Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I know the debate today and for the past several days has been focused on immigration. The Presiding Officer has been active in the negotiations, and I commend him for his good work. It has been a tough debate on a very important issue--an issue of security, fairness, and justice. It is an issue of economics, and it affects all of our States. It affects what America stands for. We have spent an inordinate and appropriate amount of time on that subject.

Tonight, I come to the floor to speak about another issue very close to my heart and to the people of Louisiana, particularly with regard to the closeness of the arrival of the hurricane season. It is hard to believe that we are about ready to face another hurricane season again. June 1, a few days from now, is the first official day of the hurricane season. It comes this year bringing a lot more fright and anxiety to the gulf coast because we were hit by a powerful series of storms last year that devastated parts of Florida and a great part of the gulf coast from Mississippi through the whole of south Louisiana, into the city of New Orleans and the metropolitan area, and then on into Texas.

And two of those storms were the worst to hit the United States of America. The devastation and the amount of damage is still climbing. A report I saw today was that the damage is now $150 billion and climbing. Hurricane Andrew, which was the greatest storm to hit the United States and to hit your State, Mr. President, was $40 billion. We are now at $150 billion and climbing. We have lost, of course, over 1,300 people. People were killed by the storms and the flooding that ensued from the multiple breaks in the levees that have put a major American city and region--not just New Orleans, but St. Bernard Parish and Plaquemines, which often get left out of the debate. They are two of the parishes that lie south of New Orleans, as they hold the Mississippi River, if you will, that splits their parishes in half. It affected the southwestern part of our State as well.

That doesn't get mentioned as much as it should--little towns such as Creole and big towns such as Lake Charles took a tough hit, and parishes such as Vermilion and little towns such as Erath, where almost every home was destroyed or very damaged.

Having said that, it added insult to injury that this particular coast that got battered so badly by these storms is also America's only energy coast. This is the only energy coast in America, the only four States that right now will allow drilling of oil and gas off their shores to provide for the economic vitality of this Nation and to provide the oil and gas necessary to run the electric grid in this country and the transportation systems in this country, and to run energy from lights to the entire energy grid.

I have been on this floor many times in my time in the Senate--now almost 10 years--to talk about this subject. I thought I would take a few minutes tonight, because we are approaching hurricane season, to remind the Senate that while immigration is a very important issue, and we want to bring closure to that this week, I hope that very soon we will get back to another issue of great interest and security for the Nation, and that is the issue of energy security. It starts, in my view, with providing some more understanding and more help to those States that are providing the oil and the gas for this Nation, as we seek to open up new places to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, which has become known as a section of the gulf called lease-sale 181. I hope that bill will be considered. It came out of the Energy Committee that the occupant of the chair and I serve on. I think that bill will come to the floor for some discussion.

As that bill moves to the floor and we move to the focus on energy and energy security, I want to take a few minutes to talk about this gulf coast area and how much we contribute and how, without some stream of revenue--whether we get it from lease-sale 181 or from other offshore drilling--to secure the wetlands that we are losing at an alarming rate, to provide some energy-related protection of this infrastructure, to provide for the restoration of these wetlands this energy coast will continue to be at risk.

If my colleagues and the people in Congress think that $150 billion is a lot of money, just wait until we go through a couple more hurricane seasons to really feel the effect of underinvestment over time, to a point where it is almost criminal. Let me repeat--an underinvestment over time that borders on being criminal.

I have some new charts, since I have used all my old ones up for 10 years of this debate. This is a satellite photograph from USGS of all of the pipelines and flow lines in the United States off of the shore. I have come down here so many times to say that the offshore oil and gas industry could not even exist if it were not for the partnership, which we have done thus far proudly and willingly--but that is wearing thin--we have done it proudly and supported the oil and gas industry for now almost 45 years off of our shores. You can see this is the Louisiana coastline. This is the Mississippi coastline. This is Texas.

This is all of the pipelines and flow lines connecting thousands of wells that are in the Gulf of Mexico bringing oil and gas to a nation that is thirsty for oil and needing gas, because the supply is so low and the consumption is so high and the prices are going up. The four States that are putting their shoulder to the wheel every day are Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. This is the picture that proves it.

This is out on this map about 200 miles of activity. So for some people who have said the drilling is so far off your coast that the people of Louisiana don't have anything to do with it, let me explain that you cannot access grids and rigs and oil and gas without pipelines, gadgets, widgets, drills, well heads, and supply boats. It is impossible. Every single widget, gadget, and supply boat either comes by boat or helicopter out of one of these many ports that have proudly supported this industry. You can see the line stops at the Mobile Bay. The reason is because Florida, which consumes more energy than almost any State relative to its lack of production--consumes but has not produced. Florida is not the only State. I could show you a chart of California and Michigan and New York--States that consume a lot of energy but have not been willing to produce it in any way, either by nuclear, by wind, or by strict conservation--except for California; I will give them credit for conservation measures. But other States won't do conservation or production.

I don't know if you can see this thin line. Last year, the industry went ahead, because of this policy, and laid a pipeline all the way to Florida to provide gas to Florida. But we have to drill it off of Alabama's coast and then send it to Florida free of charge.

I am going to show you another chart that says the same thing, but it is a little different. When I say that the gulf coast is America's only energy coast, this is another way to look at it. Every one of these green blocks--this goes out 200 miles into the gulf--were active leases prior to 2003. That is the green. They are active leases issued in 2003, which were the last lease-sales; 185, 187, and 189 are the light yellow. And then the red have been withdrawn from leasing. Not many. The active leases issued in 2004.

Basically, the green and yellow are leases. From these leases are produced, for the Federal Treasury--I remind everybody that we are running a serious deficit. So besides contributing oil and gas, we also contribute a lot of money to the Treasury. We are sending to the Federal Government every year $6 billion. It was $2 billion when I got here; now it is $6 billion. Before I leave, it will probably go up to $15 billion, assuming I can get here another term. So $6 billion goes from the royalties by passing all of the communities here that build the widgets, gadgets, supply boats--over all the heads of the workers that drill, over all their homes that are underwater and ruined, over all of the wetlands that are being infringed upon, and in a fairly critical way.

Although we have made a lot of changes in our environmental laws, the problem is that a lot of these canals were drilled in the 1930s and 1940s. I am sorry, I wasn't born to try to help protect them then. But like my daughter said the other day, I am born now. We tried our best in the last couple of years, with the little money Louisiana had to do some of this work, but we

cannot possibly do this work on our own. We should not have to, Mr. President, because we send to the Federal Treasury--which is much wealthier than the State of Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama, three of the poorest States in the Union--and even Texas has a lot of poor and lower middle-income people. We are subsidizing the National Government, giving them the oil, giving them the gas, and then giving them all the money. It just has to stop.

We need some money to restore our coast, to build levees, and to protect the infrastructure that is at risk. We were very fortunate that even with this powerful storm, most everybody in the industry has worked very hard to create very good technology so that these rigs and platforms can withstand a lot of wind pressure and strong waves. Every time a storm comes, the industry, because it is innovative, gets better and better. But there were some close calls with these platforms. They are still not completely up in the gulf.

I will show you one more chart. When people say what about gas, this is oil and gas. I will show you what the gas trunk looks like. This is billion cubic feet flow levels. The areas do not include LNG imports. This is just what we drill ourselves. If we put imports here, I don't know what it would look like because nobody wants to put a liquefied natural gas plant anywhere except where? Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi again. Everybody has siting problems with liquefied natural gas that comes imported. Here we step up again and are building some of the largest liquefied natural gas plants so we can get gas from other places. Agriculture in every State, particularly the Midwest, needs these gas prices to come down. They are having a great deal of difficulty in the Midwest. They are having a great deal of difficulty in Illinois and in New Jersey and in Delaware.

The chemical industry runs on very slim margins. So who comes to the rescue? Louisiana and Mississippi, all the gas coming through here to try to keep everybody happy and working. And we cannot get one penny from these royalties in any significant way.

Well, it is not true that we have not gotten one penny. What is true is that Senator Domenici, with his great leadership, recognized this and has been a wonderful help and supporter. Last year, in the Energy bill, he gave us, for the first time, a billion dollars. We were grateful. But it is a billion dollars over a few years. We have to divide it among the States. It sounds like a lot, but it doesn't go very far. We need a long-term commitment so that we can count on money year after year to do what we need to do in this community.

I want to show one more that is even more dramatic. I am going to get to this for Texas and Mississippi and Alabama. But this shows the oil and gas wells inside the coastal zone. This is how many wells we have. If you would see our whole State, you could not believe it. Most of this land is private land, unlike the Western States that came into the union with a lot of Federal land. This is private land. So private landowners get a royalty. That is fine. The State gets some money. While it looks like a lot of money the State would be getting, these wells were drilled decades ago, in many cases. Some of them are still producing, but some of them are not.

Outside this coastal zone--this is our 3-mile line--outside this coastal zone, according to the law which I am trying to change, we get no revenues from these wells.

The final chart is pretty frightening, actually. This is a chart of the hurricane tracks from 1955 to 2005. This is how many hurricanes have hit the gulf coast and the east coast from 1955 to 2005. The blue line is the track of Hurricane Rita, and the yellow line is the track of Katrina. Both of these storms were at some point in their track category 5 storms. Within 3\1/2\ weeks, they hit the east side of Louisiana and then right to the Louisiana-Texas line.

For the State, it was terrible to have two very big storms hit, but as a Senator, I have to tell you, I said a thanksgiving that it didn't hit Houston straight-on because if it had hit Houston and Galveston and put that energy sector out--Katrina had done a great deal to put out Port Fourchon, which is the only energy port in the Nation right on the coast--I don't know what would have happened to the lights in America. Maybe they would have all gone off. But nobody seems to care about that.

I promise my colleagues, as sure as I am standing here, there will be a series of storms that plow into this gulf coast. The water is getting warmer. I don't know how many times people have to write articles, give speeches, or write books about the fact that global warming is happening. One can argue about its causes, but nobody can argue that it is actually happening. When the waters warm, any scientist will tell you these storms are going to pick up in intensity and in frequency.

I need to ask the Congress: What more will it take? What more will it take before we act to give the gulf coast a portion of their revenues to protect themselves so that we can protect everyone else? What more has to happen? How many more storms? How much more loss of property? How many more close calls before we have to shut down the rigs and the pipelines and put America's lights out and put our economy at even greater risk?

I go to my office and I ask my staff: Is there some other chart we can come up with that could show people the danger? Is there some other speech I can give?

I might not be making myself clear, so I am asking the Senate tonight, as we wind down the immigration bill and as we think about moving to lease sale 181 or maybe a mini Energy bill because we have lots of problems in the energy sector, lots of challenges, can I please ask one more time: Can we please get some funding out of the new revenues that are being generated off America's only energy coast to give the people of the gulf coast some resources so they can protect themselves a little better?

If somebody tries to tell me, Senator, why don't you just have everybody move, if I have to hear one more person say we have to get everybody to move or we have to move out of New Orleans--New Orleans is not even on the coast. We are not on the coast. Miami is on the coast. Savannah is on the coast. Gulfport is on the coast. Beaumont is on the coast. New Orleans is not on the coast. We are 100 miles from the coast. But if these wetlands continue to erode at the rate they are going, we are going to be talking about Little Rock as a coastal city. I know I am exaggerating a little bit, but I promise the Senate that this coastal erosion is moving at such a rapid rate that not only is New Orleans at risk, Baton Rouge is at risk, Lafayette is at risk, Lake Charles is at risk, and then we have Galveston, Beaumont, and Houston.

We just cannot move everybody back 200 miles from the coast. In fact, the last time I looked at this data, all along the coast of the United States and growing mostly in Florida, people are moving to the coast. We may be the only State where people are actually moving away from the coast, but the coast is moving to us. We are not moving to the coast to build condominiums or golf courses. We can't build a golf course in a wetland, and we can't put a big skyscraper up in the wetlands.

We moved little communities so that we could construct a fishing industry for the Nation. We run the great ports that benefit the whole country, and we run the oil and gas industry that benefits the Nation. We are not on the coast sunbathing and building condos. But if the country wants everybody along the coast to move, then I suggest some agency come up with an evacuation and relocation plan that can proceed to move tens of millions of Americans because that is exactly what we are going to have to do because two-thirds of all Americans live within 50 miles of a coast. But New Orleans is not 50 miles from a coast.

The Netherlands has a much better plan. I am going to save that speech for another time. There are countries--not America--in the world that use their technology, use their resources, use their brains, and use the money they get from oil and gas by placing it into good levees, good dikes, good engineering, and they protect their people as best they can. We cannot stop these storms. Nobody can stop them. But a smart country, a country with good policies, mitigates and protects and puts up smart barriers and learns to work with the water and the wind much better than we are doing.

With this chart in the background, I conclude by saying, let us move, after immigration, to an energy subject. Let us take the opportunity Senator Domenici is going to give us to bring lease sale 181 up for debate. I will show where it is. Lease sale 181 is going to be a new area, which sits on the border of Alabama and Florida, that we are going to try to open.

I know, Mr. President, this is a sensitive subject for Florida because I have worked with you and Senator Nelson.

The Presiding Officer and Senator Nelson have been outstanding in their advocacy of trying to balance the needs of Florida and their tourism industry, which we have as well, with the needs for the gulf coast.

As we can see on this map, there is plenty of room to give a buffer to Florida that is reasonable and allow for more drilling. That is the idea. It has to be reasonable and provide some additional areas to get some oil and gas far enough off the coast so it will not affect the beaches because Florida does have a tourism industry based on beaches. Our tourism industry is not based on beaches. We only have two beaches, and they are only 7 miles long, and we can't hardly get to them. But we have great wetlands and we are proud of them. We have a lot of ecotourism, pirogues, canoes, hunting and fishing, which is extraordinary in our State, and we are proud of that, just as Florida is proud of its beaches.

Mr. President, you heard me say this to you privately many times. Half the people of Louisiana have grown up on the beaches of Florida. We don't have that much money. We can't go that far. So we manage to go to the Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida beaches. We are happy for the day or two spent on a beach in Florida. We are happy for it. But there is a reasonable compromise to be had.

I have been proud to work with many of my colleagues to try to come up with a way to open up this drilling, provide revenue sharing for these States on the gulf coast that have given so much and that want to continue to give and benefit the Nation, and finally to give our people some hope.

It has been a struggle to build the levees through the years. We needed to repair the levees that broke. The hope that we could give to our people all along the gulf coast as hurricane season starts June 1-- hurricane season starts June 1. Millions of people living along this coast are reading the reports that this hurricane season might be worse than last. Wouldn't it be wonderful for the Congress of the United States to say this is a security issue for America, that this means a great deal to us, and we are going to act now to provide some hope to the people of the gulf coast?

We have lived in this area a long time, and we are going to stay living here. We have been living here for over 300 years. We were a colony before there was a country. We were living here, and we are not leaving. Whether the country helps us or not, we are going to stay here and keep doing our job. It has gotten to the point where it is so grossly unfair. We have to find a solution so that the people who live here can have hope that the country they live in actually cares about them, not just about how fast they can get out to the rigs to turn on the oil and gas for everybody else, but maybe we would care enough about their homes that have been flooded and the children's schools they can't go to or their churches that got flooded and help them to rebuild their homes, their schools, their churches so they can continue to work out on these rigs and send the oil and gas to New York and to Illinois and to Florida.

We will build smartly, we have built smartly, and we will build even more in that way, but we cannot abandon this coast because if we did, who would keep the rigs working? Who would keep the pipelines open? Who would navigate the ships up the port?

Mr. President, I have taken all or maybe more of my 30 minutes, and I appreciate the time. Again, when we get to lease sale 181, let's try to come together and come up with a reasonable solution, one that works for the Nation, one that works for the gulf coast States, and one of which we can actually be proud.

I yield the floor.

Mr President, there are countless examples of times when FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, did more harm than good in the aftermath of the 2005 hurricanes. While they could not avoid some of the problems and better planning could have helped avoid others, FEMA's lack of expertise in one area in particular has been especially problematic: disaster housing. Today, I am introducing the Natural Disaster Housing Reform Act of 2006 to put long-term disaster housing in the hands of the agency with the appropriate expertise: the Department of Housing and Urban Develpment, HUD. Congressman Baker introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives. I congratulate him on his leadership.

I am not introducing this bill simply to gang up on FEMA. One could argue that the Agency is an easy target. Let me assure my colleagues that this is not my intention. I simply believe that for future disasters, the Federal Cabinet Agency with the expertise in housing should run disaster housing assistance.

HUD has housing expertise. FEMA does not. HUD oversees 1.2 million public housing units. It administers the section 8 rental assistance program for 2.1 million families. They provide supportive housing for 320,000 senior citizens and people with disabilities. HUD also has a network of more than 3,000 public housing agencies in cities and counties across the country, so it has the infrastructure already in place to meet emergency housing needs. In all, HUD provides housing assistance to over 3.3 million households nationwide. FEMA is simply not equipped to deal with the housing needs of hundreds of thousands of people after mass disasters like Katrina and Rita.

FEMA's expertise lies in disaster preparedness and response, as well as short-term recovery needs: emergency shelter and financial assistance, infrastructure rebuilding, and financial support to communities. In smaller disasters that do not impact as widespread an area, FEMA can provide short-term housing assistance either by putting people up in hotels or giving them trailers to live in. But the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people over a wide area and the need to provide all of those people with housing assistance proved too much for FEMA. Its administration of the hotel program was marked by confusion and unrealistic termination deadlines that were constantly extended, causing additional anxiety for displaced victims who did not need more uncertainty. At such a time, an agency should not provide additional housing problems--it should provide housing solutions.

The travel trailer program is extremely costly and inefficient. The cheapest trailer cost between $16,000 and $20,000 to purchase. Over the 18-month life of assistance, including installation and maintenance, the travel trailers cost $59,800. That's $3,300 per month for the travel trailers--the low-end option. Mobile homes cost $76,800 over 18 months. Compare this to the roughly $500 average monthly cost of a HUD section 8 rental voucher. These vouchers could be provided on an emergency basis at a far less than FEMA programs. HUD programs are also easily accessible. Everyone who was displaced by Katrina and Rita ended up near one of the 3,000 public housing authorities that administer HUD programs.

The bill also contains provisions that my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, included in his bill S. 2771, the Disaster Housing Flexibility Act of 2006. That bill amends the Stafford Act to allow hurricane victims to receive modular housing if the President determines that such housing is more cost effective. I am pleased to include these provisions in the legislation I am introducing today.

Mr. President, hurricane season starts next week. Across the Federal Government, agencies are getting ready. This legislation will help us avoid repeating some of the mistakes of the past in the event of another storm. This bill will create a more efficient, effective and responsive Federal housing assistance program for future disasters. Disaster victims need this efficiency and certainty, not a repeat of FEMA's woeful performance during Katrina.

I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent that my entire statement and a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr President, there are countless examples of times when FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, did more harm than good in the aftermath of the 2005 hurricanes. While they could not avoid some of the problems and better planning could have helped avoid others, FEMA's lack of expertise in one area in particular has been especially problematic: disaster housing. Today, I am introducing the Natural Disaster Housing Reform Act of 2006 to put long-term disaster housing in the hands of the agency with the appropriate expertise: the Department of Housing and Urban Develpment, HUD. Congressman Baker introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives. I congratulate him on his leadership.

I am not introducing this bill simply to gang up on FEMA. One could argue that the Agency is an easy target. Let me assure my colleagues that this is not my intention. I simply believe that for future disasters, the Federal Cabinet Agency with the expertise in housing should run disaster housing assistance.

HUD has housing expertise. FEMA does not. HUD oversees 1.2 million public housing units. It administers the section 8 rental assistance program for 2.1 million families. They provide supportive housing for 320,000 senior citizens and people with disabilities. HUD also has a network of more than 3,000 public housing agencies in cities and counties across the country, so it has the infrastructure already in place to meet emergency housing needs. In all, HUD provides housing assistance to over 3.3 million households nationwide. FEMA is simply not equipped to deal with the housing needs of hundreds of thousands of people after mass disasters like Katrina and Rita.

FEMA's expertise lies in disaster preparedness and response, as well as short-term recovery needs: emergency shelter and financial assistance, infrastructure rebuilding, and financial support to communities. In smaller disasters that do not impact as widespread an area, FEMA can provide short-term housing assistance either by putting people up in hotels or giving them trailers to live in. But the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people over a wide area and the need to provide all of those people with housing assistance proved too much for FEMA. Its administration of the hotel program was marked by confusion and unrealistic termination deadlines that were constantly extended, causing additional anxiety for displaced victims who did not need more uncertainty. At such a time, an agency should not provide additional housing problems--it should provide housing solutions.

The travel trailer program is extremely costly and inefficient. The cheapest trailer cost between $16,000 and $20,000 to purchase. Over the 18-month life of assistance, including installation and maintenance, the travel trailers cost $59,800. That's $3,300 per month for the travel trailers--the low-end option. Mobile homes cost $76,800 over 18 months. Compare this to the roughly $500 average monthly cost of a HUD section 8 rental voucher. These vouchers could be provided on an emergency basis at a far less than FEMA programs. HUD programs are also easily accessible. Everyone who was displaced by Katrina and Rita ended up near one of the 3,000 public housing authorities that administer HUD programs.

The bill also contains provisions that my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, included in his bill S. 2771, the Disaster Housing Flexibility Act of 2006. That bill amends the Stafford Act to allow hurricane victims to receive modular housing if the President determines that such housing is more cost effective. I am pleased to include these provisions in the legislation I am introducing today.

Mr. President, hurricane season starts next week. Across the Federal Government, agencies are getting ready. This legislation will help us avoid repeating some of the mistakes of the past in the event of another storm. This bill will create a more efficient, effective and responsive Federal housing assistance program for future disasters. Disaster victims need this efficiency and certainty, not a repeat of FEMA's woeful performance during Katrina.

I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent that my entire statement and a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Reserving the right to object, may I just ask that at any time tonight or any time in the morning, I be allowed to offer the two amendments that have been pending all week. We can vote whenever the leadership would like, in the morning or later tonight.

I want to modify the unanimous consent request that after Senator Nelson from Florida, Senator Landrieu would then be allowed to offer two amendments.

Reserving the right to object, I most certainly don't mind showing the amendments. They have been on file for a week. But I would like it to be in order this week for 10 minutes, either tonight or tomorrow morning.

I appreciate that. I cannot agree to any unanimous consent until we get this.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Then I will wait to object to that next request.

Mr. President, I know we are getting ready to go to final passage, but I ask unanimous consent to go to amendment No. 3851, as modified.

Mr. President, I know we are getting ready to go to final passage. I know it is unanimous consent. But I am asking unanimous consent to bring up amendment No. 3851, which has been cleared on both sides by four committees. It has to do with a definition.

I will be happy to.

I would like to offer two amendments and have a moment to speak about two amendments that are germane.

Mr. President, I will bring up for a brief discussion my amendment No. 3750.

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

Mr. President, this amendment that I offer tries to move forward a very difficult situation that we are faced with in Louisiana about how to protect not just the New Orleans city proper but the greater metropolitan area and parts of south Louisiana from flooding in the future.

As you know, Mr. President, because you have been gracious enough to be one of the Senators to go walk through the neighborhoods and see the flooding, being a firsthand witness, it wasn't just the hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, but it was the breaking of levee systems. Some of those levees were long industrial canals that served this great port which, together with the South Louisiana Port, is the largest port system in America. Some of these levees were along the lake. Some of them were along what we call the London Avenue Canal.

There was a project that was designed and structured by the Corps of Engineers back in the 1930s and 1940s called the Mississippi River gulf outlet. I think you actually stood on that levee, Mr. President, and looked to see where that breach occurred. This avenue was thought--at the time we built it and designed it, like so many large civil works projects we have done in this Nation--to be a positive effort to help expand the opportunities for the port for trade and commerce. For a while, it did serve that purpose. But what has happened is that over a decade, it has caused such erosion in the great expanse of marshland that it was placed in--or the marsh was dredged through and created, that it really is causing, according to everyone who has looked at how the flooding occurred in our area, it is causing serious--not only environmental--damage but is now a real threat to life and property.

So there has been an effort underway between port officials, parish officials in St. Bernard, and the business community to try to come up with a way to close the Mississippi River gulf outlet but to do it in a way that protects the parish of St. Bernard primarily and the lower ninth ward, as well as trying to give some period of time for the few businesses that are along the gulf outlet to make arrangements to move.

My amendment would simply provide a de minimis $3.5 million for the Corps of Engineers to develop a closure plan because the consensus at home is that the Mississippi River gulf outlet, which is demonstrated here on the map, which served at one time as a very important shipping channel--it is significant that shipping has greatly diminished as its threat to the environment has substantially increased. Because we have not had the Federal or State resources to actually protect these marshlands the way we should, this channel has become quite wide, much wider than any of us had anticipated--even the Corps. And the possibilities of flooding have been increased because the channel has been expanded and these marshes have been eroding from many different factors, not just this.

So this very modest $3.5 million would allow a study--a plan, not really a study, because the studies are completed--and this will become part of our overall protection system for this region. Again, the point is that we are not just building levees to protect southern Louisiana and southern Mississippi and other places. It is a combination of some levees, some coastal restoration, and some smart navigation channel work, or rework, that is integrated--much more of a sophisticated, coordinated approach than in the past.

I offer this amendment by way of explanation to show that the studies have been done. There has been a lot of evaluation of past storms. This will allow the Corps to come up with a plan to close MRGO, provide for shipping and good environmental restoration, and, most importantly, protect St. Bernard Parish and the lower part of ward 9 in Orleans Parish and New Orleans east from flooding in the future.

So that is the amendment.

Amendment No. 3752

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3752.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is a 1-year grant of $8.5 million to the Port of New Orleans to mitigate the increased costs resulting from the loss of deep-draft navigation access to certain facilities and ports. This is part B of this amendment. We worked to create a plan to close this from large deep-draft vessels. They still have access, obviously, through the inner harbor canal lock through the GIWW. We still have to find a way to help offset some of the costs to some of these companies that are located here as a transitional plan, so that we can make these arrangements that the Corps is recommending for safety of the port facilities and the people around it. That is basically what amendment No. 3752 will accomplish.

As I have said before, this was created back many decades ago when we didn't realize the environmental impact. It has caused not just problems from Katrina and Rita, but it prompted a great deal of flooding back in 1965 with Hurricane Betsy, one of the worst in this region, well before Katrina and Rita. So we have known for a long time that this had to be done.

With these two amendments, I believe the port can have some money for the transition, the Corps can get the plans done to ready the closure, and we will be well on our way to protecting a

great number of people at a minimal expense to the Federal Government or to the local and State governments and having a great benefit for shipping, the environment, and the community that lives along this industrial channel.

I thank the chairman for the time to discuss the amendments. We will follow his direction as to when these amendments come up for a vote. I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana. It has been a pleasure to work with him, and of course the leadership of the committee.

As the Senator has pointed out, it does not add any money to the underlying bill, but it makes clear that there are four additional projects that are very crucial to the comprehensive repairs that are going on in the greater metropolitan area that simply need to be included. That is really the essence of this amendment.

It does not add any money to the bill. It does not authorize anything outside the scope. It has been ruled germane.

I again want to not only thank him for his good work but also acknowledge the leadership of the administration which has in the past few weeks come forward in terms of stepping up their leadership on this levee repair and how crucial it is to our area.

I commend the administration for their support of the underlying bill which is very substantial.

I yield the floor.

I suggest to my colleague--and the chairman has been so helpful on all of the amendments--would it be possible through the Chair to request a specific time, or would the recommendation be to set this aside and come back to it at a later time? We have been working for quite some time on this. Would the Chair wish to set a time or should we think about setting it aside and coming back at a later date? We do not want to disrupt the proceedings taking place, as the Senator outlined.

Mr. President, I rise to support the chairman's mark on this very important issue relative to the rebuilding of the gulf coast. Chairman Cochran has taken great responsibility to shape a supplemental bill that asks for what is absolutely crucial to the development of the gulf coast. I know that a few of our colleagues may take issue with one or more things that are in this bill. But overall, it is a genuine attempt to try to give direct and targeted help to the standing up of this very important area of the United States that has been hit, as we said, not by one hurricane but two hurricanes, two of the worst that have ever hit the continental United States since 1837, since hurricanes have been recorded, and by the extraordinary flooding that took place in a large metropolitan area, not just Orleans Parish, but Plaquemines Parish and St. Bernard Parish, the heart of America's energy coast and the heart of the economic region about which we are speaking.

Inside this region that has been devastated there are over 16,000 people employed in shipbuilding. We are proud of those shipyards at Ingalls, Gulfport, and Avondale. Fortunately, the Avondale shipyard, which is in New Orleans, did not sustain tremendous flooding because it was on the west bank of the city and, of course, the east bank is the part that flooded. We are very fortunate in that regard. There was still a tremendous amount of damage at Avondale.

As my friends from Mississippi said, their shipyard was just hammered. We are so grateful that Avondale stood up because we have been able to help keep the ships on schedule and get our people employed.

The Senator who is objecting, Mr. Coburn, has been so helpful in other ways. I know he wants to make sure we are not double-dipping. He keeps referring to the first paragraph of this amendment, but if you read the second paragraph of the chairman's mark, it is clear. It says: This may not be treated as collateral insurance coverage, so they cannot collect twice.

It is not the chairman's intention or my intention or Senator Lott's intention for the company to collect twice. But advancing these payments to them in the way this has been drafted will help them get these yards back up and running, to get their construction done, and to get people hired again. It is very difficult.

We keep saying--and I know people are tired of hearing this--this was not a regular hurricane. It has destroyed so much that not only do employers, large and small, have to get their businesses back going, they have to go out and literally find their customers. Then they have to provide housing for their workers. Then they have to get electricity turned on for their workers, then they have to get running water turned on for their workers. It is more than our employers can bear, even the big ones such as Northrop Grumman.

We are not asking for a taxpayer bailout. We are not asking for double-dipping. The Navy knows what we are doing, and they are supportive. The Department of Defense is supportive.

I came to the floor to ask my colleagues to please support the chairman's marks on this to help our shipbuilding. We are not asking for double-dipping. When the insurance moneys come in, which I am sure they are entitled to do, this language allows the taxpayers to be repaid. So we get the benefit of getting our shipyards up and running, getting potentially 17,000-plus

people between Avondale and Ingalls back at work as quickly as we can. Even with this, it is going to be very difficult. Without it, it will be almost impossible.

So I ask my colleagues to please reject the Coburn amendment. I know the Senator means well, and he has been extremely helpful and sincere in many ways as he has attempted to help us, and we don't want to waste any money. But this language makes it clear, not just paragraph A that has been read, but by paragraph B, that it is not double-dipping.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, if I could ask unanimous consent to speak 2 minutes on the Domenici amendment at whatever time is appropriate before we leave that amendment and go on to anything else.

I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Louisiana because I know that there are many important amendments that we have to

consider relative to this major piece of legislation, which of course, is the supplemental for not just Katrina, Rita, and the gulf coast but also for our troops overseas and the situation in Iraq.

I thank, again, Senator Cochran and also Senator Byrd for their leadership in moving this supplemental forward on such a critical issue. I thank Senator Domenici and Senator Reid, as chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Energy and Water Committee, because in working with the administration, they have fashioned an amendment that will provide for Louisiana an additional $2 billion for critical levee infrastructure. As we rebuild New Orleans, the greater New Orleans area, south Louisiana and the gulf coast, getting additional funding for restructuring, rebuilding, and strengthening of the levee system around New Orleans and south Louisiana is essential. This $2 billion amendment will, in fact, do that.

I thank Senator Cochran for his willingness to add this $2 billion to the supplemental, to help us to secure the critical funds necessary to finish a project, which, of course, was promised on the heels of Katrina and the great flood that levied 20 feet of water in some areas into the city of New Orleans, and it continues our ongoing efforts, Madam President, to secure not just the city but the metropolitan area of Plaquemines, Jefferson, Saint Tammany, and Saint Charles, parishes that are the greater New Orleans area--Terrebonne, Plaquemines Parish and places to the west.

So I join my colleague from Louisiana in supporting this amendment and thank the bipartisan leadership that has come together to support it. And then we will have a series of other amendments that help improve the underlying bill. I thank my colleagues for the time to speak on the Domenici amendment.

I rise for 20 seconds to ask unanimous consent to add my name as a cosponsor to the amendment of my colleague. He and I offer this together as a way to keep these five important projects alive for further discussion, and as he said, all the operation and maintenance will be picked up at the local level. So I thank our colleagues for their consideration this morning, for giving us time to speak about this important amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to speak to an amendment designed to clarify existing immigration law and ease the burden on families sent abroad in service to the United States.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, there is normally a 3-year residence requirement for spouses of U.S. citizens to be naturalized. Section 319 (B)(3) waives that requirement for applicants whose citizen spouses are ordered abroad by our Government to keep families intact while certain members do their duty to our country, wherever in the world that may require them to go. The same law rightly places value on cohabitation between

spouses in requiring that applicants spend no more than 45 days away from their citizen spouse. The waiver provided under existing law is clearly intended to prevent our Government from splitting up families whose members are in the service of this country for the mere purpose of satisfying shortsighted antifamily regulations. Yet that is exactly what has occurred as a result of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services' overly narrow interpretation of this law.

I wish to briefly tell you a story about two constituents of mine, a husband and wife from New Orleans, who were subjected to this particular fate. Brett Schexnider has served as an Active-Duty officer in the Armed Forces for more than 20 years, and holds the rank of commander in the U.S. Navy. Commander Schexnider married his wife Gisele in March of 1999. When the Navy ordered Commander Schexnider to leave New Orleans for a foreign post over 2 years later, Gisele, who is originally from France, understandingly and dutifully accompanied her husband on his tour of duty. After 14 months, the Navy sent Commander Schexnider back home, and his wife returned with him. Four months later, she applied for naturalization. Her application was denied as a result of her having joined her husband abroad, which caused a break in the 3 years of continuous residence normally required. Relying neither on explicit regulation nor statute, USCIS determined that she was no longer entitled to a waiver of the 3-year requirement because her husband had returned to the United States by the time she filed her application. After 6 years of marriage, Gisele was told that she would have to wait another 3 years before her application could be approved. I submit to my colleagues that this unwritten policy and absurd determination is not only bureaucratically senseless but also a shameful offense to the institution of marriage.

Again, this amendment does not seek to do anything more than clarify existing law so that it may achieve its original purpose. The provision in Federal regulations requiring that duty abroad last at least 1 year would remain intact, as would the requirement that an applicant be present in the United States at the time of naturalization. My amendment would simply prevent applicants from failing residence requirements if they choose to follow their spouse to a Government- ordered post.

Our military families and the families of this Nation's public servants who are sent abroad do not deserve to be punished for their service. The laws of this Government and the agencies that execute them must not be allowed to separate families whose members stand up to answer the call of duty, and I would hope that all my colleagues could join me in protecting our Nation's families from this disgraceful practice.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I believe under the previous order, Senators have been allowed to offer amendments as we proceed--not on the immigration bill but on an unrelated bill while the immigration bill is pending.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. President, I thought it had been cleared to present an amendment and discuss it briefly and, at a later time, have a vote on the amendment. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator DeMint. Senator Craig is also a cosponsor, and several other Senators who have been working actually for several years on this proposal. In fact, my great partner on this bill was the former Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles. Unfortunately, we couldn't get this bill through by the time he left. So I know he will be pleased we are continuing the good work he actually put into place.

This is an amendment that I think is going to get great support, broad-based support from both the Republican side and the Democratic side. While there are many issues in this bill that are extremely controversial and very difficult and complicated to work out, which is why it is taking us a good bit of time and our managers are struggling with it as I speak, this particular piece I think is going to be welcomed with open arms.

Actually, the subject of this amendment is for us to welcome children into this country with open arms. These are children who are being adopted in ever increasing numbers by American families. The number of orphans around the world is growing exponentially for many reasons-- extreme poverty, war, violence, the growing AIDS epidemic--creating a tremendous increase in orphans around the world.

We are working in many different ways to address that situation, such as strengthening child welfare systems within countries of Africa, within countries such as China and India, as well as strengthening our own domestic child welfare system. Many things are underway in partnership with our Governors and our local officials to do that right here in America.

But the fact remains that despite our best efforts to strengthen families, to improve child welfare systems and procedures in our country and around the world, the number of orphans is growing. The good news, however, is Americans are stepping up in unprecedented numbers to adopt more children out of our foster care children who, through no fault of their own, have been separated from their birth families and some for very good reasons because they have been abused, neglected, and have been, unfortunately, in some instances, hideously tortured at the hands of people who are supposed to be caring for them.

We have increased the opportunities for adoption. This amendment I am offering, called the ICARE Act, as an amendment to this bill proposes to improve the international adoption process. We have increased international adoptions from 7,000 children abroad in 1990 to over 23,000 children by 2004.

You may know, Mr. President, of families from Georgia who have adopted children from other countries. In fact, Members of the Senate have themselves gone through international adoptions with great success and, of course, a great blessing to the receiving family and a great blessing to these children whose options were extremely limited to the countries from which they came.

This bill that has been thoroughly examined over the last several years by the authorizing committees would afford foreign adopted children the same automatic citizenship that is granted to a child born to an American family overseas. If you are overseas and you have a baby, that baby gets automatic citizenship. This would, at the act of adoption in a foreign country, provide that same coverage to children who are adopted.

Of course, those of us with adopted children try to explain to everyone that once you have adopted children, it is impossible to distinguish between children you have adopted and biological children. You love them the same and they are an immediate part of the family. Many of us have experienced that on our own.

The amendment would also eliminate much of the redtape and paperwork associated with foreign adoptions, centralize the current staff and resources working on international adoption into one office, the Office of International Adoption in the State Department, and it would enable our State Department

to provide greater diplomatic representation and proactive advocacy in the area of international adoption.

The fact is, in conclusion, since 1965, when these original laws were placed on the books, they have not kept up with either the pace or the change of international adoption, and that is what this amendment seeks to do.

So on behalf of Senator DeMint, myself, Senator Craig, who serves with me as cochair of the adoption caucus, and others, I offer this amendment for the Senate to consider. When we get to the time when we can vote on some of these amendments, I hope to reserve some time to speak again about the importance of this amendment and, hopefully, it can be adopted by a voice vote. Hopefully we won't have to have a long debate about this, but if we do, I am prepared to debate this amendment for the thousands and thousands of families in America who, in their mind, are doing literally God's work by going to countries and adopting children who, without this intervention in their life, would literally, in many instances, die.

For Americans, the least we can do is reduce the redtape, honor their extraordinary commitment and their deep financial commitment, as well as to bring a child here at great expense and to raise them, and it is not cheap to do that in the United States. We want to honor that work Americans are doing and say we are reducing their paperwork, making things more automatic for them, all the while keeping our safeguards in place for a transparent, cost-effective system of intercountry and international adoption.

That is what my amendment does. Again, I offer it on behalf of myself and Senator DeMint.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Colorado and the senior Senator from Massachusetts regarding the important issue before the Senate, which is trying to reconcile the rules and regulations regarding immigration. I commend both of them for their outstanding leadership on that issue.

(The remarks of Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Kerry pertaining to the introduction of S. 2482 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ten minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor with my ranking member and leader on this issue, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, to speak for a few moments about a bill the two of us are going to introduce today, the Gulf Coast Open for Business Act of 2006, by Senators Landrieu, Kerry and others. Let me first commend my colleague and thank him for joining me here today. He will be giving more details about the act, which he has worked with my staff and others to craft, so let me add some personal perspective.

I stand here again, on behalf of the people of Louisiana, and the whole gulf coast, who have just been devastated by the two most powerful storms to ever hit the United States in recorded history, and as you yourself know, because you were down in the gulf and have been a frequent champion for our cause. It is still hard, though, to describe to our colleagues the current situation there. Not only were these two hurricanes quite powerful, at some point category 4 and 5, which are killer storms, but just as devastating was the flooding that ensued by the collapse of the Federal levee system--a collapse because of inadequate engineering. Both the hurricanes and the flooding have literally devastated a major metropolitan area which sits in the heart of America's only energy coast, the gulf coast, and has been devastating to large and small businesses alike. We are here today to talk about our small businesses and their struggle for survival. They are indeed the backbone of our economic recovery.

We have first focused on levees, appropriately, and gulf coast restoration efforts, without which no recovery will be possible. We have also tried to struggle keeping children in school, keeping families sheltered, literally from the elements in temporary housing, when we think 7 months on after Katrina and Rita, recovery is going to start with our small businesses.

As I mentioned, yesterday marked the seven month anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Katrina was the most destructive hurricane ever to hit the United States. The next month, in September, Hurricane Rita hit the Louisiana and Texas coast. It was the second most powerful hurricane ever to hit the United States, wreaking havoc on the southwestern part of my state and the east Texas coast. This one-two punch devastated Louisiana lives, communities and jobs, stretching from Cameron Parish in the west to Plaquemines Parish in the east.

We are now rebuilding our State and the wide variety of communities that were devastated by Rita and Katrina, areas representing a diverse mix of population, income and cultures. We hope to restore the region's uniqueness and its greatness. To do that, we need to rebuild our local economies for now and far into the future.

Before last year's storms, Louisiana had 86,000 small businesses, employing over 850,000 people. Their annual payroll was $21.9 billion.

My State estimates that there were 71,000 businesses in the Katrina and Rita disaster zones. A total of 18,752 of these businesses catastrophically destroyed. However, on a wider scale, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over 125,000 small and medium-sized businesses in the gulf region were disrupted by Katrina and Rita. As of this month, local chambers of commerce report that as many as two- thirds of their members had not resumed business operations. We will never succeed without these small businesses. They will be the key to the revitalization. I am here with my colleague to say that the regular approach, the standard operation, the mousetrap that we created to handle past disasters is simply not sufficient.

Some of the people who work for the Small Business Administration and FEMA are terrific. You could not find better human beings on the face of the Earth. But it is not the individual human beings who are lacking here; it is the system that is insufficient and inadequate to the task.

Senator Kerry and I come to the floor today to speak about this bill that will create new models, create enhanced help from the Federal Government so that the businesses in Louisiana can at least be met halfway in their struggle to get their roofs back on, their inventories back in supply, and new markets opened up, since the markets around them have collapsed. The communities they served and hold to are in some cases destroyed, in others dispersed across the country. If we don't help them now, building a strong gulf coast will be all the more difficult without our small businesses.

After talking to the business leaders and small businesses in my State, there are three things that they need right now: technical assistance, contracting assistance, and assistance with SBA disaster loans. For example, many of our small businesses need help navigating the SBA assistance programs or, with much of their customer base in other States, others are now looking overseas for new markets. Our bill includes a provision to waive the $100,000 cap on portability grants to SBDCs and allows SBDCs to receive these grants for disaster relief. Our bill also contains funds for the SBA to create a gulf coast international finance specialist, based in the gulf, who would provide essential technical assistance for small businesses looking for export financing.

It is vital to the economic recovery in Louisiana that our small businesses are given the opportunity to take part in the reconstruction of their State. Our businesses want to help rebuild their communities, but continue to have trouble getting Federal recovery contracts and keep getting mixed signals from FEMA.

With these facts in mind, our bill sets a small business prime contracting goal of 30 percent for Federal emergency contracts to rebuild the affected areas. This is to ensure that small businesses, particularly those located in the disaster area and that employ individuals in the affected areas, should receive a fair share of Federal contracting dollars. Our bill also makes the disaster areas eligible for HUBZones status to promote business growth.

Our businesses are struggling to deal with the SBA bureaucracy. Too often, when they get action on their loan application, it is a letter of rejection rather than a check.

The SBA has repeatedly touted how it has staffed up and increased its loan

processing productivity in recent months. They even cite record loan approvals in the gulf. But recent numbers show it is still taking the SBA 104 days to process and close on a business application. That is time many struggling businesses that are holding on by their fingernails in a challenging environment simply do not have.

Many times, when businesses are approved for an SBA loan, they find the terms and conditions to be unduly burdensome. Some are put in the position of having to make payments while they take care of expenses they have incurred for the months they spent waiting for the loan.

Our bill provides substantive relief to small businesses in the disaster areas by allowing them to defer repayment of disaster loans for 1 year from the time they received the loan. This will give them time to resume operations and build back a customer base as displaced residents gradually return home. Our bill also increases the SBA's disaster mitigation loan amounts so that borrowers can more effectively invest in products such as sea walls or storm shutters, that mitigate against damage from future disasters.

It is important to not only address our current needs from past hurricanes but to also look ahead to the next hurricane season--which is only 63 days away. I am concerned that the SBA has not incorporated `lessons learned' from recent storms. I am concerned that they remain unprepared for what may be another active hurricane season--if not in my State then perhaps in other coastal States in 2007.

One provision included in our bill is a requirement that the SBA submit to Congress a detailed proactive disaster response plan by June 1, 2006, the start of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. I want to make sure the SBA is ready to respond should that become necessary.

As we reflect on the 7-month anniversary of the worst natural disaster to hit our Nation, now is the time for action--not words or empty promises. Today, right here in the Senate, is a time for fresh ideas and fiscally responsible plans to help our small businesses rebuild.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

With that, I turn the floor over to Senator Kerry who will go into additional detail about the Gulf Coast Open for Business Act. I thank him for his leadership, not only for this week but since the week of the storm. Our chairwoman, Senator Snowe along with Senator Kerry, have focused a great deal of their own efforts from outside of our region to help our small businesses. I commend them for their continued efforts and, along with my fellow Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, look forward to working with them in the coming months to give our small businesses the help they need so that they may rebuild and prosper once again.

Mr. President, I come to the floor with my ranking member and leader on this issue, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, to speak for a few moments about a bill the two of us are going to introduce today, the Gulf Coast Open for Business Act of 2006, by Senators Landrieu, Kerry and others. Let me first commend my colleague and thank him for joining me here today. He will be giving more details about the act, which he has worked with my staff and others to craft, so let me add some personal perspective.

I stand here again, on behalf of the people of Louisiana, and the whole gulf coast, who have just been devastated by the two most powerful storms to ever hit the United States in recorded history, and as you yourself know, because you were down in the gulf and have been a frequent champion for our cause. It is still hard, though, to describe to our colleagues the current situation there. Not only were these two hurricanes quite powerful, at some point category 4 and 5, which are killer storms, but just as devastating was the flooding that ensued by the collapse of the Federal levee system--a collapse because of inadequate engineering. Both the hurricanes and the flooding have literally devastated a major metropolitan area which sits in the heart of America's only energy coast, the gulf coast, and has been devastating to large and small businesses alike. We are here today to talk about our small businesses and their struggle for survival. They are indeed the backbone of our economic recovery.

We have first focused on levees, appropriately, and gulf coast restoration efforts, without which no recovery will be possible. We have also tried to struggle keeping children in school, keeping families sheltered, literally from the elements in temporary housing, when we think 7 months on after Katrina and Rita, recovery is going to start with our small businesses.

As I mentioned, yesterday marked the seven month anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Katrina was the most destructive hurricane ever to hit the United States. The next month, in September, Hurricane Rita hit the Louisiana and Texas coast. It was the second most powerful hurricane ever to hit the United States, wreaking havoc on the southwestern part of my state and the east Texas coast. This one-two punch devastated Louisiana lives, communities and jobs, stretching from Cameron Parish in the west to Plaquemines Parish in the east.

We are now rebuilding our State and the wide variety of communities that were devastated by Rita and Katrina, areas representing a diverse mix of population, income and cultures. We hope to restore the region's uniqueness and its greatness. To do that, we need to rebuild our local economies for now and far into the future.

Before last year's storms, Louisiana had 86,000 small businesses, employing over 850,000 people. Their annual payroll was $21.9 billion.

My State estimates that there were 71,000 businesses in the Katrina and Rita disaster zones. A total of 18,752 of these businesses catastrophically destroyed. However, on a wider scale, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over 125,000 small and medium-sized businesses in the gulf region were disrupted by Katrina and Rita. As of this month, local chambers of commerce report that as many as two- thirds of their members had not resumed business operations. We will never succeed without these small businesses. They will be the key to the revitalization. I am here with my colleague to say that the regular approach, the standard operation, the mousetrap that we created to handle past disasters is simply not sufficient.

Some of the people who work for the Small Business Administration and FEMA are terrific. You could not find better human beings on the face of the Earth. But it is not the individual human beings who are lacking here; it is the system that is insufficient and inadequate to the task.

Senator Kerry and I come to the floor today to speak about this bill that will create new models, create enhanced help from the Federal Government so that the businesses in Louisiana can at least be met halfway in their struggle to get their roofs back on, their inventories back in supply, and new markets opened up, since the markets around them have collapsed. The communities they served and hold to are in some cases destroyed, in others dispersed across the country. If we don't help them now, building a strong gulf coast will be all the more difficult without our small businesses.

After talking to the business leaders and small businesses in my State, there are three things that they need right now: technical assistance, contracting assistance, and assistance with SBA disaster loans. For example, many of our small businesses need help navigating the SBA assistance programs or, with much of their customer base in other States, others are now looking overseas for new markets. Our bill includes a provision to waive the $100,000 cap on portability grants to SBDCs and allows SBDCs to receive these grants for disaster relief. Our bill also contains funds for the SBA to create a gulf coast international finance specialist, based in the gulf, who would provide essential technical assistance for small businesses looking for export financing.

It is vital to the economic recovery in Louisiana that our small businesses are given the opportunity to take part in the reconstruction of their State. Our businesses want to help rebuild their communities, but continue to have trouble getting Federal recovery contracts and keep getting mixed signals from FEMA.

With these facts in mind, our bill sets a small business prime contracting goal of 30 percent for Federal emergency contracts to rebuild the affected areas. This is to ensure that small businesses, particularly those located in the disaster area and that employ individuals in the affected areas, should receive a fair share of Federal contracting dollars. Our bill also makes the disaster areas eligible for HUBZones status to promote business growth.

Our businesses are struggling to deal with the SBA bureaucracy. Too often, when they get action on their loan application, it is a letter of rejection rather than a check.

The SBA has repeatedly touted how it has staffed up and increased its loan

processing productivity in recent months. They even cite record loan approvals in the gulf. But recent numbers show it is still taking the SBA 104 days to process and close on a business application. That is time many struggling businesses that are holding on by their fingernails in a challenging environment simply do not have.

Many times, when businesses are approved for an SBA loan, they find the terms and conditions to be unduly burdensome. Some are put in the position of having to make payments while they take care of expenses they have incurred for the months they spent waiting for the loan.

Our bill provides substantive relief to small businesses in the disaster areas by allowing them to defer repayment of disaster loans for 1 year from the time they received the loan. This will give them time to resume operations and build back a customer base as displaced residents gradually return home. Our bill also increases the SBA's disaster mitigation loan amounts so that borrowers can more effectively invest in products such as sea walls or storm shutters, that mitigate against damage from future disasters.

It is important to not only address our current needs from past hurricanes but to also look ahead to the next hurricane season--which is only 63 days away. I am concerned that the SBA has not incorporated `lessons learned' from recent storms. I am concerned that they remain unprepared for what may be another active hurricane season--if not in my State then perhaps in other coastal States in 2007.

One provision included in our bill is a requirement that the SBA submit to Congress a detailed proactive disaster response plan by June 1, 2006, the start of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. I want to make sure the SBA is ready to respond should that become necessary.

As we reflect on the 7-month anniversary of the worst natural disaster to hit our Nation, now is the time for action--not words or empty promises. Today, right here in the Senate, is a time for fresh ideas and fiscally responsible plans to help our small businesses rebuild.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

With that, I turn the floor over to Senator Kerry who will go into additional detail about the Gulf Coast Open for Business Act. I thank him for his leadership, not only for this week but since the week of the storm. Our chairwoman, Senator Snowe along with Senator Kerry, have focused a great deal of their own efforts from outside of our region to help our small businesses. I commend them for their continued efforts and, along with my fellow Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, look forward to working with them in the coming months to give our small businesses the help they need so that they may rebuild and prosper once again.