Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I am proud to honor a group of 94 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 service members.

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 eighth flight Louisiana HonorAir has made to Washington, DC., and there will be one additional flight this spring.

World War II was one of America's greatest triumphs, but was also a conflict rife with individual sacrifice and tragedy. More than 60 million people worldwide were killed, including 40 million civilians, and more than 400,000 American service members were slain during the long war. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the valor of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry, which supplied our military on two distant fronts.

In Louisiana, there remain today more than 40,000 living WWII veterans, and each one has a heroic tale of achieving the noble victory of freedom over tyranny. Veterans in this HonorAir group range in age from 79 to 91. They began their service as early as 1939, before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and some members of this group served as late as 1976. They served in various branches of the military--37 members in the Army; 17 in the Army Air Corps, including one in the Women's Air Corps; 28 in the Navy; 3 in the Naval Reserve; 4 in the Marines; 1 in the Marine Corps Reserve; 2 in the Merchant Marines; and 2 in the U.S. Coast Guard.

Our heroes served across the globe in the Pacific, Atlantic, Asiatic Pacific and China Burma India theaters. Others served in North Africa, Japan, Korea, the islands of the South Pacific and in other areas of Europe and stateside. Our service members battled at Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Okinawa, Saipan, Tinian and the Solomon Islands.

Many of these veterans earned Purple Hearts, Bronze Star Medals and Croix de Guerre medals. They served on famous battleships such as USS North Carolina, and they participated in the liberation of the Philippines.

I ask the Senate to join me in honoring these 94 veterans, all Louisiana heroes, that we welcome to Washington this weekend and Louisiana HonorAir for making these trips a reality.

Mr. President, I am proud to honor a group of 99 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 seventh flight Louisiana HonorAir has made to Washington, DC, and there will be two additional flights this spring.

World War II was one of America's greatest triumphs, but was also a conflict rife with individual sacrifice and tragedy. More than 60 million people

worldwide were killed, including 40 million civilians, and more than 400,000 American servicemembers were slain during the long war. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the valor of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry, which supplied our military on two distant fronts.

In Louisiana, there remain today more than 40,000 living WWII veterans, and each one has a heroic tale of achieving the noble victory of freedom over tyranny. Veterans in this HonorAir group began their service in 1938, before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and served in the European and Pacific theaters, as well as stateside. Some members of this group served as late as 1970. They served in various branches of the military--28 members in the Army; 18 in the Army Air Corps; 37 in the Navy, including three SeaBees; three in the Naval Reserves; eight in the Marines; one in the Merchant Marines; and four nurses from various branches.

Several of our heroes fought at Iwo Jima and others at Guadalcanal. Many of these veterans earned Purple Hearts, Bronze Star Medals, and Silver Stars. Some participated in the Battle of the Bulge and the D- day invasion of France at Omaha Beach. Others defended the Atlantic, Pacific, and Asiatic-Pacific Seas. As a soldier with the Army 1st Calvary Division, one of our heroes was part of the liberation of Santo Tomas Prison Camp in Manila.

I ask the Senate to join me in honoring these 99 veterans, all Louisiana heroes, that we welcome to Washington this weekend and Louisiana HonorAir for making these trips a reality.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment I have

offered with Senator Wicker from Mississippi. Our amendment is pending. It is germane. We hope to have a vote sometime soon on this amendment, if we can move past this present standstill.

I want to just put up some numbers to try to explain our situation in Louisiana. I have used this chart before. This chart is the underlying reason for the bill that we are on because these are the top 10 districts in the country, according to the official data, where these foreclosures are taking place.

As you can see, there are about 40,000 distressed properties in and around Detroit; about 10,000 in Stockton, CA; 30,000 in Las Vegas; about 51,000 in San Bernardino, CA; about 23,000 in Sacramento; about 27,000 around the Cleveland area--and it goes on. These are the top 10.

Now, this data is readily available. I am sorry I do not have more than just the top 10. But I used this chart to make my point about our situation still in Louisiana and on the gulf coast.

You can see, the percentage of households in Detroit is about 5 percent; the same with Stockton, CA, and Las Vegas is 4 percent. That is a real crisis in those areas. It seems like a small percentage, but if you are in a neighborhood where there is a concentration of these kinds of homes, the problem is--and what we are trying to solve, those of us who are supporting this bill; and I am supporting this bill--to try to provide some additional community development block grant funding because not only are we trying to perhaps come up with State- based local solutions that might help these particular families, but the real tragedy, in my mind, is those families around these homes who did absolutely nothing wrong. They took out a 30-year mortgage. They have paid their mortgage every month. They did not enter into any flimflam kind of agreement.

But the problem is, as homes collapse around them and become vacant and are foreclosed on, these homeowners who did nothing wrong, who have most of their net worth tied up in the value of their home, are seeing, through no fault of their own, their property values plummeting.

Now, if you are a young person, and you are a homeowner in this situation, you might have time to ride it out. But if you are a senior getting ready to retire, or if you are getting ready, in middle age, to send your two children to college and were hoping to refinance your home to do that and had planned for 20 years--this was your plan to send your kids to college. You did not get to go to college, but you have saved and scrimped and worked hard, and you were going to refinance your house to send your children to college. Guess what. Your kids do not go to college because your neighbor took out a subprime loan, and it is causing your property value to plummet.

Now, I know the President does not understand why community development block grant moneys are important. He does not understand a lot of things. But some of us do understand why we need to help people in these neighborhoods.

So I am just explaining that while the numbers are very high, and these percentages are startling, I want to show you what our numbers look like in Louisiana because if these look bad, ours are terrible.

It is not because we had foreclosure problems. It is not because we have subprime--in fact, our State does not really have the same problem that California and Nevada are facing. But we had our own sets of catastrophes, and that, of course, was in the storms of a few years ago, Katrina and Rita, that hit the gulf coast--both just historic in their devastation.

We are still having a housing crisis throughout the gulf coast, really from Alabama to the southern part of Texas, as people struggle with the impact of those storms. In New Orleans and Saint Bernard and in the southeastern portion of Louisiana, our situation was even further complicated when the Federal levees that should have held did not. They failed, and people who had never had an inch of water in their home had 14 feet and lost everything they had worked for their entire lives.

So in St. Bernard Parish we see not 5 percent, not 4 percent but 54 percent of the homes are empty or devastated. In Cameron, LA, not 4 percent or 5 percent but 46 percent of the homes; in Plaquemines Parish, 44 percent; in Orleans Parish, 78,000, almost 80,000, out of only 122,000. That is an extremely high percentage almost 42 percent of households that are still damaged or destroyed.

Now, what has been done to help these homeowners? Some have been able to collect their insurance, but very few people have collected all of what they thought they were due. Some have collected a modest grant we gave from this Congress of an average of $60,000. Some have received-- that is about the average for homeowners. But I would contend that a $60,000 to $75,000 to $85,000 grant and some insurance proceeds they were able to receive does not, by any means, get these homeowners back to where they need to be.

So we have tried to pass additional legislation that might help and have been unable to move anything substantial through the Housing Committee. However, we now see an opportunity on this floor on a housing bill that is attempting to reach communities that are in distress--ours is in distress for a different reason, not, as I said, because of failure to pay or because of delinquency or foreclosure. We see an opportunity, by making a very modest change in the underlying bill, to help these homeowners. This would make it clear, with the amendment I offer with Senator Wicker--our amendment would simply say that in the community development block grant portion of this bill, that it be allowed to be used not just for homes that were foreclosed but for homes that were conveyed to local land banks.

To deal with this situation, we have created in Louisiana--or are in the process of actually creating--parishwide authorities that are done at the local level; they are called land banks. They have other names for them, such as redevelopment authorities. They exist throughout the country. It is not anything new. But we are finding we may need to be supporting these kinds of land banks as properties are conveyed back to the Government--not in every case, but some people are making choices. They don't want to rebuild in that place; they would rather take their grant money and build somewhere else. That piece of property is then conveyed back to our State land bank, and our land bank is trying to move these properties back to local parish-based land banks so these neighborhoods can be redeveloped with some sort of rhyme and reason to them; so it is not hit or miss but that there is some sort of local planning. We are being required to build better and stronger and smarter. We are trying to actually live up to that challenge by being smart about the way we redevelop.

I see the ranking member of the committee on the floor, the Senator from Alabama, who is familiar, of course, with some of the devastation that occurred because some of it, unfortunately, happened in Mobile-- not to the extent it happened in the southern part of Mississippi and Louisiana. But what I am saying to the Senator from Alabama is that with one modest change that actually is germane, according to the Chair, and does not cost anything, we would simply allow our portion of whatever comes to Louisiana and Mississippi--not a dime more than what is already in the bill--to be used for land banks associated with the redevelopment of these kinds of properties. I am afraid, if we don't make this change, it might put Mississippi and Louisiana and, frankly, Alabama and parts of Texas in the position of not being able to use their community development block grants for the problem they have.

So in this whole country, some States have problem A. In other States, we have problem B. I am trying to make sure our problem is met with this amendment. It is not adding anything; it is an allowable use of our community development block grant, and it will go a long way to help.

Now, we estimate--I don't know if the Senator from Alabama has these numbers--that for our State, based on the formula that is in the bill, Louisiana may get somewhere between $90 million and $100 million, but we don't know until that formula is promulgated by the Secretary of HUD, but we estimate that based on the formulas in the bill. So we want to make sure the $90 million or $100 million can actually

be used to help these homeowners because they are technically not in foreclosure. They are in various stages of legal status, but they are not necessarily in foreclosure.

So that is the purpose of our community development block grant amendment. I would most certainly appreciate it if the leadership would take a look at it. Again, it is amendment No. 4447. It doesn't cost anything. It is scored at zero. I have a great partner in offering this amendment, the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Wicker. So that is the community development block grant amendment.

I wish to take a moment to also talk about the mortgage revenue bonds, which is part of the financing part of this bill. As my colleagues know, this bill is basically made up of two different sections. One is a housing section and then one is a tax section. In the tax section of this bill, one of the ways the Finance Committee wants to try to alleviate some of the problems around the country is to allow the issuance of some additional mortgage revenue bonds. We have done this for years and years and years. Before I was a Senator, I was the State treasurer. I used to issue these bonds in my State. They are a very good tool to promote home ownership, which we believe in at home in Louisiana, and I am sure everyone else does as well. It gives opportunities to build affordable, low-income housing where there is a real need throughout the country, particularly now in the gulf coast.

One of the things I am very concerned about--I don't know if the Senator from Alabama or the Senator from Utah, who is on the floor, experienced this in their States, but we have a real shortage of affordable housing for seniors, as more people want to live independently, but they don't necessarily want to live in a 2,000- or 3,000-square-foot home by themselves. They would like to move somewhere closer to maybe where their family is, and they would like an affordable rental unit. Some people would like to buy a condo, but to people of a certain age bracket, a condo is not something they grew up with, so an affordable rental is a more comfortable situation for them. We can't find a lot of senior housing down in the gulf coast right now. Most everything we had was literally washed away or flooded or destroyed.

So the great thing about this particular provision coming out of Finance is these revenue bonds could be used for this kind of building. Again, the other amendment I have, No. 4404, does not have a score. Actually, it has a minor score of $3 million. It is very minor compared to the other costs of this bill. It is de minimis, a $3 million cost. What it will do is it will allow us to be able to again use our bonding authority--not anything more, not anything additional, but to use our bonding authority to address the problem we have with these properties.

I wish to show some pictures. This is a neighborhood--I am sorry I can't identify where this is, and it was some time ago. Most of this debris has been picked up throughout the gulf coast, but in many places, while the debris is gone, these structures remain as they are here: abandoned and destroyed until property owners figure out what they are going to do.

Here is another picture we have used. I am not sure, again, where this is, but houses such as this are still throughout the gulf coast area; a lot of it has been cleaned up. Maybe this home has been gutted, but it is basically down to its 2 by 4s, and it is basically sitting there in neighborhood after neighborhood. This is actually a home in St. Bernard Parish in a community called Chalmette.

I wish I had better pictures to show the blocks and blocks of devastation that still exist. When I say devastation--it is cleaned up, on many of the lots the grass is cut, but there are no homes there, there is no neighborhood there. The library is not yet back, the Post Office is not yet back, and people are still struggling to rebuild their neighborhoods.

So I am imploring the leadership handling this bill to please take a look at amendment No. 4404. Please take a look at amendment No. 4447. The cost in one case is nothing. The cost in the other is a de minimis $3 million, but it will help tremendously to make this bill, we hope will pass, applicable to the situations in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, whose people are still struggling 2\1/2\ years after this devastation.

Basically, that is the gist of my remarks. We have another amendment pending relative to the tax credit, but I will hold my remarks on that. But these two amendments we are hoping we can get included in any kind of modified package. Again, I have bipartisan support. It does not increase the cost of the bill, and it would go a great way to make sure this bill, if it does get passed--I know there is opposition in the House and I know the President is opposed to this bill, so this bill may never see the light of day. I am very clear about that. But if it does, at least let the people of Louisiana and Mississippi use the money that is being allocated to us anyway for the problem we have--not the problem everybody else has--because we simply have a different problem. I hope my colleagues would recognize our situation.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it looks as if we are getting to the end of this debate on housing, and it has been a good one.

I come to the floor before we move to the final stages of this debate to thank my colleagues for their extraordinary help in putting into this bill, which is a major piece of legislation--attempting to help communities throughout the country deal with the added rate of foreclosures, the spiraling downward of so many neighborhoods due to a variety of different circumstances--and I think it is important that the Senate act today.

I particularly thank the chairman of this committee, Senator Dodd, for his patience and his tenacity in getting us to this point and for putting in many good provisions into this bill that will be a help to homeowners, to communities, in some instances to lenders, who got themselves into difficulty because, again, our goal is to try to reinvigorate the housing markets, to stop the slide. Particularly, in the case of Louisiana, we still have a significant housing crisis that did not start with the foreclosure crisis but started when 250,000 homes were destroyed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

This Congress has been generous at times in helping us to try to come up with ways to deal with this unprecedented situation. I am very grateful for the amendment that was adopted overwhelmingly last week by a vote of over 70 Members of this body to say that our Road Home grants, which is what they are called in Louisiana--they are called Homeowner Assistance Grants in Mississippi--but those grants that have been provided by this Congress to help people rebuild homes that were destroyed when insurance proceeds were either not available or not enough. This is from small towns such as Waveland, MS, to very large cities such as New Orleans, LA; places such as Lake Charles, LA, to small little communities such Creole, LA, on the southwest side.

So it is affecting urban and rural places in my State. That amendment we adopted last week will be a significant help to homeowners trying to use those grants to get back into their homes. Until that amendment passed, this grant, if you will, was taxable. With the amendment we placed on the floor of the Senate, those grants will be treated as nontaxable, basically.

I wish we could get this bill to the President's desk before April 15. We are going to move it off the floor today. It has, of course, to go to the House for negotiations and eventually get to the President.

I am very hopeful this bill--generally in its current form, with, hopefully, some improvements, as it continues to move through the process--can get to the President's desk quickly because our people on the gulf coast--particularly in Louisiana, but on the gulf coast--who received help 2 years ago through community development block grants are feeling a real pinch right now because they are now paying $5,000, $10,000 or $20,000 in taxes on those grants at a time when they can least afford it.

I cannot tell you how many people stop me when I go home and say: Senator, if you could do one thing for us, please tell them we cannot pay tax on these grants we have received--which have been minimal, helpful but minimal, in their efforts to rebuild hundreds of thousands of homes.

Let me say for the record--and I am very proud of Habitat for Humanity. I am the cochair of the Habitat for Humanity caucus here. I have been on many builds throughout the country. Habitat for Humanity, which has not stopped working since the rain stopped--and I see the Senator from Connecticut on the Senate floor--and which has had thousands of volunteers every day coming to their sites in Louisiana, has only completed 162 houses--162 houses--and they are the largest homebuilder in New Orleans. We lost about 250,000 dwelling places throughout the state of Louisiana. So I am here in an uphill battle.

I appreciate my colleagues bearing with this speech over and over again, but I can only say, if your cities or your communities were as devastated as the ones I am representing, you would be here, too, trying every way you could to bring every little bit of help and big help to them.

So I am grateful that finally we got a housing bill to the floor after 2\1/2\ years. Finally, we got a very significant addition to some tax relief. I will say that in further reading of this bill, I am encouraged--the Senator from Connecticut is here--that the $140 million to $150 million in extra mortgage revenue bonds that will come to our State will be a help. I think in further reading of the bill, the underlying bill actually will work for us. So I am very pleased.

I think we will continue to work on the $95 million to $100 million that will come to our State in the underlying bill to help land banks. We are establishing and have established NORA in New Orleans and other land banks, perhaps in St. Bernard, Cameron, Lake Charles, perhaps in Plaquemines, perhaps in St. Tammany and Jefferson Parishes, which are the hardest hit parishes. I think this bill allows for support of those land banks. So that is another $95 million to $100 million that may come for that purpose, and we have been looking for some help in that regard.

So, overall, this bill will address many issues in Louisiana with the additional help we have received through these amendments. I am very pleased that we have made progress.

Again, I wish to thank the Senator. He has been more than generous with his time. I know this has been difficult because there are 50 of us who are asking him for special help and attention. But he has been down to our State. I am hoping he will come back and walk through some of these neighborhoods.

Finally, I will say that this is quite an interesting and wonderful-- if you can say that--experiment going on in the United States of America, because the question is, when a community of 60,000 people is wholly destroyed, which happened in St. Bernard Parish, the parish south of New Orleans, is it possible for the Government to rebuild it? If so, how and how quickly and how well? There are nonprofits and there are universities, from Harvard University to Stanford to LSU to some of the top social scientists in the country right there on the gulf coast, because in their minds, in this century, there has not been a devastation like this in modern times.

So there are some interesting questions: How does a neighborhood come back? Do you build the churches first or the schools or the libraries? How important is water and electricity relative to the scheme of things in terms of rebuilding neighborhoods? How do you do it with community planning in a democracy where every neighbor's voice has to be treated the same? So these are some exciting times. We are just making the best of a very desperate situation and trying to do the best we can to rebuild our communities.

I want to end with thanking all of the volunteers, all of the nonprofits, all of the businesses that have stepped up. I thank the Senate for acting on at least a very significant portion of this

tax relief for homeowners who are still putting the pieces of their lives and their fortunes back together--regardless of how modest some of those fortunes may be--neighborhood to neighborhood. But people are really trying to put their homes and their lives back together. So I thank the Senator from Connecticut.

I understand we are going to move now to the managers' package. Again, we have some significant portions taken care of in this bill. I am looking forward to being able to let the State know that another $140 million, $150 million worth of mortgage revenue bonds that I personally hope will go to affordable, low-income housing, workforce housing, and particularly for seniors who have been so devastated by the loss of their homes, and again, the support that may come out of this bill for our land banks as we think of new and innovative ways to get this property back on the private rolls, redeveloped in a way that creates excitement and vibrancy in neighborhoods from New Orleans East to Lakeview to the Lower Ninth Ward, all the way to lower Packwood Parish, which is about as far south as you can go in Louisiana.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am proud to honor a group of 92 World War II veterans from the Acadiana region of 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 service members.

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 sixth flight Louisiana HonorAir has made to Washington, DC, and there will be three additional flights this spring.

World War II was one of America's greatest triumphs, but was also a deadly conflict. More than 60 million people worldwide were killed, including 40 million civilians, and more than 400,000 American servicemembers were slain during the long war. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the valor of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. The years 1941 to 45 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry, which supplied our military on two distant fronts.

In Louisiana, there remain today more than 40,000 living WWII veterans, and each one has a heroic tale of achieving the noble victory of freedom over tyranny. Veterans in this HonorAir group began their service in 1940 before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and served as late as 1950 in the European and Pacific theaters as well as stateside. They served in various branches of the military--25 members in the Army, 24 in the Army Air Corps, 37 in the Navy, three in the Navy Air Corps, one in the Navy Reserve, two in the Marines, and one in the Merchant Marines. Several served during World War II and the Korean War, and one of our veterans spent 30 years in active service in the Army, serving through the Vietnam war.

One of our heroes served as a Control Tower Operator with the 104th AACS Squadron. Another was aboard the USS Proteus, alongside the USS Missouri, during the Japanese surrender on September 2, 1945. And yet another hero went on 35 bombing missions over Europe between 1942 and 1945. Some participated in the Battle of the Bulge and the D-Day Invasion of France at Utah Beach. Many fought in the South Pacific. Some served in the China-Burma-India Theater, and others in Africa.

Also traveling to Washington on Saturday's trip is an active member of the service. Army MAJ Robert Gutierrez of Lafayette finished a tour of duty in Iraq in February. I ask the Senate to recognize him for his commitment to our country.

I also ask the Senate to join me in honoring these 89 men and three

women, all Louisiana heroes, that we welcome to Washington this weekend and Louisiana HonorAir for making these trips a reality.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 4389 be further modified, the text of which is at the desk.

Mr. President, the junior Senator from Mississippi wishes to speak on our amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 204 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, I move to waive that section of the concurrent resolution for the purpose of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Reserving the right to object, could I be added after the Senator from Tennessee?

Reserving the right to object, may I follow after that debate is completed?

Reserving the right to object, may I inquire of whoever will be managing the next amendment how long they will go forward with the discussion on this amendment? I would like to be added to the list after it is all over for 5 minutes to present a wholly different amendment. It does not have anything to do with this issue.

I do have an amendment that I would like to offer on a completely different subject and sometime today.

To the housing bill.

Later on today.

I am trying to get a timeframe as to when I might be able to do that so I can plan my day.

So I will be in line to offer an amendment at 10:30 a.m.?

Be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I would like to add to the unanimous consent agreement: If I could let my colleague go before me and then I could speak whenever he is finished or at 11 o'clock.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and call up amendment No. 4404.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the support earlier today of an amendment that I, Senator Cochran, Senator Vitter, and Senator Wicker brought forward for the people of the gulf coast--thousands and thousands and thousands of homeowners, responsible homeowners, homeowners who did not exploit opportunities for fancy-dancy mortgages, homeowners who took just the regular standard mortgages, who had actually paid their mortgages off, and kept insurance their whole life. Then, in 2005, two storms hit the gulf coast and literally wiped out the net worth--literally, a great deal of the net worth--of hundreds of thousands of families on the gulf coast.

The reason I continue to come to the Senate floor is because the Stafford Act, which would normally come, if you would, to the rescue of people in our country in this situation, is wholly inadequate for either the initial recovery or the long-term rebuilding. It is not just what Mary Landrieu says, the Senator from Louisiana. It is what Secretary Chertoff testified before our committee last week. I am going to submit his actual quote for the Record. It is what Chief Paulson of FEMA said yesterday, testifying before the committee. It is what the inspector general of the Homeland Security Department said yesterday testifying before our committee.

So this is my dilemma as a Senator from a State that has had an unprecedented disaster. I would have been happy to receive the Stafford Act and just make it work for us. But since it is not working for us, I am kind of inventing things as we go along, trying to take appropriate and responsible advantage of other bills that come along that actually might be appropriate for our situation.

I am trying not to ask for too much but only what we need. But since the structure we have is not applicable, I have no choice. So I have been waiting for a year and a half to get a housing bill on the Senate floor so we could make some of these changes. I appreciate my colleagues being understanding and supportive, and everybody has been just terrific.

As I said earlier this week, we have had some terrible situations in Detroit, in California, in Las Vegas, in Sacramento, thousands and thousands in San Bernardino, CA. But as I said, some of these homeowners could have gotten themselves in trouble. They might have done things they should not have done. I do not know. Maybe some people were victims of fraud. That will be worked out, I hope, through some of the legislation we are passing.

But the reason I pull this chart up is to say that even in the worst area in the country right now for foreclosures, which is Detroit, Dearborn, MI, with 42,000 homes--these are official numbers--only 4.9 percent of the houses in this whole area are basically in foreclosure or for which there is a threatening pending foreclosure.

I bring this contrast to show you that down on the gulf coast, those numbers are dwarfed by what Katrina and Rita and the subsequent levee breaks did to our homeowners. In St. Bernard Parish, almost 55 percent--not 4 percent, not 10 percent, not 20 percent but 54 percent of the homes in St. Bernard Parish--had damage exceeding 30,000. Some of these homes were only worth $50,000. Some were worth $350,000. But they are basically completely damaged.

In fact, the sheriff and the parish president told me that there were only five homes undamaged in the whole parish after Katrina and Rita-- after those waters went down--5 out of the 67,000 people who live in this parish.

For Cameron Parish, almost 50 percent of their households have had completely devastating damage to their homes.

So, if you can, picture a place that does not have just a spattering of houses and weeds and emptiness but places that have blocks and blocks and miles and miles of homes that are empty and gutted with the windows and doors open and the families gone. People are struggling to come back with a very inadequate Federal framework right now to help them.

I know we have sent down a lot of community development block grant money. After a lot of contortions that everybody went through, we finally crafted a plan to give each of these homeowners, if they qualified--they had to prove they owned the land; they had to prove they paid taxes; they had to prove they were actually the right homeowner--we gave them a grant, no more than $150,000. The average is about $60,000 for Mississippi and Louisiana. Our plans are similar but not the same.

But you can imagine the problem with a family who owned their house outright, they had no mortgage. It was worth $350,000 or $400,000 or $500,000, and the most grant they could possibly get is $150,000.

So we are far away from trying to make people whole. Why should we try to make them whole? Again, it is nothing they did. They did not cause the hurricane. Some of them did not even live in floodplains. Some of the families did not have flood insurance because they were told by their mortgage holder and their bankers they did not need it. They were told by the Federal Government they did not need it.

So my amendment is an attempt to help these homeowners by not adding a penny to the underlying bill, which is a wonderful thing--that we do not have to add any money to the underlying bill because I know we are trying to keep the cost of all this down. But all my amendment would do would be to allow there to be a third reason that bonds could be issued at the State level.

In the underlying bill, the first reason, which is a good reason, is to allow first-time home buyers to buy some of the homes that have been foreclosed on that are sitting empty in neighborhoods. So what a good way to kind of get these homes back in circulation, to allow first-time home buyers with limited incomes--it is $65,000 in my State. I am not sure what it is in everybody else's State, but that would be a lot of families with teachers, firefighters, nurses, et cetera. They are not very wealthy but not poor middle-class families. These families could come in and buy some of these homes. That is a great idea.

I used to be the State treasurer. I issued these bonds. It works. It is a happy thing when people can buy a home. The underlying bill also allows these bonds to be issued to build more multifamily dwellings. This is a desperate need in Louisiana because while we spend a lot of time talking about our homeowners who have lost homes, we had over 60 percent of the population in New Orleans, maybe between 50 and 60 percent who were not even homeowners. They were renters. Some of them were very wealthy renters. They chose to live in nice places, but a lot of the people in New Orleans--my hometown--were poor, and they could not afford a home, so they were renting. Their places have been destroyed, and we now have a growing homeless population of historic proportions.

So the provision in the underlying bill that gives the opportunity to issue bonds to build multifamily dwellings is great. We can build for the elderly, who really need affordable housing in the country. I also believe the underlying provision allows for the building of places, rentals for the disabled, which is also a growing need.

But what my amendment simply says is, there will be a third option for these bonds, and it will help to refinance homes that have been destroyed along the gulf coast in basically the storms of 2005. That is what the current amendment says.

But let me say that I am very open to modify my amendment, if the leadership wants to do that, to allow the use of these bonds to go to basically any home that was destroyed by a disaster in the whole country. I think it would be a very good use of these bonds because, as I said, there is not a lot of help outside of just general insurance that helps people to rebuild. If people have insurance, fine; they can rebuild their home from insurance proceeds. But many people who had their houses destroyed by tornadoes or flash floods or hurricanes or earthquakes were not required to have insurance by the current law, and if they already paid off their mortgage, even if they were required to have insurance, they weren't required to after they paid off their mortgage; so a disaster hits and there is no way.

This is not a grant. This is not a giveaway. It is an opportunity to provide mortgage lending for people who may want to buy some of these homes that have been destroyed. They are not foreclosed homes; they were destroyed and owned basically now by, in our case, Government entities that are trying to recirculate these properties back into the housing market.

So that is basically what my amendment does. I hope we will have an opportunity, of course, as the day goes on, to maybe speak about it more or to have a vote on it next week, whenever the Senate decides to proceed.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut. As I was saying before he came in, the amendment I am offering now adds no cost to the underlying bill. It takes the mortgage provision piece and makes it applicable for trying to help with homes that were destroyed in a disaster. Right now, we are trying to help with homes that were destroyed, if you will, by a foreclosure situation. We are also hoping to build multifamily housing, which is great.

All we are asking for with this amendment is to basically add a third voluntary--not mandatory but voluntary on the part of the States if they want to include disaster, without adding any additional expense to the bill.

So I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I hope we will take up this amendment whenever we can.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I will follow his advice and keep the amendment tailored, and if he changes his mind, he can let us know. I appreciate his attention to this matter.

I thank my colleague from Illinois for those comments. I do appreciate his help because from the beginning of the catastrophe we faced from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the anniversaries of which we will not celebrate, by any chance, but mark by the end of August of this year and, of course, 3 weeks later in September, we still are struggling. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his constant help and support as we work through how to recover, how to rebuild with a Federal agency, FEMA, that was caught flat footed and poorly staffed and poorly resourced and disorganized. Initially, it made some improvements, but we still have great challenges when it comes to the rebuilding of the gulf coast.

That is why I am here to take this opportunity, while we are on a housing bill for the Nation, and there is some real urgency to get real help to real people who need the Federal Government to act to help stabilize markets appropriately. And as we are talking about this, I wanted to offer an amendment that I would like to speak on, one amendment that I intend to offer to make sure this bill, in its attempt to help homeowners struggling to get back in their homes, as this bill tries to help neighborhoods stabilize from Detroit to California to the east coast, as this bill attempts to do other things, that we do continue to give appropriate aid and support to the hundreds of thousands of homeowners who are still struggling despite the good work this Congress has done to give them help.

A chart illustrates this, if I could put it up. We have heard a lot about the city of Detroit and a region which has, outside of Stockton, CA, and Las Vegas, NV, the highest percentage of foreclosures, almost 5 percent in this region, which is a significant percentage. Stockton, CA, almost 5 percent; Las Vegas, 4.2; other communities from Sacramento to Miami, FL, to the Denver-Aurora area, Fort Lauderdale, a fairly significant percentage of homes that are foreclosed. In some areas, it is quite a few people.

Let's look at San Bernardino, CA. This is 51,000 homes. That is a lot of homes, a big place, lots of people, lots of children. You can imagine in your mind, if you are from a community of 50,000, how big that could be. They are not all in this situation, clustered, 51,000 foreclosures all in the same block. Some of them are spread throughout a great area. But that is still a large number.

This is why we have come to the floor to try to bring help to these families. Some of them, in my opinion, deserve help. Maybe some of them don't. I hope this bill will sort the wheat from the chaff because maybe some of these people entered into the kind of loans they shouldn't have. Maybe they should have read the fine print, and they didn't. I am not here saying every single one deserves a handout, but I am saying they deserve this Senate to talk about what help they might need to receive and the ramifications.

If the whole financial establishment could get together and have a debate about Bear Sterns and Wall Street and what it might mean, what it would mean to the country if Bear Sterns collapsed, and they debated and came up with a solution, we most certainly need to be on this Senate floor talking about what solutions might be appropriate for homeowners. I understand the Bear Sterns issue was that they were all intertwined and, if they failed, maybe all the other banks would fail.

Let me say for the record that in places such as Detroit, if all of these homes fail, it will put such a burden on that city or that area that others who had nothing to do with any of this may also fail. That is the principle. It is the same principle for which the Fed sort of bailed out Bear Sterns. And we most certainly need to be on the floor of the Senate talking about not trying to save people who did the wrong thing but trying to help people who did nothing wrong and may get pulled down by maybe whatever people want to characterize as our inaction or inappropriate regulation, whatever. But this is not normal. We are on the floor talking about these numbers because they are high.

Let me show you what the gulf coast numbers, though, look like because it is striking.

Let's take St. Bernard Parish. Let's look at this chart with the other one so we can get a comparison. Remember, Detroit has 41,000 homes, or 4.9 percent, that were destroyed. That is basically this Detroit, Livonia, Dearborn area.

Let me tell you about what the people from St. Bernard are still reeling from. It is not a 5-percent, it is not a 10-percent, it is a 54-percent destruction rate--54 percent. There is no county or parish in the country that is experiencing right now the devastation of homes, including those that are closed, empty or vacated.

Now, we are recovering from a disaster, which is not necessarily the same thing as a foreclosure. But I hold these charts up to show the nature and the scope of the problem.

In Cameron Parish, it is not 4 percent, it is not 10 percent. It is 46 percent.

In Plaquemines Parish, it is 44 percent. In Orleans, it is 78,000 households, 41 percent.

In Hancock County, MS, it is 27 percent.

In Harrison County, MS, it is 10 percent.

In Jackson County, MS, it is 4 percent.

In Jefferson Parish, LA, it is 2.6 percent.

In St. Tammany Parish, LA, it is 2.4 percent.

In Vermilion Parish, LA, it is 1.0 percent.

So my amendment is drafted to address something that will help these families.

After the storm, when these homes were destroyed, we passed a special community development block grant, extra grants to Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama and Texas, sort of like we did right after the Twin Towers fell in New York, there was some extra community development block grants sent. The Congress did the same. Not everything we did was perfect in that regard. There were still some discrepancies in how it was allocated. But suffice it to say for this discussion that money was sent, and out of that money, Mississippi created the Homeowners Assistance Program and Louisiana created the Road Home Program.

These were grants that were given to homeowners to try to help them between what their insurance would pay--and many of these homes were fully paid. These are problems where the mortgages were completely paid off. Some of these properties had insurance. Some of these properties did not have insurance because they were not in a flood plain, and they were not required to have insurance. So these are homeowners who did not do anything wrong. The homeowners I am talk talking about did just about everything right. Some of them maybe should have had insurance and did not, but, believe me, they are suffering the consequences of that. We are not bailing everybody out.

But what we did do was allow them to take this Road Home grant. Then in the tax law they can also take a casualty deduction. This is the problem: If my amendment, which I am going to offer when I can, and ask for a vote on it--and I will offer this amendment not just for myself but for Senator Cochran, Senator Vitter, and Senator Wicker. All of us are together in a bipartisan way asking the Congress to give us some relief. If this amendment I am going to offer is not adopted, these families--I am going to give you an example of the Jones family and the Smith family--will end up paying much more in taxes than they can afford, and it will be counterproductive to our recovery effort.

Let's take the Jones family. They earn $75,000 a year. Their home was substantially damaged. They did not take a casualty deduction as the current law allows. They paid the full amount of the taxes. Then out of the community development block grant--let's say they are in Mississippi--they received a grant from the State of Mississippi of $75,000, from the Mississippi Homeowners Assistance Program. Their Road Home grant will not be taxed. This family is fine.

But for this family, the Smith family--which makes the same amount of money, and their house was completely damaged--they did take the deduction. They got about a $7,000 benefit. Because of what we did, they got their $75,000 grant, but if they have to pay taxes on this, their tax could be as high as $24,000.

Now, the people whom I represent in Louisiana--and I am sure this is the same for Mississippi--can barely pay their utility bills right now, their insurance bills. They most certainly cannot pay a $24,000 tax bill.

If my amendment is not adopted--and I think it has good support from Finance on both sides--this family that I told you about that makes only $75,000 a year, that had their home destroyed--through no fault of their own--because of a confluence of things we have done, will end up having to pay $24,000.

So you may ask me: Senator, how expensive is your amendment? It is not cheap. The score for this amendment is $1 billion. It is not cheap. But we have to provide this support for these gulf coast families or you will have thousands and thousands of families suffer who arguably need the most help in the country.

These are families who at one time owned homes such as this, as shown in this picture. This happens to be a double. I will show you another picture of another home. These are people who did not do anything wrong. They did not take out any subprime loan. They did not try to take out a low adjustable mortgage. They took out their regular 30-year mortgage. They paid off their regular 30-year mortgage. They paid insurance their whole life. They will have to end up paying $24,000 in taxes, and it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

So you have heard me speak before about this issue. I know it can be a little complicated. We are not trying to ask for double dipping or anything. But I am going to be offering this amendment. It is important to remember, if we do not do this, we will have thousands of people, homeowners, who are trying to stay in their homes, rebuild these neighborhoods that are virtually destroyed, not on a beach--even though that is the case in some places in Mississippi--in the middle of the city, not close to any water or any beach, 5 minutes from the Super Dome, where the Hornets will be playing in one of their division championship games in a couple days, 5 minutes from the Super Dome.

They did not even know the levees were going to break. The Federal levees broke and put their homes underwater. As shown in this picture, this is where the water line is. These families will have to pay $24,000 in taxes if we cannot get this fixed.

So the bottom line is this: I am happy to try to vote for this bill for Michigan and California and places that have families that are experiencing some difficulty with their mortgages. But I have to ask this Congress to please continue to know that we still have homeowners who are struggling after 2\1/2\ years to get back into their homes, with some very complicated help that we and the States and the parishes are trying to give them.

So my amendment will correct that. I will offer it when we move to that part of the legislation. I will also have several other amendments that will help the recovery process move forward. They are all about housing. They are all about helping people get back in their houses. They are not necessarily on a different subject or anything because I realize we will have other discussions later.

But while we are on housing and while we are trying to fix it for everybody in the country, let's please stay focused and give a few tweaks here and there to keep this recovery going in the right direction on the gulf coast because we have a long way to go.

I see my colleague from Kansas, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, may I inquire about the order of amendments that will be offered? Is there an order?

Madam President, reserving the right to object--

My suggestion is that we get an order now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside so I can offer the amendment I spoke on earlier today.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4389 for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I really appreciate the cooperation of the manager because this is a very important amendment for the gulf coast. It is an amendment I offer with the support of the Senators from Mississippi--Mr. Cochran and Mr. Wicker--as well as Senator Vitter from Louisiana.

We have been waiting for some time now for some housing bill to get to the floor of the Senate where we could offer a small number of amendments that are essential to give aid during the ongoing housing crisis that exists in the gulf today.

I say to the Presiding Officer, as you know, as you remember because you have been down to Louisiana, to New Orleans particularly--and we are very grateful for the support that so many Senators have given-- throughout the gulf coast, literally from Mobile to Beaumont, and particularly from Biloxi to Cameron Parish, there is still a tremendous crisis in housing and reconstruction.

I am not going to belabor the point--only to say that I have had Secretary Chertoff on the record as late as 3 weeks ago, Chief Paulson today, the IG of the Homeland Security Committee today in Homeland Security saying the Stafford Act was not intended to handle catastrophic disasters and that FEMA has yet to make any substantial progress in getting ready to handle catastrophic disasters. They have made

moderate progress. They have made modest but not substantial progress.

Our people need substantial everything. They needed it yesterday. They need it today. This amendment will help them get a little bit of it now. My amendment basically will allow the people of Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas and Alabama--those who are affected by Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, which was one of the worst seasons of hurricane disaster, in 2005--to basically receive the aid we have already sent to them through the community development block grants. In Louisiana we call it the Road Home Program. These programs were designed at the State level, but they were funded by us. In Mississippi it is called the Mississippi Homeowner Assistance Program. It has literally sent direct lifesaving aid to over 150,000 families in Louisiana and about probably 50,000 to 75,000 in Mississippi. I do not have the Mississippi numbers.

My amendment will help to correct this great injustice that is occurring now. We did not intend for this to occur, but it is going to occur if this amendment or something like this amendment is not adopted.

We sent under a design, basically designed by this Congress, an approximately $150,000 grant to homeowners to help close the gap between what their insurance covered and the total cost of their loss. As I have said many times, homes that were worth $1 million or $2 million were totally destroyed, as well as homes that were worth $50,000.

Many of these homes were not in the flood plain. They were not required to have flood insurance. They were destroyed by the failure of a Federal levee system that collapsed, as well as historic highs of flooding and water coming from Hurricane Rita, which was one of the toughest and most aggressive storms on record.

So the long and short of it is, when we sent this $150,000 grant--we are still in the process of sending it. It has been very slow, very frustrating, and just so aggravating to so many people who are holding on by their fingernails to try to save what equity they had in their homes, which, as you know, for most American families that is their personal wealth. I think 95 percent of all Americans have almost 100 percent of their entire personal wealth tied up in their home. So this issue of helping homeowners in the gulf coast is literally trying to help restore to them a lifetime of work. In some instances, generations of work have been lost in this storm.

Now, we are not making everybody whole. Believe me, there has been enough pain in the gulf coast to go around for a century or more. But what happens is, when they receive their $150,000 grant--and most people have received an average of about $65,000. The authorized level is $150,000, but you have to qualify for that amount. So the average is about $60,000, which sounds like a lot of money, but if your house was worth $500,000, and your insurance has refused to pay you, it is not a whole lot of money to rebuild your house with labor costs that are going up at 20 percent or more since the storm.

So what is happening now is, when they receive these grants--and under the tax law, they can take a casualty deduction. If they did that last year, what happens this year--by April 15, which is in about 2 weeks--for that family who makes $75,000 a year--let's say the Smith family--let's take the Jones and Smith families. They make about the same amount of money. One family this year who took the casualty loss deduction is going to have to pay $24,000 in taxes. The family only makes $75,000, if they are lucky enough to have the job they had before Katrina and Rita struck.

Now, this amendment is not cheap. I make no bones about it. It is about $1 billion. It can be done on an emergency basis. This most certainly is an emergency in housing.

So that is the essence of the amendment. The Finance Committee is well aware of it. We have been talking about it with them for over a year now actually. We have just been waiting for a time to get it fixed.

Now, again, this is an emergency. It is a real problem. It is almost April 15. We have, I would argue, families in America who need the most help on housing. I feel very sorry for people who are losing their homes in foreclosure, and I am not even going to try to say whether they are suffering more than the people in the gulf south. All I can say is the people in the gulf south didn't take out any adjustable mortgages. The people in the gulf south, most of them had already paid their 30-year mortgage. They own their house scot-free. They paid for it. Now they have lost everything, and we are trying to help them, but in my view, everything we try to do to help them kind of--sometimes it turns out to not help them as much as we would like. There is no textbook. There is no Stafford Act. There is no way to help people who lost everything because of levees that should have held but didn't. We are making it up as we go along, and this is part of my job here to do this. So we have to fix this, and that is what this amendment will do. I am very proud that the Senators from both States have agreed to cosponsor this.

On behalf of Senator Cochran, at his request--and I am happy to support it--there is also a small change in this amendment which will allow this deduction--this goes on the accelerated depreciation piece that we gave to help some of our businesses. We lost 20,000 businesses that weekend. I think Mississippi lost 1,800. That is a lot of businesses to lose over a weekend. To help those businesses and people get back on their feet, this Congress extended to them a way to accelerate their depreciation, but we said: The way to get that accelerated depreciation is you have to start your project by a certain time and finish by a certain time. The problem is, the recovery has been so much slower than everybody anticipated because we have never really gone through this catastrophic situation. Senator Cochran is right when he says we should eliminate the start date. We are not asking for an extension, so technically it really shouldn't add money. We are not asking to extend it to any time or to let a lot of new people come in. But for the same universe, just don't make them start their project the way it said, but let them end it. That is also in my amendment. So we will solve two big problems: We will help our businesses, many small businesses, get the full benefit of what we wanted to give them anyway, actually work for them, and we will make this grant program work for them.

Now, let me be clear. When we pass this amendment, which I hope we will do by unanimous consent or get a large vote on it because I think we really should do it in a bipartisan way, the people to whom we give this tax break--this will lower their rate to their regular rate they will have to pay. They have to go back and reimburse the Treasury for that deduction they took. So, in other words, we are not allowing them to take two benefits. They are going to have to lower their tax this year, eliminate the tax on Road Home, and go back and pay the Federal Government the benefit they took. Their CPAs will have to figure that out. But if we don't do this, there will be people who will be stuck with a tax bill they could not possibly pay, and they shouldn't have to; they have suffered enough.

So I know the Senator from Connecticut, the chairman of the Banking Committee, knows full well what is happening down in the gulf. This is only one thing we are attempting to fix. I have several other amendments I intend to offer, if my colleagues would allow me, at an appropriate time, but this is the amendment I wanted to get in. April 15 is right around the corner, and they need to know what our intention is. This will help so many people. I appreciate it. I will ask for this amendment to be voted on when the first group, however large that group is--2, 5, 6, 10--whenever the first group of amendments is voted on, I would like for this to be included in that group. I ask unanimous consent for that to be the case.

Mr. President, I will repeat for the Senator from Connecticut that I will be happy to take this amendment whenever, but I would like it to be voted on in the first group of amendments, however big that group is and whenever that group will be taken up.

I appreciate that. Let me tell my colleague that I have, and it is included in their tax package. So just so the Senator from Connecticut knows, I will not agree to any votes going forward unless this amendment is in the group. So I am fine, and I will just stay here. The Finance Committee is well aware of this, and they have actually put it in their package. My concern is that their package may not ever really sort of get to the floor. There are some things in that package that I think really need to be voted on. So that is OK. I will just stay here, and we will work on what we can do. I really appreciate it.

Mr. President, again, I just want to be clear that I would expect this to be in the first group of votes that are taken as we proceed on this bill. Whether it is 2 or 3 or 10 or 20, this needs to be in it or I will object to going forward. Thank you.

No. Thank you.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation, the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act, that holds the promise of empowering cancer survivors and improving the quality of cancer care. Each year, more than one million Americans join the ranks of cancer survivors. Overall, nearly 12 million Americans live as cancer survivors. The legislation I am introducing will provide these cancer survivors with vital tools to help them manage their cancer care during active treatment and in the period of survivorship that follows treatment.

Cancer survivors from the state of Louisiana and their physicians have explained to me in compelling fashion the assistance that cancer survivors need to understand and participate in their treatment, address the side effects of therapy, and transition to cancer survivorship. I am sure that many of my Senate colleagues have heard incredible stories of survivorship from their own constituents. Management of treatment and its potentially serious side effects is a daunting task. The legislation I am introducing seeks to assist cancer survivors in receiving quality care from diagnosis through survivorship.

A dear friend and citizen of Louisiana, Tucker Melancon, has educated me about the necessity that all elements of cancer care be coordinated and that cancer patients be given assistance in managing cancer as a chronic disease. Judge Melancon and I have been friends for more than 20 years, and since 2001 he has demonstrated courage, strength, and good humor as he has undergone treatment for breast cancer. He has inspired me and many others, and it is with pleasure and humility that I introduce a bill that may help cancer survivors like Tucker receive cancer care of the highest quality.

The core provision of the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act is the establishment of Medicare payment for the development of cancer care plans and survivorship plans for beneficiaries who are diagnosed with cancer. The Institute of Medicine, IOM, in a series of reports issued between 1999 and 2006, has documented the benefits of written plans that explain to cancer survivors all of the elements of active cancer treatment, including the side effects of therapy, and that detail the steps required to monitor the side effects of treatment during survivorship.

What difference does a written plan of care make? Cancer survivors and their caregivers tell us that a written plan facilitates the coordination of care. That means that care plans provide cancer survivors the tools to receive therapy of the highest quality, accompanied by appropriate management of the side effects of treatment and the symptoms of cancer. Most people treated for cancer experience a range of side effects--including depression, pain, nausea, and vomiting--that can be debilitating and difficult to manage. Proper management of those side effects and symptoms can improve cancer survivors' quality of life and optimize their ability to complete treatment. The IOM has described patients who complete cancer treatment as ``lost in transition,'' uncertain how they will receive health care, including essential follow-up care, after active treatment. A written survivorship plan that details all elements of treatment received by a cancer survivor and that provides a roadmap to care after active treatment eases the transition from cancer patient to cancer survivor.

For patients and health care providers, Hurricane Katrina caused significant interruptions in care. Cancer patients in the middle of treatment were left to find their displaced physicians or to find new cancer care teams. In either case, they suffered from a lack of information about their ongoing treatment or about follow-up care plans. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing today would not address all of the health care delivery problems created by a natural disaster like Katrina, but it would at least put in the hands of patients critical information about their care. With that information, cancer survivors would be better able to continue their care without serious dislocation.

The U.S. Congress has provided its enthusiastic support to the National Institutes of Health for research to improve the treatment of cancer. By introducing the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act, I call on my colleagues to join me in a parallel effort to improve the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer. It is in our power to improve the quality of cancer care for Medicare beneficiaries. By improving Medicare, we set a standard of care for all Americans diagnosed with cancer.

I am pleased to lead the Senate effort to advance the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act. A companion measure has been introduced in the House by Representatives Lois Capps and Tom Davis and already enjoys the support of more than 90 House cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting legislation that will provide cancer patients a helping hand in obtaining quality cancer care.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation, the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act, that holds the promise of empowering cancer survivors and improving the quality of cancer care. Each year, more than one million Americans join the ranks of cancer survivors. Overall, nearly 12 million Americans live as cancer survivors. The legislation I am introducing will provide these cancer survivors with vital tools to help them manage their cancer care during active treatment and in the period of survivorship that follows treatment.

Cancer survivors from the state of Louisiana and their physicians have explained to me in compelling fashion the assistance that cancer survivors need to understand and participate in their treatment, address the side effects of therapy, and transition to cancer survivorship. I am sure that many of my Senate colleagues have heard incredible stories of survivorship from their own constituents. Management of treatment and its potentially serious side effects is a daunting task. The legislation I am introducing seeks to assist cancer survivors in receiving quality care from diagnosis through survivorship.

A dear friend and citizen of Louisiana, Tucker Melancon, has educated me about the necessity that all elements of cancer care be coordinated and that cancer patients be given assistance in managing cancer as a chronic disease. Judge Melancon and I have been friends for more than 20 years, and since 2001 he has demonstrated courage, strength, and good humor as he has undergone treatment for breast cancer. He has inspired me and many others, and it is with pleasure and humility that I introduce a bill that may help cancer survivors like Tucker receive cancer care of the highest quality.

The core provision of the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act is the establishment of Medicare payment for the development of cancer care plans and survivorship plans for beneficiaries who are diagnosed with cancer. The Institute of Medicine, IOM, in a series of reports issued between 1999 and 2006, has documented the benefits of written plans that explain to cancer survivors all of the elements of active cancer treatment, including the side effects of therapy, and that detail the steps required to monitor the side effects of treatment during survivorship.

What difference does a written plan of care make? Cancer survivors and their caregivers tell us that a written plan facilitates the coordination of care. That means that care plans provide cancer survivors the tools to receive therapy of the highest quality, accompanied by appropriate management of the side effects of treatment and the symptoms of cancer. Most people treated for cancer experience a range of side effects--including depression, pain, nausea, and vomiting--that can be debilitating and difficult to manage. Proper management of those side effects and symptoms can improve cancer survivors' quality of life and optimize their ability to complete treatment. The IOM has described patients who complete cancer treatment as ``lost in transition,'' uncertain how they will receive health care, including essential follow-up care, after active treatment. A written survivorship plan that details all elements of treatment received by a cancer survivor and that provides a roadmap to care after active treatment eases the transition from cancer patient to cancer survivor.

For patients and health care providers, Hurricane Katrina caused significant interruptions in care. Cancer patients in the middle of treatment were left to find their displaced physicians or to find new cancer care teams. In either case, they suffered from a lack of information about their ongoing treatment or about follow-up care plans. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing today would not address all of the health care delivery problems created by a natural disaster like Katrina, but it would at least put in the hands of patients critical information about their care. With that information, cancer survivors would be better able to continue their care without serious dislocation.

The U.S. Congress has provided its enthusiastic support to the National Institutes of Health for research to improve the treatment of cancer. By introducing the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act, I call on my colleagues to join me in a parallel effort to improve the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer. It is in our power to improve the quality of cancer care for Medicare beneficiaries. By improving Medicare, we set a standard of care for all Americans diagnosed with cancer.

I am pleased to lead the Senate effort to advance the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act. A companion measure has been introduced in the House by Representatives Lois Capps and Tom Davis and already enjoys the support of more than 90 House cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting legislation that will provide cancer patients a helping hand in obtaining quality cancer care.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for each of us to have a minute and a half.

Mr. President, a group of Senators, now for several years, has been working to reduce the estate tax. With the constraints on the budget, particularly with spending $348 million a day in Iraq, this has been difficult. But some of us have been working in good faith to reduce the 55-percent rate and to raise the unified credit. The tax in its current form is onerous, in my view unnecessary, and it clouds the ability of many of our successful business owners from planning the growth and expansion of their businesses that create jobs right here at home in America. Something should be done now, something that is real and does not increase our debt.

The amendment I offer will reduce the rate to 35 percent and increase the unified credit to $10 million. Most importantly, this is paid for by the President's own offsets in the budget he submitted to us. So it is fully paid for. It reduces the tax rate to 35 percent and increases the unified tax credit to $10 million.

I call up the amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with Senator Hagel legislation that would reinstate the White House Conference on Children and Youth. This Conference was originally created by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909, and continued every 10 years through 1970. Despite funding in 1981 and reauthorization legislation in 1990, no conference has been held since that 1970 gathering. It is time to renew our commitment to America's children and resurrect the oldest White House Conference in U.S. history.

Similar to the White House Conference on Aging, this symposium would be the culmination of nationwide events held over a 2-year span. Just as with the first White House Conference, this summit would focus on child welfare issues. The legislation authorizes a conference to be held in 2010, and establishes a bipartisan, bicameral policy committee, including members selected by the next administration. To promote and inform the conference and to engage stakeholders, State and local events would be held around the country in 2009. These events and the conference would focus specifically on child welfare including the range of issues from prevention, intervention to permanency including reunification, kinship care and adoption. Participants would also include state officials, court and legal representatives, providers, children, tribal representatives and other parties affected by or involved with the child welfare system. By connecting these stakeholders through this conference, we can improve the lives of children throughout the country.

Previous conferences have led to major policy improvements in child welfare. The Children's Bureau was established after the first conference, and recommendations were made that deemphasized the institutionalization of children and encouraged the growth of adoption agencies. In 1919, the White House Conference initiated standards for child welfare, and ten years later it created a 19-point charter to address the needs of our children.

We look forward to comparable achievements from the conference in 2010, and hope that you will join with us in this effort.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with Senator Hagel legislation that would reinstate the White House Conference on Children and Youth. This Conference was originally created by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909, and continued every 10 years through 1970. Despite funding in 1981 and reauthorization legislation in 1990, no conference has been held since that 1970 gathering. It is time to renew our commitment to America's children and resurrect the oldest White House Conference in U.S. history.

Similar to the White House Conference on Aging, this symposium would be the culmination of nationwide events held over a 2-year span. Just as with the first White House Conference, this summit would focus on child welfare issues. The legislation authorizes a conference to be held in 2010, and establishes a bipartisan, bicameral policy committee, including members selected by the next administration. To promote and inform the conference and to engage stakeholders, State and local events would be held around the country in 2009. These events and the conference would focus specifically on child welfare including the range of issues from prevention, intervention to permanency including reunification, kinship care and adoption. Participants would also include state officials, court and legal representatives, providers, children, tribal representatives and other parties affected by or involved with the child welfare system. By connecting these stakeholders through this conference, we can improve the lives of children throughout the country.

Previous conferences have led to major policy improvements in child welfare. The Children's Bureau was established after the first conference, and recommendations were made that deemphasized the institutionalization of children and encouraged the growth of adoption agencies. In 1919, the White House Conference initiated standards for child welfare, and ten years later it created a 19-point charter to address the needs of our children.

We look forward to comparable achievements from the conference in 2010, and hope that you will join with us in this effort.

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

Madam President, I want to follow up on the remarks of my colleague from New Jersey who has been an extraordinary leader in so

many ways, particularly on the housing issue. I thank him and associate myself with many of his remarks.

I rise to speak about the housing situation and to try to bring some comparisons between the difficulties around the country and, in some places, downright despair because of the foreclosure situation and pending bankruptcies. I also want to remind my colleagues that there is still a tremendous need on the Gulf Coast relative to the housing crisis and ask my colleagues not to lose sight of the difficulties that we are still having in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida.

I know it is 2008. The storms of Katrina and Rita and Wilma are long gone in some people's memories but not in ours. These storms in many ways were just like yesterday, not just the hurricanes but the levees that broke and caused unmitigated disaster and despair.

I thought it would be helpful to first examine communities with the highest foreclosure rates, and with the Senator from Michigan in the chair, the first area I want to speak about is in Michigan--Detroit, Livonia, and Dearborn, which I am sure she is familiar with--which happens to be the metropolitan area that has the highest percentage of foreclosures. This chart shows you the top 10 communities in the Nation and the numbers of homeowners facing bankruptcy or foreclosure. The number of homes is both striking and startling. If you think about foreclosure, the damage is not just done to the family losing their home or the individual but to the neighborhood as a whole. If it is so concentrated, as it seems to be in some particular counties, it has dramatic economic effects on the whole community. That is why Democrats--and I know some on the other side are sensitive to this--are trying to fashion a package that recognizes that while we don't want to bail out improper behavior, we most certainly don't want to bail out illegal behavior, we absolutely need a housing bill that recognizes that foreclosure does not just involve a single family, but it impacts an entire community, particularly in Michigan where some of this is probably associated with the downturn in manufacturing jobs. People are not only losing their jobs but losing their homes.

While the causes of our loss were very different, it wasn't due to an economic downturn. It wasn't really due to subprime lending practices. Our problems were due to the levees collapsing when they should have held and the ensuing floods that wiped out hundreds of thousands of homes, which I will get to in a minute. But for purposes of my brief remarks this morning, these are the top 10 areas facing foreclosure problems in the United States, in Michigan, California, and Nevada.

You have heard people say this crisis is limited to places within about seven States. But for comparison, I would like to show the counties and parishes in the Gulf Coast that have the highest rates of housing loss due to the floods. This is an extraordinary comparison. If I could ask the staff to hold up the other chart next to this one so people may see.

We are talking about the mortgage crisis, 4.9 percent in Michigan and 4.9 percent in Stockton, CA. Next to it is the actual numbers. So 41,273 households in the Detroit area are in some part of the foreclosure process; down in Miami, FL, 2.7 percent. That doesn't sound like a big percentage, but it is 25,000 families. That is a lot of families.

But let me show you on the Gulf Coast what has happened to us over the last 2 years. In St. Bernard Parish--this is major and severe damage. This is the percentage of homes that were unlivable, 78.4 percent; in Cameron Parish, which is a small parish in the Southwest, 71.8 percent; in Hancock County, MS, 69.8 percent; in Plaquemines Parish, LA, 57.5 percent; Orleans Parish, 55.9 percent; Harrison County, MS, 34 percent; Jackson County, MS, 34 percent; St. Tammany Parish, 25 percent; Jefferson Parish, 19 percent; and Vermilion Parish, 13 percent. There are no other percentages like this anywhere in the country.

My point is that while I am glad address the foreclosure crisis for the country and am proud to help other regions--and I most certainly understand the disaster associated with foreclosures, particularly if they are not really of your making. You took out the right kind of loan, you put your money down, but you lost your job or your child got into an accident, and because you don't have health insurance, you have to file for bankruptcy, and people are taking your home. And that is the last thing people should be doing. We should be helping pay medical bills and getting people jobs and not taking their homes. I am not here to bail out reckless behavior. But I most certainly think Congress should step up and help middle-class families struggling to keep their homes. But for comparison's sake, I want people to get their eyes on what we are still going through on the Gulf Coast.

We have parishes where 78 percent of the homes are unlivable and people are struggling to keep these homes. What the Federal Government has done has been substantial, but it is not adequate and not enough. While we have sent Community Development Block Grant funding down to many of these families, some of them still haven't seen a penny. Some of them had to deduct their insurance from that. We still don't have tax relief for individuals who took a casualty loss deduction and are now being taxed on their Community Development Block Grants. So people, in addition to not receiving their full complement, not getting their full insurance money, are now being pushed to a higher tax bracket because this Congress has failed yet to give them tax relief that they desperately need.

So as we put this housing relief package together for the Nation, let's think about what can be done in Mississippi, Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, where, in some places, 50 percent of families or more have lost their homes. Some people are back. Some people are struggling. But you might have a neighborhood, let's say, in St. Bernard--I was there last week--where there is one home that is fixed and inhabited. Every other home on that block is vacant. Think about that. This person is happy to be back in their house. But when you ask them what was the value of that house before the storm, it used to be $450,000. Today that is a very interesting question. What is the value of a three- bedroom brick home on a block where every other home is empty? That is how badly people want to live in their neighborhoods and communities. These are not communities necessarily below sea level. Some of these places I describe are above sea level.

If the Senate continues to consider the Foreclosure Prevention Act, I have some specific suggestions as to how we can make the bill more relevant for families struggling on the Gulf Coast. First, we need tax relief for Road Home grant recipients. We need it for the people who have lost their homes. We also need to craft the legislation so that families can use the bonds allocated in the bill to purchase or refinance a home that was destroyed in the 2005 hurricanes. Also, the Community Development Block grant funding formula in the legislation should account for communities that have lost significant numbers of homes in the 2005 hurricanes. Finally, the bill provides a unique opportunity for us to increase home ownership in hurricane-impacted areas.

I wish the Presiding Officer the best in helping one of her communities. But please don't forget us. I don't have Alabama numbers, but the hurricane did hit Alabama. We do have those numbers on another chart. But for those of us on the Gulf Coast, this is critical. And, yes, another hurricane season is starting this spring. Let's get some help to these people and fashion a bill that we can pass that will bring real relief to American homeowners everywhere.

I yield the floor.