orleans, in 1978, Justice Ortique continued to be reelected and later served as chief judge. His friends and colleagues remember him as holding himself and his courtroom to the pinnacle of decorum. He was also an inspiring mentor to many young lawyers and judges. ``He really taught you how to be a good lawyer,'' said Judge Michael G. Bagneris, who serves on the Civil District Court in New Orleans. ``He always instilled in young lawyers that they had to show respect for the court.'' It is a respect Justice Ortique earned through his demonstrated wisdom on the bench and the gentlemanly standards he held.

Justice Ortique was elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1992 but

could only serve 2 years due to a State age restriction. He was not ready to retire. He remained as hungry to serve as that young man who went off to defend our country a half century earlier. Mayor Marc Morial appointed him to the New Orleans Aviation Board where he quickly became its chairman, serving for 8 years.

Over the course of his career, five U.S. Presidents learned of his stellar reputation as a jurist and as a leader, appointing him to various Commissions, including the investigation into the killings at Kent State University.

At the end of his life, Justice Ortique and his loving wife of 60 years, Miriam, were living in Baton Rouge. Their New Orleans house had been destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, and like so many Louisianians, they were working to soon return home. He is also survived by his daughter, Rhesa Marie McDonald, and three grandchildren. From the struggles of the civil rights era, to the successes that come with hard work and resolve, Justice Ortique's American story is one of great promise and determination. His legacy will live on through the generations he has inspired to bring about change of their own.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California, and I am pleased to join my colleagues in calling for the change Americans are hoping for, which this next election opportunity will bring, to focus on issues that need so much change in America.

One of the items on the top of our Checklist for Change is a FEMA that works, a plan that treats local and State governments as respected and able partners, having a disaster plan that spends taxpayer dollars with care and efficiency, having a plan that puts a premium on helping families and extended families stay together through an ordeal that rocks the economic foundation and future of so many families as they are displaced, sometimes for weeks, sometimes for months, and, yes, even sometimes for years.

We need a new FEMA. We need a muscular, robust, able, efficient, and effective FEMA to be a true partner with local and State governments and individual businesses and families in times of disaster.

I have spoken many times on the floor about the disasters of Katrina and Rita and how it affected the gulf coast, from Beaumont to Mobile, with the great city of New Orleans and the metropolitan area being most directly affected. But we are not isolated in that suffering by any means.

This week, we have seen what is happening today in Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois. There has been $1.5 billion in damages in Iowa alone, and 38,000 Iowans have been evacuated. More than 3,500 National Guard are deployed. More than 4.8 million sandbags have been used. I could go on and on about the towns that have been completely evacuated.

Yes, New Orleans was completely evacuated. So was Saint Bernard Parish and so were large swaths of Jefferson Parish--a parish of more than 450,000 people--3 years ago this August.

But today the towns of Hartford, Palo, and Fredonia have been completely evacuated--not as large as New Orleans but towns of substantial populations.

The question is, Does FEMA have its housing plan together yet? Is there a plan for people to be able to get their medicines if they are relocated, to get their prescription drugs from their hometown pharmacy or their neighborhood? I am not sure that has been done yet.

So we need a FEMA that works. We need an administration that understands it is not just disasters far away but disasters right here at home and that homeland security starts with hometown security, where people can be secure in their neighborhoods, in their homes, and that the levees that have been put up to protect them will actually hold the water and will not be breached or overturned.

We do not have that confidence right now in America. So not only do we need a new FEMA, but we need a FEMA that will be an advocate for proper investments in infrastructure.

It is embarrassing, I believe, to be in the atmosphere we are in, where people can look up and any day a bridge could collapse or any day a levee could break. We cannot prevent tornadoes. We cannot prevent hurricanes. We cannot prevent earthquakes. But I promise you, we can do a lot more than we are doing now to reform the Federal emergency system so it works better with local and State governments so that when earthquakes happen, when hurricanes happen, when other disasters happen, the people of the United States are getting the help they need.

So that is one of our top issues on our Checklist for Change: a disaster planning and response system second to none.

It is a long list. But it is a list that must get done. That is, in large measure, what this next election is about. It is about the kind of leadership that is going to bring about the changes necessary, so when a business collapses after 20 or 30 years of making a profit, or longer, when families' homes are destroyed, they have a Government they can count on--not to give them charity but to give them a hand up, to respond, to help them get back on their feet economically, spiritually, and emotionally. That is what our Government can do.

So I am proud to join this team. Again, we are asking for a FEMA that works.

Mr. President, on April 24, 2008, 25 young men and women from Louisiana and the Washington area took part in Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day. I am going to submit all of their names for the Record to show that they spent a day working the Senate with me and with some of the other Senators and have seen firsthand the work that goes on.

I want to acknowledge the MS Magazine Foundation that started Take our Daughters and Sons to Work Day to thank them for organizing this effort where there are thousands, maybe perhaps millions, of young people who have taken a day out of their school work to go to the various places where Americans are working to contribute to making this country of ours a better country and this world a better place.

I ask to have the names printed in the Record for these young men and women and thank them for being a part of this special day and taking their time to come and learn about the workings of the Senate.

The list follows.

From The Bryn Mawr School: Alexandra Argo, Baltimore, MD;

from Urusline Academy: Kelly Francis Antrum, New Orleans, LA;

from Ursuline Academy: Jennifer Baker, New Orleans, LA; from

Lake Castle School: Anna Campbell, Abita Springs, LA; from

St. Angela Merici School: Margret Domingo, Metairie, LA; from

St. James Episcopal School: Ashton Eymard, Baton Rouge, LA;

from St. Margaret Mary: Cameron Gerhold, Slidell, LA; from

Georgetown Day School: Cleo Gill, Washington, DC; from

Georgetown Day School: Camilla Herrera, Washington, DC; from

Grace Episcopal School: Mary Snellings Inabnett, Monroe, LA;

from LSU Lab School: Jeremy Jetson, Baton Rouge, LA; from St.

Peter's: Marlena Jones, Washington, DC; from St. Dominic

School: Ashley Landrieu, New Orleans, LA; from St. Dominic

School: Claire Landrieu, New Orleans, LA; from St. Dominic

School: Katie Landrieu, New Orleans, LA; from Our Lady of

Prompt Succor: Alyse Lemoine, Dryprong, LA; from St. Dominic

School: Sarah Mayer, New Orleans, LA; from Academy of the

Sacred Heart: Natalie Lindon, St. Martinville, LA; from T.S.

Cooley Magnate School: Hanaiah Morris, Lake Charles, LA; from

LSU Lab School: McKenzie Prudhomme, Baton Rouge, LA; from St.

Dominic School: Alexandra Sensenbrenner, New Orleans, LA;

from St. Ignatius School: Mary Francis Seiter, Mobile, AL;

from Georgetown Day School: Mary Shannon Snellings,

Washington DC; from Ursuline Academy: Gabrielle Terrebonne,

Gretna, LA; from St. Margaret Catholic School: Brooke Walker,

Lake Charles, LA.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the supplemental bill that was put together by many Members, actually, on both sides of the aisle, who believe that, yes, we should expedite funding for our troops in the field, but also there are emergencies right here at home, as eloquently described earlier this morning in the remarks of the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Washington State.

I would like to add some words to their arguments. First of all, I realize there is an emergency and a war and conflict going on in Iraq and international incidents around the world that deserve the attention and support of this body. But there are also emergencies right here at home and imminent and ongoing threats.

This chart basically says it all. It is a frightening chart to me, a depressing chart, but it is reality. The reality is, since 1955 through 2005, this is the track of hurricanes that have hit the United States. Some of these are category 1, some are category 2, but dozens of them are categories 4 and 5. This track is Hurricane Katrina in yellow and Hurricane Rita in blue, which devastated large parts of Louisiana and Mississippi, even going into Alabama and Texas--flooding thousands of homes and killing 2,000 people plus along the gulf coast. The predictions are that these kinds of storms are going to get more frequent and worse.

There is nothing we can do to prevent hurricanes. This is Mother Nature. We have just seen it explode in China and in Burma. It is frightening to a civilized society. We get in strong buildings like this and think that nothing can hurt us; surely no water could reach us or wind destroy us. Then Mother Nature appears in a very violent way sometimes and reminds us how vulnerable we all are.

In the United States, we just don't cry about these things and wring our hands. We do something. We, the States, local and Federal Governments appropriate funding to build the right kind of levees and dams, and we provide the right paradigm or framework for insurance because that is the way we protect ourselves. Hopefully, we have infrastructure that will not fail when the pressure comes; and then insurance, if it does come, to help people who have lost so much get back on their feet. That is all we can do. It would be good if we would do that.

But if we vote against this bill today, we are not taking the necessary steps to get that done. Again, this is a depressing chart to me. I don't like to see it, but I put this up in my office to remind myself that this is not just about Katrina and Rita, which we will be marking the anniversary of on August 29--3 years--and then September 24, 3 years for Rita, two of the most destructive storms to hit the United States. I remind myself that New York is in danger, New Jersey is in danger, and South Carolina and North Carolina are in danger. And Florida, in 2005, had the worst storm season of the century, according to the Senator from Florida.

Briefly, referring to this chart, this is the area that went underwater in New Orleans, this region--New Orleans and Jefferson and St. Bernard. Some say: Why don't you all just relocate? That would be a very expensive proposition, and impossible, for any number of reasons. One, about 1 million people live in the metropolitan area; two, the mouth of the Mississippi River is something that the people of Mississippi and Louisiana most certainly think is an important asset to the country--so important that Thomas Jefferson, when he was President, leveraged the entire Federal Treasury to purchase it. We put all of our defenses along the river to defend it. You cannot close this river. The people who work on the river and contribute to the assets of the country cannot go live in Arkansas or north Texas or north Mississippi. They need to live close to the coast for all of the important energy that comes.

The city is no longer underwater. The water is long gone, but the tears are still there and the pain is still there and the frightening part is still there because the start of the hurricane season is just right around the corner, June 1. We have reports in the paper today that there is some leakage in the same canal that breached and destroyed over 10,000 homes--or more, actually--in the Lakeview area, which is a solid middle-class area.

This is a picture from the Times-Picayune today. In this bill, there is about $7 billion for levees, to finish the construction of levees that broke--Federal levees that should have held and didn't. We are in a mad dash to get these levees and this infrastructure rebuilt strongly, correctly, and safely so people can begin to rebuild this city higher, yes, and stronger, yes. But no one living in the middle of a city or urban area should have to go to bed at night and wonder when they wake up if they will be in 8 feet of water or 12 feet.

This is the 17th Street Canal, and you have seen this many times in pictures. That is what is in this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the supplemental.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

We have hurricane levees in this bill. We also have housing vouchers. The risks have increased substantially in the region. After the storm, we lost 250,000 dwellings in Louisiana and thousands in Mississippi. We have a homeless population that has doubled. There are housing vouchers in the bill for the homeless, for the very low income, and for the disabled. After storms like these, that population is gravely threatened.

I will come back later and finish my remarks. This is important to the people of the gulf coast. I thank the Senator for the time allowed this morning. I urge my colleagues, in supporting the war funding in Iraq, please let's remember the emergency still going on at home.

Mr. President, 10 Louisiana law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty this past year, and they are being recognized in Washington this week as part of National Police Week. I welcome their families and colleagues to the Nation's Capital. These officers lost their lives while serving their communities and are being honored for their courage and the ultimate sacrifice they made to serve and protect the citizens of Louisiana.

National Police Week is collaborative effort to honor the service and sacrifice of America's law enforcement community and includes the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, NLEOMF, the Fraternal Order of Police/Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary, FOP/FOA, and the Concerns of Police Survivors, COPS.

Officers from around the country and the families of fallen officers travel to Washington, DC, for events including the Peace Officers Memorial Day Service at the U.S. Capitol and the National Police Survivor's Conference. In addition, the names of our 10 Louisiana heroes will be engraved on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial along with 348 other names from around the country. The names will also be read at a candlelight vigil at the memorial this week.

The following brave police officers and Sheriff's deputies gave their lives

to protect our Louisiana communities: Patrolman Brian Keith Coleman, Alexandria Police Department; Detective Thelonious Anthony Dukes, Sr., New Orleans Police Department; Sergeant R. Alan Inzer, Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office; Deputy Hilery Alexander Mayo, Jr., St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office; Deputy Joshua E. Norris, Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office; Sergeant Linden Albert Raimer, St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office; Chief David Gerald Richard, Port Barre Police Department; Sergeant John Russell Smith, Bastrop Police Department; Detective Charles Douglas Wilson, Jr., Bastrop Police Department; and Deputy Yvonne D. Pettit, Washington Parish Sheriff's Office.

The sacrifices of our heroic law enforcement officers remind us that it is Congress's responsibility to ensure the Federal Government looks after our disabled officers and firefighters, as well as the families of our fallen and disabled first responders. They put themselves in harm's way each day so that the rest of us may live safely and peacefully in a free society. There is no group more deserving of our full support, and the truth is, our Federal Government has not done enough to care for and honor these officers, their families, and their sacrifice.

National Police Week provides an opportunity for us to reflect on our law enforcement officers' contributions to building safe and productive communities in Louisiana and across the country. I ask the Senate to join me in honoring these 10 Louisiana fallen officers, their families, and their colleagues across the country for their unwavering service and dedication to keeping us safe.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to rise in honor of National Charter School week. The role of charter schools has become increasingly important as these institutions have become one of the fastest-growing innovative forces in education policy. In the past 4 years, 1,600 new charter schools opened and 500,000 additional public school students chose to enroll in charter schools. In the fall of 2007, 350 new public charter schools opened and an additional 115,000 public school students enrolled in these schools. Nationwide in 40 States and Washington, DC, over 4,300 public charter schools enroll more than 1.2 million public school students.

As many of you know, I have been a longtime advocate of charter schools, which not only help to better educate students, but can also help to build stronger, more prosperous cities. As incubators of innovation in education, public charter schools are an indispensable component of our Nation's educational landscape.

Back home in New Orleans, in the aftermath of the catastrophic devastation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita came an opportunity to recreate a public school system through bold innovation and community involvement. The educational entrepreneurship of public charter schools has been integral to the city's recovery. They are inspiring positive changes throughout the system, as other schools work to cultivate the same benefits. Our hope is that all public schools in New Orleans will enjoy the same entrepreneurship, independence, and community involvement that the public charter schools have fostered.

Public charter schools were the first schools to open after the storm and they have since thrived. Today more than 57 percent of the city's public school students attend public charter schools, and more than half of our public schools are independently chartered, the highest percentage in the country.

Moreover, public charter schools are gaining momentum and support around the Nation. The recently released 2008 Public Charter School Dashboard included a national opinion poll that found that more than three out of four voters favor giving parents more options when choosing a public school for their children.

As we celebrate National Charter Schools Week with this resolution, it is my sincere hope that Congress will commit to supporting the growth of charter schools as critical tools for closing the achievement gap.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what are the three votes?

OK. That is the only unanimous consent agreement. That is fine.

Mr. President, I wish to speak for a moment, if I could, about the wind amendment that is pending that Senator Wicker, myself, Senator Vitter, and Senator Cochran have cosponsored. Several of us have been working on this for months now, and our colleagues in the House, particularly from Mississippi and Louisiana, have been very engaged, but there are other delegations that are engaged in this issue as well. The reason is because flood insurance, while it has been helpful--very helpful to some degree--throughout the southern part and coastal areas of the country, is not sufficient. We have to provide some opportunity for our homeowners and businesses to have access to affordable wind insurance, and the operative word here is ``affordable.''

That is why we have offered this amendment to modify and expand the insurance bill regarding flooding. That is why we have held this bill up--one of the reasons this bill has been held up by several of us for several months now--until we could try to get an opportunity to fix this bill which is still, in my view, greatly flawed in a number of areas, and this is one. This bill is not providing what people need-- not just in Louisiana and in Mississippi but in Texas, in Alabama, in South Carolina, in North Carolina, in Florida--in many places around this country that may be subject to storms, particularly along the lines of Katrina and Rita and other storms that have hit recently and are projected, obviously, to continue.

We are making some significant changes. People are building stronger. There are new building codes being adopted county by county, parish by parish, and State by State. There are new ideas about designs and building more safely. Even some communities are moving to higher ground. Neighborhoods are making tough decisions about where we should build and where we shouldn't. All of that is going on throughout many parts of the country.

I wish to read a couple of letters--because I think my colleagues have explained this issue very well--that we are receiving from constituents who have been struggling to get themselves back in their homes and to pay not just their mortgage but their insurance costs as well as the rising cost of fuel and the rising cost of groceries. This is exacerbating a very tough economic situation that we are experiencing in the gulf.

This is an e-mail I received from Chet in Metairie:

Hello. I live in Old Metairre. My home did receive wind

damage from Katrina, with a total insurance claim of just

under $30,000. I share my mortgage costs with my mother who

is a 79-year-old retired Jefferson Parish school teacher.

This year, our homeowners insurance tripled. Thanks to this,

the total amount we pay to our mortgage company has almost

doubled in 2008. Our monthly payment of loan, property tax,

and insurance has gone from about $1,200 before Katrina to

$2,093 post-Katrina. My income has not increased. My mother's

pension has not increased at all. My brother in Mandeville

has experienced similar increases. We know that insurance

companies reported record profits in the year following

Katrina.

It is very interesting to me that so many people on this floor are screaming and yelling about record oil profits. I didn't hear anyone come to the floor to talk about the strange and unusual situation of after one of the greatest catastrophes in the history of this country, or at least recent catastrophes, the insurance profits hit a record high, but no one from the committee came down to talk about taxing or curbing insurance profits. Yet we can't even get any kind of expansion or affordable rates for wind coverage.

I am not blaming all insurance companies, but there is something to be said for in the same year that there is the largest catastrophe in the country, the companies that are covering the catastrophe had record profits. I don't understand it and most of my constituents don't understand that. So there is a plea from constituents everywhere to try to do something about affordable insurance coverage.

Here is another e-mail from Kim in New Orleans:

Dear Mary, I'm not really sure what category this falls

under. I have owned a home in New Orleans for the past three

years. My insurance has gone from $995 a year to $5,133. I am

a single mother with one child. I cannot afford an insurance

premium of $995 to $5,135. What are we going to do?

Another from Mandeville:

My homeowners insurance has just increased $1,000. Since my

insurance company decided not to cover hail and wind anymore,

I will have to buy insurance from the ``Fair'' plan--

Which is our State's pool--

at a higher premium.

In addition to keeping the premium low enough to afford my

mortgage, I cannot cover everything inside of my home.

Now, again--I know the Presiding Officer has been down to Louisiana-- I am not talking about second homes on beaches. I am not talking about homeowners who live on the water. I am talking about people who live in the city, a port city, similar to Baltimore. We have New Orleans, a great port city, that services not just the millions of people who live in and around the metropolitan area and all up and down the lower Mississippi River, but a port city that benefits the whole entire Nation. So basically, with the bill that the committee has brought to the floor, which I have objected to, their basic philosophy is everybody who lives in and around a port that generates profit can pay high rates, so everybody else can pay extra low rates, and the people in the port cities can basically absorb the difference.

I understand about risk. If you are living in Florida on a beach in a condo as a second home or maybe even your first home or you are living on a beach in Alabama or in Mississippi, maybe you should pay a little bit extra. But the people whom I am representing--we only have two beaches. There are only two, 3 miles long, and you can't even get to them basically without a boat. I have people in Mandeville, in St. Tammany Parish, in Tangipahoa Parish and in the city of New Orleans 5 minutes from the Superdome who are seeing their rates quadruple. These people are not living in a vacation area.

This committee is having a hard time understanding this issue. That is why the Members, both Republicans and Democrats, have brought this bill, to try to say what are we going to do to give affordable wind coverage to people who live in and around these port communities.

This is from Robert in Slidell:

This will be an increase from $500 to $3,887 or an increase

of 775 percent. My dwelling coverage increased by more than

21 percent in June of 2007 and another 21 percent in June of

2008. This is in addition to my deductible increasing 775

percent.

He says:

I am confused.

Well, let me tell Robert that I am confused too, because this is supposed to be a reform bill coming through to give people better insurance and better coverage and it leaves wind out of it completely. That is why we put on a wind amendment. I ask my colleagues to please support the amendment that will allow us to include wind.

This is a final e-mail from Theresa in LaPlace, LA, again, 75 miles from a beach:

I just received notice from my mortgage company that due to

the skyrocketing insurance premiums for my landlord policy,

the house note is increasing from $312 per month to $725 per

month. The monthly insurance premium is more than the monthly

house note. If something is not done, I am going to be forced

to sell my house.

Now, I have been to this floor many times before. I am very sensitive to the foreclosure problems going on around this country. I know the counties that are experiencing very high foreclosure rates. Some of them are because lenders speculated. Some of it is because a few home builders got greedy--not all, because most home builders are doing the right thing, but they maybe speculated in a market.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.

Yes.

I object.

Thank you, Mr. President.

As I was saying, the letter goes on to say:

I have paid enough in insurance premiums to rebuild my

house out-of-pocket had it been completely destroyed.

But again, when we try to get decent, affordable coverage for people, both for flood and wind, we are having a difficult time on this floor and in this Congress.

So I hope as we continue to discuss through the afternoon the importance of this that people will understand and recognize that this amendment--there are several but this amendment regarding wind is very important so we can continue our recovery in the gulf coast.

As I was saying before I was asked to pause for a minute, I recognize the foreclosure difficulties throughout the country, and I have said I am sensitive to the concerns of those communities. But I want to please remind everyone again: The people of the gulf coast do not have a foreclosure problem brought on by themselves. In fact, our foreclosure rate is lower, much lower than any--much lower than the national averages. But our people are getting their homes foreclosed and taken away from them because Federal levees that should have held failed and an insurance system we should have regulated has gone in large measure unregulated, and programs such as this that are supposed to be helping people afford insurance are not doing so. It is not right.

Our people have nowhere else to go other than to Congress to help them get a better system in place. That is why I and many of my colleagues have held this bill up for 2 years in committee. We may or may not get to vote on it this afternoon, depending upon how many e- mails I decide to read into the Record.

I wish to talk about an amendment I am going to offer and send up, amendment No. 4706, as modified.

Yes, and I will offer another one.

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

I object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment 4706, as modified, at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, Senator Wicker, Senator Vitter, myself, and Senator Cochran to some degree have been working for months literally on this bill. It is a very important bill--as has Senator Nelson of Florida--a very important bill to Mississippi and Louisiana that felt the brunt of these last storms that we will be marking the third anniversary of this August, not too far from today, and in September for Hurricane Rita. As I was saying earlier this morning, thousands and thousands and thousands of homeowners are having a difficult time, the causes of which are very different. In some parts of the country people extended debt beyond what was wise and reasonable and find themselves losing their homes and in some instances it is partly their fault.

In some places, some consumers had bad deals thrust at them, and maybe through fraud or some other abuse they find themselves losing their homes. The people I represent didn't do either of those two things. The people I represent in Louisiana and along the gulf coast did nothing but basically play by the rules, have insurance if they were required to, didn't have insurance when they were not required, for the most part. There were some families who should have had insurance who did not, but that is another subject for another day. But the bulk of the people did exactly what they were supposed to do, and they are still going to lose their homes because of two reasons: The Federal levees that should have held didn't and the insurance paradigm we have established is not sufficient. That is what this bill is about.

To describe this in very clear graphics, I wish to put up this poster that shows why we are on the floor today: $17.53 billion; that is a lot of money. That is why this bill is on the floor today, because we have to ``reform the system'' because it is obviously not working. We set up a flood insurance program and for years it would basically break even because of the way it was structured. Then in 2004, it went into debt a little bit, $225 million. Then we went into debt a little bit more, $300 million, but still manageable. Then Katrina and Rita hit and the debt goes up to almost $20 billion. So make no mistake about it, that is why this bill is on the floor. This is a taxpayer bailout of $20 billion. At the same time the taxpayers are bailing out the insurance industry, I wanted to show you what the insurance industry profits are. Everybody--some Republicans and a lot of Democrats--has been on this floor talking about oil companies. I guess I can understand why oil companies are making profits, because prices are high. That is a whole other subject for another day. But I wonder how insurance companies can make profits when you are supposed to have a record loss. I understand profits when prices are high; I don't understand profits when losses are great. There is something wrong with this system.

So, in 2005, the insurance profits went up to $48 billion. Katrina and Rita hit; they don't go down. The profits go up. Because it is basically a system where insurance companies just cannot lose money. People can lose money. People can lose their houses. Businesses lose their businesses. Businesses lose their contents and their markets. But for some reason, in this insurance bill we are operating under, insurance companies make money in the middle of a disaster. Some of my constituents, including myself, would like to know how this happens.

As to the National Flood Insurance Program, the GAO did a report that says: ``Greater Transparency and Oversight of Wind and Flood Damage Determinations Are Needed.'' They just issued this report. I would say so, since the taxpayers are going to pick up the $20 billion bill.

You heard the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson. They were so desperate in

Florida, the State had to sort of insure itself, which, thank goodness, Florida is big enough and maybe wealthy enough to do. It is very risky for the State of Florida to do that. If they have four our five hurricanes in one season, like they did a couple seasons ago, it could bankrupt the State. I am sure this debate went on in the Florida Legislature. But they were so desperate, they actually had no recourse because the Federal Government will not come up with a plan that will work for everyone.

So Florida had a choice: They could either shut down every commercial business, shut down every homebuilder, completely stop the housing market in Florida, or they could self-insure themselves. It was a pretty desperate situation, so Florida went ahead and did that.

But let me explain, Louisiana is not a rich State, and we are not a big State. We cannot insure ourselves that way. If we had another Katrina, the whole State would go bankrupt and our kids could not go to universities, our hospitals would shut down. I know people think I am making this up, but it is the truth. We cannot assume that risk onto ourselves, and neither can Mississippi, and I would suggest neither could Alabama. Maybe California could do it, maybe New York could do it, maybe Texas could do it, and maybe Florida could do it because they are big States, but our little States would go bankrupt.

So our GAO says the insurance business needs some more transparency and oversight. I will tell you why. As shown on this chart, this is what is in the report. As you know, maybe by word of explanation, under the current system--as unbelievable as this might sound--you have the real estate agents who are in the private sector writing wind insurance for their companies, which they can make a profit on. It is private. They are writing the flood insurance policies. So it is ``write your own'' policy. So the same people who write the Federal, taxpayer- guaranteed flood program write the private program.

So right now--and this bill does not fix this; this bill does not do anything to fix this--right now, according to our own GAO, Government Accountability Office, which is completely neutral, not political:

In certain damage scenarios, the WYO [write your own]

insurer that covers a policyholder for wind losses can have a

vested economic interest in the outcome of the damage

determination that it performs when the property is subjected

to a combination of high winds and flooding.

Which, hello, most often happens in a hurricane. You have winds and water. So it always happens that way.

In such cases, a conflict of interest exists--

Let me underline ``a conflict of interest exists''--

with the WYO insurer as it determines which damages were

caused by wind, to be paid by itself. . . .

So if a house is destroyed and the person comes in and says: This house was destroyed by wind 85 percent--if that is the case--then I have to pay it out of my pocket. If it is actually 85 percent flood, then the Government can pay it. The poor taxpayers can pick up this tab, so the insurance companies move their liability to the taxpayer.

I know, Madam President, as a former auditor, you can most certainly appreciate and understand this situation.

So it says:

In such cases, a conflict of interest exists with the WYO

insurer as it determines which damages were caused by wind,

to be paid by itself, and which damages were caused by

flooding, to be paid by NFIP [the National Flood Insurance

Program].

Which is basically the taxpayers.

Moreover, the amount WYO insurers are compensated . . .

In addition to that obvious conflict of interest, which is not corrected in this bill, the insurers are compensated for servicing a flood claim, and it increases as the amount of the flood damage increases. So their compensation, their percentage is increased. So if the flood insurance is more, they get a little bit of a premium.

So this bill has been in committee being worked out through the House and Senate, it is finally on the floor, and this problem has not been corrected. So that is why I offer my amendment to try to correct some portion of it.

Let me show you one of the actual transactions we have uncovered. This is an actual blowup of a claim, the paperwork that was done. It talks about the flood that occurred on August 29. Damage appears to be the result of the general condition of flooding. The first inspection revealed an exterior waterline of 15 to 20 feet, an interior waterline of 8 to 12 feet. Damage was extensive. It lists this.

That sounds wonderful and great. That is kind of what one of these documents would look like. The problem is, the adjuster who turned in that document said--this is under oath in one of the court proceedings that is slowly moving through the courts--``I did not put those numbers in there.'' ``There was no house to measure a waterline.'' ``I did not prepare that letter.'' ``They didn't call me about that letter.'' ``That is the document that is sent to the Federal Government.'' This is an adjuster. We have blocked his name out because he would probably get in trouble if they knew he was sharing this information with us.

So, in other words, again, this is not complicated, because I know insurance can be complicated. I do not really like the subject very much, but I have had to learn more about it than I care to know because of what we are going through.

But we have a system which we are getting ready to vote on right now that allows the same insurance companies to write their own personal policies or their own business policies, and they do the Government a ``big favor'' by writing the flood insurance policies. They decide when their houses are destroyed, how much they have to pay out of pocket, if it was done by wind, or how much we have to pay if it was done by flood. These documents are barely ever audited, or this system is barely ever audited.

When we went and checked, as shown on this chart, this was the house that supposedly had a water line. Of course, you can see this address. There was no house. There could not possibly have been any measurement because there are no walls to measure. So this is just an example of hundreds that are coming out as these court cases move forward all along the gulf about the very serious problems related to the way the U.S. flood insurance program works.

Now, I know we need a flood insurance program. My State benefits tremendously from having one that is fair and equitable to the people who are paying the premiums, to the homeowners and businesses who rely on it. I also have an obligation to taxpayers generally in this country to support a program that is honest and fair. What I am suggesting is that the bill we are about to vote on--which is probably why I am going to vote no--does not do anything to change this.

So I am going to put up my ``$20 billion'' sign again. This $20 billion debt exists in large measure because of this system I have just described. Now, this bill is going to pass, and magically the Federal Government is going to just absorb the $20 billion so we kind of get back to even. The bill, then, generally said, to make up for that, we are going to raise rates. But do you know on whom they raise rates? Not on the insurance companies that have already made record profits. Do you know on whom they raise rates? People who cannot afford the rates today. In the underlying bill, they can raise rates 15 percent a year or 25 percent a year.

When we ask the committee to please consider that the people of Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama cannot afford higher insurance rates, couldn't we possibly consider some kind of catastrophic plan-- because we might have hurricanes, but Memphis is going to have an earthquake someday, and Seattle is going to have a tsunami; in 1938, a hurricane 5 slammed into Long Island--we are told no. We cannot even consider such a thing.

So there are many things wrong, and I really cannot correct them. I tried to hold this bill up as long as I could, and everybody decided we needed to have a flood insurance bill, so I said: Fine. Let the bill come to the floor, but I am going to talk against it. That is what I plan to do.

So the purpose of this bill is for the taxpayers to eat $20 billion, to let insurance companies have record profits, and the end result is the people of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana get rates raised every year from now until who knows. And I am supposed to just

sit here and say this is a great bill the committee came up with?

So the amendment I am offering--which is not going to fix this bill, but it might fix one problem with this bill--is to establish an ombudsman.

Oh, and this is really ironic, what is in the underlying bill. In the underlying bill, there is a provision that establishes an office to register complaints. It is a flood insurance advocate section of this bill. If I had the section, I would read it. But in the underlying bill, there is a section that talks about that if anybody has a complaint, they could call a 1-800 number and complain.

Now, I have e-mails up to my ceiling in my office from people--not complaining, crying--not complaining, crying because they are getting ready to lose their business or lose their house. But they could, in the underlying bill, call a 1-800 number and make a complaint. But the language is so weak and flimsy, there is really not anything they can do other than complain.

So I have taken that section and strengthened it. That is what my amendment does. It does not just establish a complaint counter. It establishes an office that has some teeth. It establishes an ombudsman's office. We kind of took the language from some of our IG legislation which will allow the establishment of an office with some significant funding attached to it that can review and audit more carefully this National Flood Insurance Program.

I would hope the leaders of this committee would look carefully at this amendment and know that I offer it in very good faith. Again, I do not believe the underlying bill, in this provision just establishing an office to complain, is enough considering the gravity of the situation we are dealing with.

I offer this amendment in good faith. I offer it with Senator Nelson from Florida as a cosponsor. It establishes an office that would conduct audits to ensure that only flood losses are being allocated to the flood insurance program. It ensures that write-your-own insurers are preserving the necessary documentation to justify their payments, to conduct any other examinations to protect the financial integrity of the program, and to prevent fraud and abuse and conflicts of interest.

Now, again, our Government Accounting Office has already established there is an inherent conflict of interest in the current program. So we are not guessing that there might be a conflict of interest; there is a conflict of interest. It says so according to the GAO:

In certain damage scenarios, the insurer that covers a

policyholder for wind losses can have a vested economic

interest in the outcome of the damage determination that it

performs when the property is subjected to a combination of

high winds and flooding. A conflict of interest exists, as it

determines whether it says your house was damaged by wind.

So let me go ahead and pay your claim on it, or the insurer says: No, I think it was damaged by flood, which then the taxpayers can pay for, and my insurance company gets off Scot-free. And maybe, just maybe, that might explain why in the worst disaster in the history of the United States, at least recently, taxpayers have to pick up $20 billion and insurance companies file record profits.

Is there anything in this underlying bill that might suggest that we could watch the taxpayers' money a little more carefully? No. They put in an office, a 1-800 number where people might complain.

So instead of the 1-800 number where people might complain, I would like to put in an office where, if something is wrong, people can be criminally prosecuted. If there is fraud, people can be penalized with civil penalties and criminal penalties.

I know this is very tough language, but I am not suggesting this particular document suggests that there is any stealing or any crime. But there is something wrong in our system of justice where somebody goes into a grocery store and steals $100 and gets 3 years in jail, and we have companies that--``fudge'' is the word. They didn't really use the word ``steal,'' but they will fudge a little and take $20 billion out of the Treasury and they get nothing--not a slap on the wrist, not a fine. The only thing that happens is the poor homeowners and businesses get increased premiums. So that is one of the things this amendment does.

I hope my colleagues, whether they vote for the bill--I probably will not vote for the bill unless it is amended substantially, which it may be between now and the time we vote on final passage--but I hope my colleagues will look very carefully at this amendment that I offer with Senator Nelson. It establishes basically an IG ombudsman within this program to make sure the taxpayers don't pick up another $20 billion in costs.

I know people will say: Well, Senator Landrieu, if we don't have this bill, your people won't have flood insurance. Well, I understand that, but our people have--we are between a rock and a hard place. We need flood insurance, but we need flood insurance that we can afford. We would like to believe we have a flood insurance program that operates honestly. I am not sure that we do. So that is what this amendment does, amendment No. 4706.

Amendment No. 4705, as Modified, to Amendment No. 4707

I have one final amendment to offer. If I can, I would like to send the amendment, as modified, No. 4705, to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Madam President, I send this amendment to the desk, which is actually on behalf of myself, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Pryor, that addresses the mandatory coverage requirements in the underlying bill. I hope my colleagues will not think again that this bill only affects the gulf coast because there are some provisions in this bill that are going to affect the entire country.

One of the provisions is, it is going to be mandatory as FEMA maps home and businesses located beyond levees and dams and floodwalls and other manmade structures into residual risk areas. Once these homes and businesses are mapped into such areas, the legislation would require them to purchase flood insurance.

Now, levees and dams don't just exist in New Orleans, although we have quite a few of them because we are a low-lying area. But we have 14,000 miles of Federal levees throughout the country along many rivers. In fact, I see the Senator from North Dakota, and he himself has had very significant experience with one of his towns being demolished, devastated, almost completely destroyed, I think it was maybe 15 years ago, when their levees broke. So he is well aware.

Whether you are in Michigan or Illinois or Missouri or in many places where there are levees and dams, there are 14,000 miles of Federal levees, 79,000 dams, and 22 percent of all counties

and parishes have a levee. So it is one out of every four that will be affected by the underlying bill; that is, once FEMA finishes mapping the whole United States, which they are doing and which we need to do. We need to have better maps using new technology to try to determine who is near sea level and who is above sea level and who is at risk. I have no problem with that. But this bill will mandate that everybody behind those levees pays insurance.

So my amendment will basically establish before that requirement goes into place--and, again, it may be necessary--that there be adequate study about the issue. The amendment strikes the mandatory purchase requirement. In its place, it requires the GAO to study the cost, the regulatory, financial, and economic impacts of extending the mandatory purchase on the cost of home ownership, the actuarial soundness to this program, to the local communities, insurance companies, and local land use; the effectiveness of sending such a purchase requirement in protecting homeowners from financial loss and protecting the financial soundness of the program.

Now, I know this was debated in committee. I am not sure that it has gotten a lot of coverage, but my phone has been ringing off the hook from other Senators who are just waking up and saying: Well, Senator, I thought this flood insurance program only affected those places along the coast, and now I am realizing this flood insurance ``reform'' bill is going to raise fees--not necessarily taxes but premiums--on thousands and thousands and thousands of homeowners and businesses throughout the country.

We may have to do that. We may have to do that. But let's do it after GAO has studied and laid out what the impact and ramifications are, and let's do it in a system that is fair so it is not just the homeowners who have to pay premiums, the taxpayers who bail them out when there is a problem, and insurance companies that can't lose money under the current system. That is basically the system that we have.

So, again, 43 million people are affected by the underlying bill with this new provision. Twenty-two percent of all counties in the country, and in our case parishes, have levees; 79,000 dams and 14,000 miles of Federal levees.

So these are the two amendments that I offer. This has been done in a package with Senator Wicker and Senator Vitter. We have offered a package of amendments trying to fix and expand wind coverage to this bill, to lift the coverage limits.

Again, a big problem with this bill is it has not kept pace with inflation and only covers homes valued up to $225,000. That might sound like a lot, but it is not keeping pace with inflation. Our amendment would lift the coverage to homes over $325,000.

Then my ombudsman amendment and this mandatory coverage reprieve would be the other amendment.

Yes, I will.

It doesn't strike the mapping requirement. It doesn't strike the mapping requirement, but it strikes the mandatory coverage provision until there is a study done about what the economic impact will be to people living behind those levees and dams.

Yes, it does. That is the intent of the amendment.

Madam President, there are many Senators who feel as though this is a very abrupt requirement. They are not sure of what the outcome of these premiums might be to people who are already struggling with higher costs. And because there is no estimate to my knowledge, we thought it would be better to offer an amendment that would basically require a study so more discussion can be had, and then perhaps later we could insist on mandatory coverage or phase it in as is appropriate. But is that the Senator's concern?

I would be happy to. I appreciate the Senator raising it. I will review the way this amendment is structured. But, again, I would be happy to work with the Senator so we could offer something together because there are many Senators who are concerned, and rightly concerned, about this particular section.

If the Senator would allow me to finish, I will be happy to yield the floor for further discussion because I am about ready to finish my remarks. There are no votes scheduled. There are other amendments that are going to be offered. But, again, a package has been put together by several Senators, both Republicans and Democrats.

I have to say again, in conclusion, I don't like the underlying bill. I did a great deal to keep this bill bottled up in committee for over 2 years. But I have been convinced the better way to proceed is to have this bill come to the floor, which is what I allowed with Senator Vitter and Senator Wicker, as long as we can offer amendments and have some time to air our grievances. The chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee have been men of their word and allowed us to do so.

So at some point, Madam Chair, I would request that the Senate vote on these amendments together as a package, but individually the one regarding wind, the one regarding the increased coverage, the one regarding the ombudsman, and the amendment regarding the mandatory coverage, and then the additional coverage options. So there are five amendments in this package that we have been working on. At some point, when that can be agreed to, we can move this bill forward.

In the meantime, I will be happy to work with my colleague from North Dakota to see if the language he has suggested is the same as ours. If not, perhaps we can modify our amendment to accommodate that, or perhaps he will offer the amendment with our acquiescence.

With that, I yield the floor to my friend from North Dakota.

Will the Senator yield?

I don't know how this will be resolved. I certainly can appreciate that, and I agree with the Senator, because one size doesn't fit all, which has been part of the problem with this bill--that it is pushing everyone into a one-size-fits-all requirement. It is not the appropriate response to our situation. I hope the Senator will consider either modifying the amendment I have laid down, or I would be happy to actually support a narrower amendment that any communities that can establish that they have created protection that is over and above the average, which is 100-year flood protection, might not be subject to this requirement.

As the Senator knows--because he is chairman of the Appropriations Committee that funds levees in the country, so he most certainly is one of the leading experts--the standard in America right now is not sufficient, and it is 1 storm out of 100. Very few communities can boast of being as protected as his community can. I suggest that most certainly I would not object as the main author of the amendment, but there are several cosponsors. I am sure we could work something out.

I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4705 be modified further with the changes at the desk and that Senators Dorgan, Lincoln, and Pryor be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, if this amendment does not pass, significant portions of many States will be

required to have flood insurance which has never been required before. The underlying bill says everywhere there is a dike, a dam, or a levy, regardless of the situation behind the dike, dam, or levy, regardless of how strong the dike, dam, or levy is, you will be required to have flood insurance. That is a very different jump from where we are today. Our amendment strikes that language and instead says there shall be a study and evaluation to make better determinations.

This is a tough issue because we were behind levees that broke. It would have been a good idea, but this is a tax and fees on people without the appropriate study. That is what our amendment does.

Mr. President, I am proud to honor a group of 97 World War II veterans from Louisiana who are traveling to Washington, DC, this weekend to visit the various memorials and monuments that recognize the sacrifices of our Nation's invaluable servicemembers.

Louisiana HonorAir, a group based in Lafayette, LA, is sponsoring this Saturday's trip to the Nation's Capital. The organization is honoring each surviving World War II Louisiana veteran by giving them an opportunity to see the memorials dedicated to their service. On this trip, the veterans will visit the World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Iwo Jima memorials. They will also travel to Arlington National Cemetery to lay a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknowns.

This is the ninth flight Louisiana HonorAir will make to Washington,

Mr. President, I rise today to ask that the Senate support technical corrections to a few highway bill projects in Louisiana. Specifically,

a modified alignment to a project in Lake Charles, an expanded project area for Jefferson Parish and expanded use for a project in New Orleans.

These limited technical corrections will improve transportation in Louisiana and get the dollars previously directed toward this work into the economy. Notably, the corrections do not change the previously authorized level of spending, nor do they fundamentally alter the scope of the project.

I look forward to working with the Environment and Public Works Committee to address these technical corrections.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask that the Senate support technical corrections to a few highway bill projects in Louisiana. Specifically,

a modified alignment to a project in Lake Charles, an expanded project area for Jefferson Parish and expanded use for a project in New Orleans.

These limited technical corrections will improve transportation in Louisiana and get the dollars previously directed toward this work into the economy. Notably, the corrections do not change the previously authorized level of spending, nor do they fundamentally alter the scope of the project.

I look forward to working with the Environment and Public Works Committee to address these technical corrections.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on behalf of some of our most in need gulf coast residents impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As you know the gulf coast was devastated in 2005 by two of the most powerful storms to ever hit the U.S. in recorded history--Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We also experienced the unprecedented disaster of having a major metropolitan city--the City of New Orleans--under up to 20 feet of water for two weeks when there were 28 separate levee failures which flooded 12,000 acres, or 80 percent of New Orleans, following Katrina.

In particular, I am speaking on behalf of our elderly and disabled residents impacted by these disasters. Many of these people are too frail or fragile to live on their own, yet they do not belong in a hospital. We have many people who been in seen homes or apartments for disabled and elderly residents, for adults who are not older but instead disabled through an accident or injury. In many cities, this type of housing is run by such organizations as Catholic Charities or other nonprofits. Right now in the gulf coast region, we desperately need more of this type of housing to take care of the most fragile people who either are without shelter or are without safe, affordable shelter with appropriate supportive services. One can imagine the challenges of providing sufficient housing for this group under normal circumstances. But here we find ourselves, dealing with the aftermath of a catastrophe, trying to provide additional housing for thousands of people now returning to the region.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 88,000 persons aged 65 or older were displaced by Hurricane Katrina--of that group 45,000 were 75 years of age or older. Furthermore, almost 15 percent of all displaced seniors had incomes below the poverty line. While recovery has primarily focused on restoring owner-occupied and rental housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, assisted housing for our elderly and disabled residents has not received a great deal of attention. In particular, 123 properties of Section 202 housing, which serves elderly residents, and Section 811 housing, which serves disabled residents, were impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in my State alone. This includes 5,261 total units of 202/811 housing. As of February 2008, 602 of these units were still offline and I am aware that, for every unit of 202 housing, there are 10 eligible low-income seniors on the waiting list.

To further highlight the ongoing needs of the gulf coast, let me provide a snapshot of one community in my State--New Orleans East. In our Vietnamese community in New Orleans East, 6,000 people--or approximately 95 percent of the pre-Katrina population--have returned to the area. Of this 6,000,

it is estimated that 2,400 are seniors. The average age of these seniors is 72 years of age and 98 percent are considered extremely low- income according to HUD standards. This means that they earn below 30 percent of the area median income a year, or less than $12,550 a year. Of these seniors 82 percent receive supplemental security income as their only source of income--approximately $637 per month for a single household.

Prior to Katrina, there were six retirement communities in New Orleans East, consisting of about 735 units, serving this community. Presently none of them are in operation. This is not just a short-term recovery problem as the demand for age-restricted housing will continue to increase in the next few years, particularly in New Orleans East.

Given the ongoing needs in the southern part of my State in regard to damaged multifamily and senior/disabled housing, as well as all across the Gulf Coast, I am proud to introduce today the Gulf Coast Multifamily and Assisted Housing Recovery Act of 2008. I am joined on this bill by my colleagues Senator Thad Cochran and Senator Roger Wicker. This legislation includes some key provisions which should target assistance where it is most needed. The bill will also help to cut through some Federal red tape stalling redevelopment efforts in the region.

To address the affordable housing needs in my State, as well as across the gulf coast, our bill authorizes $125 million for additional Section 202 housing and $75 million for new Section 811 housing. This provision would create almost 1,500 new 202/811 units. The bill would also authorize $4 million to cover gaps for the redevelopment of former Section 202 housing in the City of New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish.

Another major problem in New Orleans East is that 50 seniors were living pre-Katrina at Versailles Arms, a project-based Section 8 housing development which has not reopened. I understand that a few weeks ago the community boarded up the development. While this property is sitting vacant--but vacant with a project-based contract still attached to it--Mary Queen of Viet Nam Community Development Corporation, MQVN, and Providence Community Housing have begun work on Phase I of the Mary Queen of Viet Nam Retirement Community. This project would provide 84 units of affordable senior housing. Their problem, however, is with the downturn in the tax credit market in the last 4 months, the equity investment will not be sufficient to cover the development costs. For example, the current rent structure, which is below the market rates, is not sufficient to support a mortgage to cover the development gap, so they are in need of a project-based subsidy to complete the project.

MQVN have been trying to work with our local housing authority, the Housing Authority of New Orleans, HANO, to secure project-based assistance for this project. However, as many of our developers have discovered, HANO has exhausted its 20 percent maximum set aside for project-based subsidies. This is troubling for those of us in Congress, especially for my colleagues and I who are members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Last year, via the fiscal year 08 Supplemental Appropriations bill, we provided HANO with additional vouchers by allowing HUD to utilize pre-Katrina population figures in allocating Section 8 vouchers, rather than post-Katrina population figures. While there certainly are increased demands for such assistance, the fact that so many developments are in need of this type of assistance and that HANO lacks the necessary resources to fully address needs on the ground raises many questions. For my part, I do not have all the answers but I can provide a commonsense solution to address the need for project-based assistance in New Orleans and the rest of the gulf coast.

Each year, in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill, there has regularly been legislative authority for HUD to transfer some or all project-based assistance associated with one or more multifamily housing projects to another multifamily housing project or projects. In the fiscal year 06 Appropriations bill, Public Law 109-115, Section 318 addressed this issue, and in the fiscal year 08 Omnibus Appropriations bill, Public Law 110-161, which passed the Congress in December 2007, this language was contained in Section 215. While this language is discretionary, not mandatory, it does provide HUD with the legislative authority to transfer project-based assistance from a damaged or vacant property to another property, with certain restrictions. However, as I mentioned, this annual language is discretionary so HUD is not required to review and approve transfer requests. This has proven to be the main obstacle for housing organizations. Some of these properties have been destroyed and, rather than asking for new project-based contracts, the developers simply want to transfer the existing ones to new buildings. This would maximize existing resources, and in many cases, could help communities build housing which could better resist future disasters.

While HUD currently has this transfer authority, there have been numerous instances post-Katrina where HUD has failed to quickly implement such transfers. For example, Mississippi Methodist Senior Services, MMSS, is a nonprofit which, despite testifying before Congress last year, ended up having its Section 318 transfer request rejected by HUD. It subsequently lost 65 units of elderly housing. This is even more troubling as MMSS was the first non-profit in Mississippi to provide affordable housing for seniors. So this is a group with extensive experience in senior housing--one with deep roots in the community. The nonprofit had seven properties throughout the State, serving 1,800 seniors daily. One of its properties in Biloxi had significant wind damage and suffered 2 feet of Gulf water on the first floor. Upon further inspection, there was additional damage found and their insurance company determined it would only cover repairs on the first floor. This left MMSS with an uninhabitable building and a $1 million gap between insurance and the amount that was necessary for repairs.

To redevelop the property and provide badly needed housing, MMSS intended to transfer the 65 units of project-based assistance to a new site further inland. The new site would be in a better position to avoid gulf coast waves and weather patterns. As with most gulf coast groups in this situation, MMSS submitted a Section 318 request and started working with HUD to prepay the existing mortgage, sell the property, and transfer the Section 8 contract. However, in December 2006, HUD eventually refused the transfer, forcing MMSS to abandon the contract and sell the property. This resulted in the loss of housing for 65 elderly families. Our observation of these failures has led us to believe there is a need for Congress to enact stronger legislation on this issue.

To address this issue, the legislation I am introducing would tackle this problem in three important ways. First, this bill would require HUD to maintain project-based contracts in declared Katrina and Rita areas until the date specified in the contract or not less than 3 months after the property is made habitable. This provision would ensure that there is no loss of current project-based contracts. Next, the bill would require HUD to review and approve any feasible transfer proposal made by owners of damaged/destroyed multifamily housing. The language in this bill tracks Section 215 language from the fiscal year 08 Omnibus, except that we limit this requirement for Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana and sunset it on October 1, 2009. These restrictions are to ensure that it is strictly for recovery purposes. Lastly, to get a full picture of the number of units that may have been lost, the bill requires that HUD report to Congress on the number and location of project-based contracts which have been cancelled since the storms. These key provisions would make a real difference not only for MQVN in New Orleans East but for countless providers of multifamily housing across the gulf coast.

As chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery, I have been working with my Senate colleagues to push for better Federal Government disaster preparedness. Therefore, in addition to addressing current needs on the gulf coast, the bill also looks forward to future disasters. This bill requires that, not later than June 1, 2008--the start of the 2008 Atlantic Hurricane season--that HUD

provide Congress with a disaster response plan for HUD-assisted Section 202/811 properties. A number of recommendations have been made to HUD by the affordable housing community on regulatory waivers and funding gaps that the agency will face in future disaster situations. There is no reason that HUD, or Congress for that matter, should have to expend future resources, time, and energy to address some of the similar issues which this bill is attempting to address for Katrina and Rita areas. Lessons learned from Katrina and Rita have been well documented by Congress. It is now time that HUD improves its preparedness and response to disasters which could impact assisted properties.

In closing, let me reiterate that this bill addresses one of the most fundamental needs following a disaster: the need to return home. For our elderly and disabled residents, a safe and affordable home is even more essential. Many gulf coast residents lost homes, family members, and pets, among other things. It is our obligation as a city, county/ parish, State, and as a nation to help. So I am here today, for my part, to try to put forward legislation which I strongly believe will make a real difference for those most in need in the gulf coast region. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan recovery legislation as these disaster victims are counting on the United States Senate for action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and supplemental material be printed in the Record.