Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, after almost 9 months, I suppose it doesn't surprise anyone to hear that FEMA is failing the citizens of the gulf coast. In the wake of the storms, FEMA expressly advised the survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita that they could expect 1 year of assistance. Moreover, section 408 of the Stafford Act provides for 18 months of assistance to victims of natural disasters.

Yet just 9 months after these devastating storms, FEMA is working feverishly, not to house the victims of the hurricanes but to terminate their housing assistance, to kick them out into the street without any assurance that the survivors will be able to find housing for themselves or their families.

Why? Because FEMA says it's time to move on. May 31 is the deadline. After that, you're on your own.

There is a reason the Stafford Act provides for more than $20,000 in aid per household and for up to 18 months of assistance. The Stafford Act, unlike FEMA, recognizes that every disaster is different and that each disaster cannot be treated the same.

Over the next few months, our State's housing plan, The Road Home, will be up and running; SBA loan funds will begin to flow into homeowners' hands; insurance claims will be resolved and paid; and then the people of New Orleans will begin rebuilding in earnest.

The President has the authority to issue waivers, to make adjustments to accommodate the survivors. FEMA also can behave more reasonably, more humanely. Until FEMA has a workable plan for transitional housing for these American survivors, it must not evict them. To do so is unconscionable.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, not only does the Black Caucus budget restore fiscal discipline and fund important programs, of personal significance to me and to my constituents and the millions of Americans along the gulf coast whose lives are turned upside down by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the CBC budget acknowledges a reality that the Republican budget ignores.

announcement by the acting chairman

Mr. Chairman, that reality is that recovery is a long- term effort. Recovery in New Orleans will not be achieved in a single fiscal year, and it should not be accomplished with emergency appropriations.

There are a number of pieces of the recovery that we know will take time to achieve, for example, enhancing the levees and flood protection systems along the gulf coast, and restoring homes and businesses. The Army Corps of Engineers has told the Congress repeatedly that this project will take from 5 to 7 years to complete; and yet

not only does the Republican budget provide no funding for this project, it actually cuts overall funding for the Corps of Engineers at a time of extreme need. By contrast, the CBC provides significant additional funding to enhance our hurricane and flood protection systems back home.

The Republican budget starves housing programs at a time when along the gulf coast we are facing the gravest housing crisis in our Nation's long history. The CBC budget recognizes the need for a long-term commitment to solving our housing crisis confronting thousands of Americans across Mississippi and Louisiana and provides significant resources for this critically needed project in our area.

Mr. Chairman, the budget of the United States government should reflect the values and the priorities of the American people. After all, as our nation's first Republican President described it, the government of our great country is supposed to be a ``government of the people, by the people, for the people.'' The Republican budget before us today, however, ignores the needs of the vast majority of the American people in order to preserve tax benefits that overwhelmingly benefit very few, very wealthy Americans. In other words, the priority of the Republican budget seems to reflect a devotion to taking care of those with the most, while overlooking those with the greatest need.

The preparation of the federal budget by Congress is similar to a family's preparation of its household budget. In order for it to succeed, priorities must be set, and discipline must be exercised. Too often, however, discipline is sacrificed to the pleasures of the moment. In Washington, we call the consequences of such behavior budget deficits. In our households, we call those consequences debt. Neither is good--for the country or for our families.

As a reflection of our nation's priorities, the Republican budget resolution that we debate today is a clear demonstration of just how fundamentally the Republican majority misunderstands the needs of the American people. It is fiscally reckless, morally bankrupt, and utterly devoid of the type of economic discipline and leadership that the nation requires--a budget that sets yet another record budget deficit and threatens to unravel completely the social safety net that protects the least among us in the places where the need is greatest.

The Republican budget resolution continues to drive our nation's budget deficit higher; fails to protect Social Security and Medicare; underfunds education; makes damaging cuts to community and regional development programs, income security programs, the Earned Income Tax Credit, child care and foster care programs, and nutrition programs; cuts veterans programs while simultaneously imposing new fees on veterans for current services; and includes harmful cuts to Medicaid, thereby jeopardizing health care for over 52 million children, parents, seniors and disabled individuals who rely on the program for their healthcare.

In sum, the Republican budget we are considering today offers the most to those who need the very least and takes the most from those who can least afford it.

During debate of this budget, I have heard a great deal of rhetoric about hard choices and shared sacrifice. However, it seems that the only choice my Republican friends have made is the easiest one a politician can make--to continue to cut taxes, however fiscally irresponsible perpetuating them may be. With respect to shared sacrifice, the evidence leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that the only sacrifices in this budget are being borne by the poor, the elderly on fixed incomes, the infirm, children and students. Accordingly, in the Bizarro world of the Republican budget, those with the least are compelled to sacrifice the most, while those with the most are not asked to sacrifice at all. That formula certainly does not reflect my priorities; nor, I am confident, does it reflect the priorities of the American people.

In one of his great parables, Jesus once said, ``when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed.'' If you compare this budget to the great banquet He described, in this budget, there are place cards and a sumptuous feast for the Forbes 400 and the Fortune 500, for the rich and the powerful-- but, like Lazarus at the rich man's gate, the economically disenfranchised, the working families struggling to make ends meet, the students trying to get the education they need, those whose lives of poverty shocked the conscience of the nation when Hurricane Katrina exposed the straits so many grapple with daily in this wealthiest country in the world--they will be lucky to get even the scraps that fall from the table this budget constructs.

By contrast, my friend from South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, and the Congressional Black Caucus have offered two alternatives to the Republican budget that are fiscally responsible while meeting the real needs of the American people.

Both alternatives restore fiscal discipline, protect Social Security, narrow disparities for minorities in healthcare, education and wealth creation, and fund national priorities like education, veterans' programs, and community development programs.

The Democratic substitute achieves a balanced budget in 7 years, by 2012, all the while balancing fiscal responsibility with the moral obligation to maintain the social safety net for Americans in greatest need.

The CBC budget alternative achieves balance even earlier, by 2011, and yet still makes great progress toward narrowing the growing disparities in America's communities by focusing on education, health care, economic opportunity, justice, and retirement security. It fully funds the President's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB); provides an extension for the Head Start Program; increases federal funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions; enhances the Pell Grant allotment for college students; provides additional funding for the Minority Health Initiative and for Community Health Centers in urban and rural communities; increases assistance for job training, workforce development and adult education; funds home ownership programs; restores funding for Community Development Block Grants; and improves funding for law enforcement programs such as COPS.

Of personal significance to me, to my constituents and to the millions of Americans all along the Gulf coast whose lives were turned upside down by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the CBC budget acknowledges a reality that the Republican budget ignores--that recovery is a long- term effort. Recovery will not be achieved in a single fiscal year, and it should not be accomplished through emergency appropriations. There are a number of pieces of the recovery that we know will take time to achieve, for example, enhancing the levees and the hurricane and flood protection systems along the Gulf coast. The Army Corps of Engineers has told the Congress repeatedly that this project will take from 5 to 7 years to complete, and yet not only does the Republican budget provide no funding for this project, it actually cuts overall funding for the Corps of Engineers at a time of extreme need. By contrast, the CBC budget provides significant additional funding to enhance our hurricane and flood protection system back home.

The Republican budget starves housing programs at a time when, along the Gulf coast, we are facing the gravest housing crisis in our nation's long history. Both the Democratic and CBC alternatives recognize the need for a long-term commitment to resolving the housing crisis confronting thousands of Americans in Louisiana and Mississippi and provide significant resources for that critically important effort.

In the face of a natural disaster that laid waste to colleges and schools all along the Gulf coast, the Republican budget turns a blind eye to both the immediate and long term needs for reconstruction and rehabilitation of our education infrastructure. By contrast, both the Democratic and CBC alternatives provide additional resources to meet those challenges.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, both these alternatives recognize the success and critical importance of community and regional development programs to our nation's economy and to the recovery of our economy back home. Both alternatives allocate additional monies to these programs, while the Republican budget significantly shortchanges CDBG and other programs despite tremendous support and real current and long-term needs.

For these reasons, I am proud to rise in strong support of both the Democratic and CBC alternatives and in fervent opposition to the Republican budget. I will continue to fight to ensure that the needs and values of the least among us--hard-working American families--are reflected in the legislation we consider in the Congress. A responsible budget is the first step towards building a future worthy of the trust of the American people; and the Democratic and CBC alternatives are a step in the right direction; the Republican budget resolution is, at best, a step backward.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the Black Caucus budget for what it does for my district back home.

Mr. Speaker, on the day of April 27, 2006, I was unable to vote due to an important prescheduled engagement with the President of the United States for which I was granted a leave of absence. I would like the Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 109, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 110.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress recognizes National Minority Health Month, I join my colleagues, Congresswoman Christensen and Congressman Jefferson to increase awareness about the devastating effects of kidney disease on the African American community.

Both kidney failure and its precursor, Chronic Kidney Disease, CKD, disproportionately affect African Americans. Although only about 13 percent of the U.S. population, African Americans make up 32 percent of the patients treated for kidney failure. The American Heart Association reports that African Americans have a 4.2 times greater rate of kidney failure than white Americans. The Congressional Black Caucus is especially concerned about the growing prevalence of kidney disease because of this disproportionate impact.

Mr. Speaker, the leading causes of kidney disease are diabetes and high blood pressure, both of which also disproportionately affect African Americans. Diabetes occurs at twice the rate in the African American community than it does with Caucasians. High blood pressure affects 1 out of every 3 African American adults. According to the American Heart Association, the prevalence of hypertension in the African American community is among the highest in the world.

Mr. Speaker, African Americans are four times more likely to develop kidney failure than Caucasians. African Americans make up 12 percent of the population but account for 30 percent of people with kidney failure. Diabetes and high blood pressure account for about 70 percent of kidney failure in African Americans. A recent National Kidney Disease Education Program, NKDEP, survey of African Americans found that only 17 percent named kidney disease as a consequence of diabetes, and only eight percent named it as a consequence of high blood pressure. African American males ages 22-44 are 20 times more likely to develop kidney failure due to high blood pressure than Caucasian males in the same age group. Forty-five percent of African American men with kidney failure received late referrals to nephrologists. In some cases people were not aware they had a problem until they needed dialysis.

We must continue our strong support of the efforts of the kidney care community to meet the needs of these patients. We must fund education programs to raise awareness of the disease within the African American community. We must ensure that Medicare treats those who care for patients with kidney disease the same way it treats all other groups of providers--this means enacting an annual update mechanism to recognize inflation and other increases related to caring for these patients. Without equitable reimbursement, it will be difficult for the community to continue to meet the needs of the ever-growing patient population.

Supporting educational programs and high quality care not only improves quality of life for patients, but also reduces the cost to the overburdened Medicare program. Preventing kidney failure and improving care will result in substantial savings for the government. In addition, if treated early, individuals with kidney disease will experience an improved quality of life and be able to maintain more daily life activities, including keeping their jobs.

My colleagues and I applaud the efforts to increase awareness about this important issue and to show support for Americans living with kidney disease. We must act now to help Americans learn more about this deadly disease and how to prevent its development and progression to kidney failure.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, the rules prevent us from offering an amendment to the underlying bill to address health problems arising in the aftermath of Katrina. Thus I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who has worked very hard on Katrina issues, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) who has likewise been a stalwart supporter of those of us who are working so hard to bring our region back.

Mr. Chairman, rebuilding the Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans as a comprehensive public health hospital is a number 1 priority for public health and health care infrastructure of New Orleans since Katrina. Compared to most cities, New Orleans has a large percentage of poor and unhealthy residents.

Mr. Chairman, this perspective is not shared by FEMA. To date, FEMA has authorized $23 million out of $258 million requested. I thank the gentleman very much for permitting me to enter into this colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to offer the first of two amendments to H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and the Hurricane Recovery Act of 2006, that will add more funds to the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG funds, to meet the housing and rebuilding needs of Louisiana, Texas and other places.

The first amendment, number 6, printed in the Congressional Record, will take $2 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and add it to the Community Development Block Grant funds, making that total request $6.2 billion.

This amendment keeps the total hurricane supplemental request at $19.1 billion. The proposed $2 billion decrease in FEMA funding brings that total to $7.755 billion.

Mr. Chairman, information recently given to us by the Appropriations Committee indicates that FEMA will not run out of its current funds until the second week of July. Moreover, with FEMA's weekly spend rate of $500 million, the first proposed appropriation of $9.55 billion, less my amendment, would fund FEMA through the end of October.

Mr. Chairman, I am certain that between now and October we will be able to amply try and figure out what FEMA really needs and provide the resources it needs at that time.

Mr. Chairman, the administration has asked Louisiana repeatedly to submit a housing plan, and we did that. This chart shows what Louisiana's housing needs are. We had severe destruction of our housing infrastructure in our State, and we have more than 100,000 housing units destroyed. This will cost over $100,000 billion to get this whole matter straightened out, along with other project losses back home.

What we are saying here is that we have a plan which we submitted to the White House, and we have had this plan looked at very closely. The agreement is that Louisiana has submitted a very solid plan for $4.2 billion for unmet needs in its housing reconstruction. Without housing, our city cannot rebuild. Without housing, there is no chance to bring our city back. And so we are saying today, Mr. Chairman, that without full funding we cannot meet the crucial needs to help our citizens rebuild their lives.

There is a move being made now to take the money out of the $4.2 billion to apply to Texas and perhaps some other places, and we say we need all of the $4.2 billion. We also have the $2 billion for Texas. We do not argue they do not need more help, but we do not need to have our money raided to take care of Texas or any other place.

By increasing the CDBG funding, we will allow the needs of Louisiana, Texas and other States to be met without short-changing the administration's commitment to Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, you know firsthand the monumental housing crisis in Louisiana. Today, thousands of people are being evicted from hotels around the gulf region by FEMA with nowhere to turn. Thus, I implore my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can help these hard- working, earnest taxpayers in the gulf coast rebuild their lives and realign their futures.

Louisiana needs the full $4.2 billion to do that. Support my amendment to make Louisiana, Texas and the rest of the gulf coast region whole. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman has said, but he recognizes in his comments that there is $3.7 billion left unobligated of the money we have already authorized for FEMA. Everyone knows here that FEMA has not been a very good steward so far of the money we have provided to it. This is a way for FEMA to tighten its belt and to provide the folks the housing support they need back home; take care of Louisiana and Texas at the same time; and not hurt the FEMA programs, because everyone knows, as we have documented throughout our hearings and the rest, that FEMA has done a horrible job of managing the money. And even if it needs more, as the gentleman has said, there is $3.7 billion of the money we have already authorized, which is unobligated, which FEMA can have access to if they can prove a need for it. So I would move adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer another amendment to meet the same objective for preserving the $4.2 billion for Louisiana, at the same time meeting the housing needs that have been expressed by the State of Texas of another $2 billion.

We get out there different under this amendment, as opposed to taking the money under the FEMA allocation which we have heard objection to, this adds money to the current asked for, requested appropriations of $1.9 billion to the $19.1 billion that is being asked for here, to add to that amount $1.9 billion.

The $1.9 billion, therefore, does not come out of the FEMA funds as the gentleman has objected to. If his argument are well taken, the FEMA fund stays intact. We do not touch it whatsoever. But out of the $3.7 billion, that is unobligated of the money that has already been appropriated for this purpose by this House, we take another $1.9 billion and provide that to Texas. The hope is that the HUD will provide that to Texas, take care of Texas' needs.

So we don't invade the FEMA money under this amendment. We simply add to the amount that came out of committee of $19.1 billion another $1.9 billion to provide the money that Texas needs to get this job done.

We have demonstrated a need for this project back home. We have taken great pains to provide a good plan. Our State has submitted it. It has been vetted by the White House folks. Here the plan is in my hand. It is a wonderful plan that is thoroughly vetted. It is technically perfect, I believe. It states the case well. We have made the case for our needs. We have not exaggerated them.

We have horrible needs back home. 220-something housing units destroyed back home that we need to have fixed up. And we cannot get our city back unless we have our housing infrastructure built back up. So we are urging this House, if it does not want to take the money from existing FEMA programs, take it from the $3.7 billion that is unauthorized, and appropriate, of the $3.7 billion, $1.9 billion to take care of this urgent need in our area.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I am saying that $3.7 billion unobligated of the money the House has already appropriated for disaster relief. I am saying out of the $3.7 billion, we should take $1.9 billion and add to the Community Development Block Grant appropriation. Yes, sir, that is what I am saying. So it is not coming up with the money that the House hasn't already approved. It is simply carving out of what is left, the $3.7 billion that is already left unallocated and unobligated, and obligating it to this purpose.

In this way, we hope to take care of both Texas and Louisiana's needs. And without shortchanging Louisiana, what we have demonstrated through some painstaking processes that money is needed to bring back housing in our State.

$1.9 billion.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

It is not like the last amendment, except it is not take it from FEMA, which you objected to saying FEMA needed the money. We are now saying we aren't taking it from FEMA, we still have to take it from unobligated funds, to meet the needs of both Texas and Louisiana.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I take issue with the remarks that have been made with respect to the devastating effect that this amendment would have on the recovery in the gulf coast region.

I understood somewhat the argument made earlier that to take money from FEMA would invade the public assistance projects. This money is, however, unobligated to any project in the gulf region. It is money that the Congress has simply appropriated which is unobligated. Consequently, we do not know what, if anything, FEMA is going to use the money for. So we argue here that Texas has already demonstrated a need for $2 billion, according to their calculations. We are saying that ought to be recognized and taken care of, but we have also demonstrated, we think, in our State, a need for $4.2 billion.

Here is the difference. It is true that Louisiana received $6.2 billion recently, and Mississippi received some number, 5.2 or whatever billion dollars as well. We, however, suffered 85 percent of the damage in this area. Mississippi suffered 15 percent of the damage. And nonetheless, we got a 54 percent share of the CDBG funds. Mississippi got 46 percent of the CDBG funds.

So we are saying we were well shortchanged of where we should have been. This is to make up for that, to fix the problems, to try to correct it. So we argue that of the $3.7 billion unobligated, it does not hurt one smidgeon of work that anyone has in mind for FEMA. This is not FEMA's money right now. It is not allocated for any purpose at all. It is available to be used for whatever good purpose we can find. I can tell you, this is a tremendously good purpose for our area. We need the money very substantially.

The President and his people have determined that we need $4.2 billion. Our plan which we do have here, which we have submitted to the White House, which they have vetted carefully, shows we need $4.2 billion. We simply are fearful that our money would not be vetted for this purpose, which the President wanted designated solely for Louisiana, which, under this bill, it is not.

And we recognize the needs of Texas. We want to help Texas. But at the same time, we do not want to hurt our own purposes. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, we, as we talk about conditions in Louisiana and Mississippi tonight, we don't want this Congress or the people of America to believe that we are ungrateful for the help that we have already received. We are deeply grateful for it. We appreciate it immensely, and it has been a huge help to our people.

But I think what is important to note is that the disaster that we were stricken with is so immense, so pervasive, so once-in-a-lifetime historic, that there is just so much to be done over such a long time to restore opportunity for people to have a chance to reclaim their lives.

So I want to start out by just talking a little bit so people can better understand the dimensions of our problem. If you can imagine that in your city, if your city were ours, and just to talk about New Orleans a minute, a city of 480,000-or-so people, and you woke up one morning and 80 percent of your city was underwater. Eighty percent of your schools, of your hospitals, of your playgrounds, of your homes, of your businesses were all underwater, and that the water didn't recede in a few hours or a few days or even a few weeks. It stayed there for several weeks. And it wasn't just a little water in your house, ordinarily it was 4 feet, 5 feet, 6 feet, and sometimes more than that, over the roof.

This happened in Orleans Parish, and it happened in St. Bernard Parish, where the whole place was obliterated. And it happened in Plaquemines Parish as well. And imagine that 1,000 or 2,600 of your people died from this storm and that another thousand are still missing and no one knows where they are, and families are still searching for them. Imagine that if you were in Mississippi that 200-or-so people lost their lives.

Imagine that if you counted up all the houses that were destroyed in Louisiana and this happened to you, there would be 220,000 houses destroyed, and about 61,000 in Mississippi, and that your people were trying desperately to get back home. They were looking for temporary quarters, and they were willing to live in FEMA trailers or wherever they could find a temporary abode, and there were 98,000. That is how many there are in Louisiana looking for a trailer now, and fewer than half of those requests have been filled. In Mississippi, some number in the 30,000 range were involved, and most of those have been filled.

Imagine if you had been waiting for electricity for your neighborhood for now 6 months and you didn't have it, for the most part. In Orleans Parish, a

little better than half of our folks have their places connected for electricity. A little better than that in Mississippi, but in our place it isn't true. Imagine if you were trying to figure how could you get your hands around your problem, build back your house, get yourself back together and your insurance company wasn't cooperating and they were denying claims left and right, and saying that your homeowner's policy didn't apply. If you didn't have flood insurance, then you had nothing. If you had flood insurance, then you had limits that would be much lower than would ordinarily be expected to be useful to help you build back.

Imagine you were counting on your government, FEMA, to come forth and give you some direction as to how you could build back your place, to what level you had to build back safely, and FEMA had not even given you preliminary elevations that you could use. Imagine if you now were paying rent in one place or a house note somewhere and had a house note to pay in Orleans Parish and you could not get back in your place to live and your bank was calling you at your homestead, your mortgage company saying we cannot carry this anymore; you have to figure out some way to pay it.

Imagine you wanted to get back home, and you had 5,000 hospital beds when you left, a hospital bed count, and now you only had a few hundred and you were worried about your family and your children getting back and having a place to go if they got sick or hurt or needed to see a physician. And all the physicians, a great number of them, are out of town, somewhere else themselves, victims of trying to make the place work.

Imagine if your city had, at the end of the storm, no tax base and your school board had no tax base, and your schools weren't open. That is the situation that you find yourself in not only the day after the storm or the week after the storm or a few months after, but now 6 months after. And not a whole lot has changed because the problems are just so complex and so large and so enduring.

Now, these are not problems that are going to go away overnight. Our country needs to know this. Our friends need to know that all that we have done so far is to start to address these issues, to make down payments on certain aspects of it, but it will be years and years and years before we actually get this done.

Now, imagine also that you were trying to figure how you could avoid having this ever happen to you again and you were looking for a way to secure yourself, and you knew that it would take a real commitment for hurricane protection measures to be taken. And you had taken a trip, as I have, to the Netherlands, other parts of the world, and you had looked around to see what people had done to secure themselves against hurricanes and storms. And you found out that this was technically possible; that in the Netherlands people are living and have lived for 53 years, since their last calamity with a storm there that drowned their people.

For 53 years they have lived with a system of barriers and canals and pumping stations and dikes, as they call them, we call them levees, and dunes and all the rest; an integrated system of water management for flood protection. And they have done this for 53 years now without an incident that has required them to have any loss of life or property. They have spent $18 billion over a long period of time to provide this security, and they were an economy of $485 billion.

In our country, we haven't yet made a decision to support a system in our part of the world that might cost $30 billion, $40 billion, in an economy that is not $485 billion, like theirs was, but is $12.2 trillion, the largest economy in the whole world. Twenty percent of the world's wealth in our country and we haven't been able to make a decision to step up and find a way to use the technology that already exists to support our people and to make them safe over time and to avoid large expenditures in the future.

Because we all know one thing for sure: that while there may not be another terrorist attack on our shores, we may find a way to prevent that, there is no way to prevent these storms that are brewing in the Gulf of Mexico and that are coming more frequently, more ferocious than ever before, and that will be with us for years to come. We can secure ourselves against these storms if we build the coastal barrier protections that we need and if we build our wetlands back and our coastlines back, so that when these storms come, as ferocious as they may be, by the time they reach our population centers, they will be tamped down enough such that they can be handled by a levee system and other flood protection systems that are in place.

So we have made a lot of progress, but there is a great deal for us to do. And we are here tonight to highlight for the people of our country how much there is to be done and to ask them to stand with us and stay with us over this long period of time because it is going to take years and years to bring our people back.

And, look, folks aren't asking for our government to take care of them forever. They know, though, that they can't do this by themselves. Because no one has seen this kind of damage before in this country. It is a catastrophe beyond imagination. It has never happened anywhere on the face of America ever before to this extent, to this dimension.

So we are saying, give us a chance to help ourselves. Let us get back into our home places. Let us get back to the places we live and to the places that we want to live. Recognize the right that our people have to return, to restore their lives, the right to rebuild in their places, the right to reclaim their experiences back home. We want our people back home. We need your help to get them back home, and they can live in New Orleans safely. They can live in our environment safely.

So when people ask this question of what should the footprint of New Orleans be, it is a misplaced question. The issue isn't where can we rebuild. Because we know from the experience of the Netherlands we can build anywhere. If they can live 15 feet below sea level, and in New Orleans we talk about 4\1/2\ feet at the lowest point, if they can secure themselves 15 to 20 feet below sea level, we can secure ourselves 4 and 5 feet below sea level in the lowest points.

We can have this vibrant city restored and have our people in a place to reclaim their lives, and for our city and our region to continue to be the force that it has been for our country in natural resource development and distribution throughout the country; our pipeline system, our oil and gas system that we have invested in across the gulf.

And for our fisheries, the provisions we make for our country and the work that we do with our port system that moves the goods from mid- America to the rest of the world, these are very important assets that New Orleans provides and our country cannot do without. We are extraordinarily valuable, not to mention our cultural contributions to this country.

We want to see the people of America understand how deep our problems are. That is why we have come to the floor tonight, to make that point to the people of this country and to our colleagues in Congress, many of whom we have had a chance to bring down our way, and many others we want to invite down so they can see for themselves what they need to do to help us.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Melancon, for helping to bring this matter to the attention of the American people and giving us a chance to talk about it tonight. I am pleased to join with him and soon with Mr. Gene Taylor of Mississippi and our other colleagues.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think it is important to make a point here that often gets lost in these discussions. We did suffer a tremendous natural disaster in our region. But so much of what happened to our people, and what really drowned our city was not the storm itself, but the deluge that came from the breakage of our levees. Our levees gave way because they weren't designed, constructed or maintained properly. This was a Federal responsibility. This was the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers. And therefore, when we talk about the responsibility of our government now to make an appropriate addressing of these issues, it is important to understand that we are asking a government that, in large part, caused the loss and devastation there to step forward now and help us to fix it.

And so our position isn't just that we are victims of a natural disaster alone, but that we are also victims of a manmade disaster made by the men and women who were responsible for building, designing and maintaining our heavy system. And so there is an additional responsibility for this government to come to our aid, not just because we are victims of a storm, but because they had a hand in bringing about the devastation and destruction that occasioned us.

Had it not been for the drowning of our city, we wouldn't be here talking about these issues today in large part. Yes, there would be some overtopping of levees and there would be some flooding, but there would be nothing like the devastation that we witnessed and our people are enduring now. So let us not forget the main reason for our being here. It is because our area was flooded. Flood water stood for many, many weeks because our levees did not hold, after the government told us that they would, assured us that they would.

As Mr. Melancon says, they told people they didn't even have to take flood insurance in many cases because the levees were going to prevent any flooding there. And they did not do that. And so I think we have a moral high ground here with respect to our demand of our government, and not just because we are citizens and taxpayers. That is enough in itself, but because the government had a big hand in bringing about the catastrophe that struck our people.

Our city drowned. Our region drowned because our levees failed. And that was the responsibility of our Federal Government.

And I think, Mr. Melancon, people are coming to realize that now. And they can't embarrass us to say you are just coming as victims asking for more and more. The government did this to us as much as anyone else did, much more than it just being a natural disaster for. We have a right to demand that our government set things right.

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Melancon for yielding to me. I want to say how grateful he and I are for the bipartisan approach that was made in our region just a few weeks ago when the Speaker of the House and our Democratic leader, Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi, came together and worked together in that region to address some of the issues we are talking about tonight and to bring to the attention of the American people how crucial it is that all of us pull together for this region.

As Mr. Melancon has said, it is a very important region to our Nation. And so it is not just a matter of helping the folks of Louisiana, it is a matter of helping people across this country. Yes, our folks are strewn in 44 States around the country, but we are not talking about that sort of a national problem, we are talking about one where we actually, the country needs our region and we need our country to come to our aid so we can continue to supply these vital services to the rest of the people of our Nation.

I believe that if someone were to take a poll, Mr. Melancon now, and ask people of this country whether they were standing with New Orleans and with our region and wanted to see us brought back, wanted to see our country helped, I think they would all say yes to that.

We just have to get the message here to the Members of Congress that people out there want to see us rebuild, want to see us recover. And if we keep this measure in front of them, the American people will see us through this. So a part of our mission here tonight is to make sure that the American people understand how deep and abiding and enduring our issues are, and to inform their Members of Congress how much we need their continuing help on a bipartisan basis to see us through this set of problems.

I think it is good for our region, it is imperative for our country, and it is the way that we ought to address these issues. We cannot go out with credibility with the rest of the world and say we are going to fix their issues, their problems, their infrastructure requirements, and not say the same thing for our people here at home with any credibility.

So I thank Mr. Melancon for what he has done to arrange this. I thank Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee for her contribution tonight, for Congresswoman Lee, and for all of our colleague who have joined us in this colloquy tonight. I appreciate the opportunity that the House has given us to bring this message to the people of our country.

Offered By: Mr. Jefferson

Amendment No. 6: In chapter 4 of title II, in the item

relating to ``Federal Emergency Management Agency--disaster

relief'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000,000)''.

In chapter 8 of title II, in the item relating to

``Community Planning and Development--community development

fund--(including transfer of funds)'', after the aggregate

dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by

$2,000,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Jefferson

Amendment No. 7: Page 72, line 18, after the dollar amount

insert the following: ``(increased by $1,900,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time to speak on this legislation.

I want to thank the bipartisan group that has developed this legislation. We, of course, had hoped for more from it. We were hoping that we would get to $135 a week, as the Senate had proposed. And we, of course, hoped for other provisions in the bill.

But, nonetheless, this is an important step forward, and an important response to the needs of the people in our area. I regret that there is objection to this legislation today, because I think it can only be objected to because folks just do not understand. I will not say that anyone is so callous as to not care, but I would have to say that you cannot really understand the dimensions of this issue if one objects to what we are doing here today.

In many ways, the district that I represent and the area that I represent and the whole gulf region is frozen in time. Not a whole lot has changed since August 29 in this aftermath, except that in our city the water has been pumped out. But other than that, the city is largely depopulated. Business has still not stood up. Hospitals are not working. The school system is not working. Our city has no tax base. People do not have jobs. Many have no place to come back to, even for temporary housing.

And those few who are there, of those who are there now, some 16,000 of them who are there in temporary housing, other housing conditions that are not ones that any of us would really like to have to put our families into, 16,000 of them do not have jobs now and are seeking this unemployment extension benefit.

Across the Gulf there are 165,000 families who are either there or displaced some other place around our country who do not have jobs, not because they are not seeking them, not because they do not want to work, but because the storm has displaced them and destroyed not only where they live but where they worked as well.

So the things we have talked about on the committee that reviewed the Katrina lawsuit, I do want to give some compliments to those who worked on that issue, who helped to, I think, make some critical decisions about it that I think will in the future portend better outcomes for these disasters as they occur. We hope they do not occur to anybody like they occurred to us; but if they do, I think we are in a far better position to deal with them now.

I do want to say there is a great deal more to be done in our area. And we are hoping that this Congress as a result of the trip that will be taken in just a few hours down there to take some 35 or 40 Members of Congress down to take a look at this, that people can continue to develop an appreciation for the extent of this disaster. Many of us have said it was not just a natural disaster that drowned our city. There are also some man-made issues here about how our levees failed and about how we could have done more to make sure that that did not happen. Frankly, had the levees had not failed, our city would not have drowned and we would not have had the 80 percent of our city under water, and all of the untoward consequences I just talked to you about would not have happened. We would have had a serious storm, a series of brief clean-up, and people would be back in town, and we would not have to be here talking about extending unemployment.

We are extending it today because this is a long-term set of issues here. This is not the ordinary disaster. We will be living with this for a very, very long time. It will take a lot of hard work on the part of all of us to make this close to right down the road.

So I hope this Congress is prepared to stick with the people of the region. I hope we will get a full understanding of exactly how folks are suffering and how this approach is a Band-Aid approach to helping people who are in the most dire circumstances, as I said, not because of anything they have done or have failed to do, not because they are not looking for work every day, but because they are displaced. They are disconnected. Their jobs are destroyed. They have no place to go. And they have no means of support for their families except this Congress and this country come to their aid. And this is a small measure to do that.

I am grateful to the committee for the work that it has done. I look forward to our committee realizing that there may be more work to do in this area. I hope we can make a rebound in this work as quickly as we can. But the biggest thing now is how we can keep families together, how we can give them a little support while they struggle to get back to normalcy, and how at the end of the day we can give them the choice to return to the place where they lived, where they have their cultural connections, and where they have dedicated a part of their lives and their influence and where they, frankly, want to return to.

All of us have someplace we call home around here; and for them, no matter how dangerous we think it is, how difficult it is for them, these people, all of our people, all of us want to have a way to come back and reconnect to our home, at least to make a decision about whether we want to make a reconnection or not.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue. I hope that whatever objections there are they will be withdrawn because this ought to be an issue on which we are all together, on which there is bipartisan agreement.

Mr. Speaker, before Katrina slammed into my city, we had 2,100 hospital beds. Now we have 400 beds between Touro and Children's. When Katrina struck, about 22 percent of Louisiana residents and 23 percent of New Orleans residents were living in poverty, $16,090 for a family of three. Over 900,000 people or 21 percent of all residents in Louisiana had no health insurance before Katrina and after the storm 1.2 million were uninsured. Tied to these poverty and uninsurance rates, Louisiana also had some of the poorest health statistics in the country with high rates of infant mortality, chronic diseases such as heart disease and diabetes, and AIDS cases, and lower than average childhood immunization rates.

To this end Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join Congresswoman Christensen and a number of my congressional colleagues in introducing the first in a series of healthcare bills that I will be introducing in the coming weeks. The Katrina Health Access, Recovery, and Empowerment Act of 2006 or KHARE Act of 2006 has 4 main provision areas, each which addresses a key component in rebuilding the health care infrastructure in the Gulf Region, and meeting the unique health and health care needs of those displaced by the hurricanes. They include the following:

Title I: Rebuilding the Health Care Infrastructure. This title will meet the immediate

and longer-term needs of the health care providers in the hurricane- affected regions by directing the Department of Health and Human Services in consultation to provide forgivable low-interest loans to eligible small business concerns for the restoration of health care and other services connected to health care.

This title will extend tax-credits for medical malpractice insurance to health professionals whose primary place of employment is located in the Hurricane Katrina-affected area and offer grants to eligible non- profit hospitals and clinics to assist hospitals and clinics in defraying qualified medical malpractice insurance expenditures.

In addition, this title will allow healthcare professionals whose healthcare practice is located in the Hurricane Katrina-affected area and is in a high risk specialty, will be allowed to deduct from gross income an amount equal to 125 percent of the aggregate premiums paid for medical liability insurance.

Title II: Rebuilding Pipelines of Providers in Medically-Needy and Underserved Areas and Communities. This title offers support to health care facilities in the hurricane-affected areas in order to expand access to needed health and health care services for hurricane affected individuals in medically needy and underserved areas and communities. The title establishes a Healthcare Safety Net Infrastructure Trust Fund. The Trust Fund will provide Federal guarantee of loan repayment, including guarantees of repayment of refinancing loans, to non-Federal lenders making loans to eligible healthcare facilities for healthcare facility replacement (either by construction or acquisition), modernization and renovation projects, and capital equipment acquisition.

Title III: Providing Relief to Academic Institutions. This provision provides support to academic institutions, with health and health care related programs, in hurricane-affected areas in order to ensure that they have the capacity to retain health and health care-related staff and personnel, and continue to offer programs that are important to bolstering the health and health care workforce in hurricane-affected areas.

Title IV: Restoring Key Components of the Health Care Infrastructure in Medically-Needy and Medically-Underserved Areas. This title provides grants and technical assistance support to low-income communities with noted health disparities in order to implement programs to improve health and healthcare. It also provides disparity grants to organizations and others in hurricane-affected areas to implement programs to healthcare programs. Finally, this provision expands access to care for low-income hurricane-affected residents by offering disaster relief Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, this bill codifies legislatively the framework needed to implement sound public health and healthcare practices and this bill is a start to a new direction for healthcare in the Gulf Coast region and I urge my colleagues to support this bill, so that we do what is so clearly needed to improve the health and health care for millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the passing of one of the strongest and most inspirational African-American women in our country's history: Mrs. Coretta Scott King.

Mrs. King was not the person referred to in the cliche . . . she was not the, ``good woman behind a great man.'' She was the determined, intelligent woman who stood right alongside him. When Coretta Scott married Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior, she had already led an impressive life of her own. She had already established herself as a role model. Coretta Scott graduated at the top of her high school class in Alabama, and was accepted at Antioch College in Ohio, and later at the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston. She had a scholarship to the music school that covered her tuition, but she was not too proud to take a job cleaning stairwells to pay for her room and meals. It was in Boston when Coretta Scott met her future husband--Martin Luther King, Junior, and her journey as not only the wife--but the partner of a man who would change the way Americans lived, had just begun.

From the Montgomery bus boycott, to outbreaks of racial violence in the streets, to a bombing at the Kings' residence in 1956, Mrs. King stood by her and her husband's dreams of racial equality. And with the bad, came the good--Mrs. King was there for her Doctor King's uplifting sermons, his many trips abroad and his--``I Have a Dream'' speech on the National Mall.

After experiencing such a tumultuous, unpredictable life as the wife of a great civil rights leader, some thought Mrs. King would choose to lead a quiet life--leaving the spotlight after her husband's untimely death. Instead, Coretta Scott King chose to carry on her the fight. Until her health started to fail her last year, she continued to speak out against injustice, and promote fairness and equality among all men. To quote the late Mrs. King, ``Hate is too great a burden to bear. It injures the hater more than it injures the hated.'' This is a fitting epithet for the great American, the First Lady of the Civil Rights Movement, Mrs. Coretta Scott King.

Madam Speaker, I do not object, but I reserve the right to object.

Madam Speaker, I want to say to the Speaker and this entire House, to my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. McCrery, to the ranking member, Charles Rangel, to our chairman, Bill Thomas, of the Ways and Means Committee, to all our Members who worked so hard to arrive at this piece of legislation at this time, we are, in our part of the world, extraordinarily grateful to the House and Senate for what it has done here. It will help to get our local government back on our feet and get our businesses incentivized to come back into our area. We believe that it will make a huge contribution to restoring and rebuilding our city.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the good work that my colleague has done, and I thank the House.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) for joining me in introducing this important piece of legislation. I also want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Thomas, and our ranking member, Mr. Rangel, for their efforts in bringing this bill to the floor. I also would be remiss if I failed to thank both the Republican and Democratic staff of the committee for their extraordinary bipartisan effort to put this tax relief package together.

And I want to do something which is a little bit out of order, and that is to thank someone who is not properly a Member of this body, our mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, who is here with us today. He has, as much as anyone, pushed this House and this Senate and our Congress and our President to make sure that our region is not forgotten; and I want to thank him for his presence here in the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 provides much needed aid and comfort to the victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma across the gulf coast and provides a much-needed shot in the arm to the many thousands of businesses that have been shuttered, suffered serious damage, or have seen their customer bases erode significantly or disappear in the wake of horrible storms.

The economy of the gulf coast and particularly that of my home State of Louisiana has been severely compromised by the ravages of two terrible storms. One of our Nation's largest and most economically important cities, the city of New Orleans, was evacuated and commercially shuttered for most of the fall. Even today, as New Orleans slowly regains her footing, most of her citizens remain in a hurricane- forced exile as the city's businesses struggle to rebuild and to make a fresh start with a significantly diminished customer base, extraordinary costs of repair and reconstruction, and a distressed infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, the cities, parishes across the gulf coast, and counties across the gulf coast are struggling to recover from a deluge that laid them low. My constituents and those of my gulf coast colleagues, however, are a resilient people. They have confronted natural disasters before, and they have emerged triumphant and stronger still. I have every confidence that the same is true today. With the right tools in their tool box, New Orleanians and our neighbors in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida will rebuild and recover and a brighter future will emerge.

Today, Mr. Speaker, with the passage of this important piece of legislation, we provide the entrepreneurs of the gulf coast a sturdy set of tools with which to jump-start our recovery. We also address an unprecedented housing crisis with unprecedented resources to rebuild and rehouse the thousands whose homes are damaged or destroyed by these vicious storms.

We also are keenly aware of the financial crisis that the States, our cities, our parishes are confronting. In order to ease those burdens, this bill also provides several important tools to give our hometowns access to the capital they need to survive in the short term and thrive over the long run: $500 million in tax credit bonds to meet debt service needs, $3 billion in partially guaranteed general obligation bonds, and $7.75 billion in private activity bond authority. I am confident that by properly leveraging these tools, the States, our cities, parishes, school boards and others will emerge from the hurricane stronger than before they struck.

Mr. Speaker, with the passage of this act, businesses in New Orleans and surrounding parishes will enjoy tremendous tax advantages for the next few years that should give them the boost they need to survive and a little leg up to get ahead over the longer term: expanded section 179 expensing for small businesses; bonus depreciation; expenses for demolition and clean-up costs, including brownfields clean-up; an enhanced rehabilitation tax credits; and increased net operating loss carry-back among others.

By affording these tools to be combined with effective economic planning, the House today greatly enhances the opportunity for a great, but shattered, community to rebuild, not just to recover, but to become more survivable, more sustainable, more equitable, and more prosperous over some time, but all at once.

Mr. Speaker, the efforts of my colleagues in providing the relief we need in the gulf coast have been unparalleled to any I have witnessed during my tenure in Congress. For that I am extraordinarily grateful. However, we still have a long way to go before we achieve the full recovery that I know we all want. I look forward to working with each of you in the coming weeks and months as we rise to the challenge of ensuring that, like the Phoenix of myth and fable, New Orleans rises from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina as a bright shining model of American ingenuity and opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to make brief remarks to again thank all who have worked on this bill, particularly Mr. Thomas, Mr. McCrery, and Mr. Rangel for their work and support. It is going to mean a lot to our region, a lot to my city and my district. And a great part of what we have to do, of course, is to give business the tools it needs to partner with our government to get businesses stood up, to get people back into jobs, to get housing back into our communities so that we can restore our depopulated city and other depopulated parts of parishes around Louisiana and throughout counties in Mississippi and Alabama, and this bill is going to go a long way toward helping us do that.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for the work that he has done on the bill and for the entire committee and all who have had a hand in it.

Like the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I would liked to have seen this bill involve the reforms we have talked about to make it easier for people to make claims once they have them. We have had the unprecedented flooding in our area, which is the reason why this bill is needed. FEMA is out of money for the very clear reason that we have had flooding that nobody could have possibly anticipated. We have claims far beyond what anyone had imagined. There have been 220,000 homes, just homes in our area, that have been affected by flooding; 108,000 of these have been rental units, and the rest are single residences. It is unheard of.

Sixty thousand of these will probably have to be gotten rid of because they cannot be cleaned up and put back into commerce. We have had the insurance companies take the position that every instance of damage was caused by flooding as opposed to the wind-driven rain that would cover them under their homeowners insurance, consequently creating more pressure to pay on the flood insurance than ever before.

For these two reasons, I would urge that we adopt this provision because it is much needed by the people back home both because we have had an unprecedented level of loss in flooding and because insurance companies have pushed all the emphasis down on the flood insurance program and made it very difficult for people to recover otherwise.

I urge the House to adopt this because we need it so much in our area.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) for his efforts in this regard to this bill. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and all of the members of the Committee on Ways and Means and others who have taken up the cause of helping our dear friends and my constituents back in Louisiana, our constituents back in Louisiana.

The gravamen of the problem that this bill addresses is that our local governments, are State governments, are severely handicapped to serve their citizens because of a lack of finance to service our people. Our city has lost its tax base completely, and so has the school board and other cities in our region. Our State is facing a big budget hole because of the decimation of our cities on a fiscal basis.

This bill gives us a chance to address those issues through self-help approaches, through the refinancing of bonds, through the extending of taxable bonds, and through the extension of bonds to service debt. I think it is an important part of the recovery of our State of Louisiana. I am very grateful to this House and to my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. McCrery, for his leadership on this issue and for our partnership in this endeavor.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.