[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 129 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11202-S11205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S11203]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Schumer are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask the Senate focus on a matter of real 
urgency and real importance for the people I represent in Louisiana 
and, indeed, for all of the victims of Hurricane Katrina along the gulf 
coast. We are dealing with so many new and enormously challenging 
situations because of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. One of them 
is the fact that in Louisiana and in certain counties in Mississippi, 
in the truly devastated areas, we have areas that have been knocked off 
the map economically. There is truly no viable economic activity going 
on in those about six parishes in Louisiana and about three counties in 
Mississippi for the time being.
  We will come back. Businesses will come back. Things will get back to 
normal over time, but it will take some time. So one of the primary 
challenges we have is absolutely no economic activity for now.
  What does that mean? It means absolutely no local tax revenue for now 
to support local governmental entities, including crucial services such 
as fire and police and hospitals. This is an enormous and growing 
challenge in southeast Louisiana as we speak. Literally, we have 
crucial governmental entities that are trying to provide those very 
basic services--not a full-blown local government, not their normal 
budget as it was 3 months ago but those basic services, fire and police 
and hospitals, in order to form the basis of recovery. Because, indeed, 
if you do not have those essentials, you have nothing and no one will 
return; jobs and businesses cannot grow.
  To help southeast Louisiana through this very torturous time, I have 
worked with the entire Louisiana congressional delegation to try to 
fashion some very focused relief to get funds through a loan program, 
which I will describe in a minute, to these local governmental entities 
so they can meet their core ongoing needs, their crucial emergency 
services, crucial necessary services such as fire and police and 
hospitals over the next few months until we can stabilize.
  I have been working for over a week on this, getting into the 
details, if you will, with the Senate leadership. Let me compliment the 
Senate leadership and the majority leader in particular for being so 
focused on this issue, and working so hard on it, devoting significant 
staff to it.
  I have also worked very hard on this issue with the White House and 
the administration, including the Office of Management and Budget. We 
have worked through the numbers and worked through various calculations 
of what that specific need for local government and essential services 
may be. I thank them and compliment them for that work.
  I have also had significant discussions with the leadership of the 
House, and certainly House Members of the Louisiana delegation have 
done the same. We have thought through, worked through, talked through 
all of these issues.
  The product of all of that work is a proposed piece of legislation 
which I have circulated to all Members of the Senate. Under that 
proposed piece of legislation, we would offer some immediate help, 
which we need to do now, before we recess for next week, to allow these 
local governmental units to survive and provide the basic police, fire, 
hospital, and related services they need to continue to provide if 
there will be any platform on which to build a full recovery.
  I have circulated this proposed bill. It is a $750 million bill that 
would work through an established loan program in the Department of 
Homeland Security. It is called the Community Disaster Loan Program. It 
has gotten great support through the Senate. In fact, there has been no 
objection on the majority side.
  There is some objection on the minority side, but as yet, at least in 
terms of my knowledge, that objection has not been clearly identified 
or described to me or to anyone who can work out the problem and work 
out the objection.
  Because of this enormously pressing need, because these units of 
local government are literally on the brink and can teeter either way 
with their mandate to provide essential services--fire protection, 
police protection, hospital access--I ask all Members of the Senate to 
give me their indulgence and focus on this proposal, and if they have a 
question or an objection, simply to see me or other knowledgeable 
Members about it as soon as possible. I will be here all night, as long 
as it takes. In fact, I will be presiding, starting in 7 minutes, for 2 
hours. I will be happy to have conversations on the side with any 
Member who wants to pose questions or set forth any objections they may 
have to the proposal. But I ask the focus and the indulgence of all 
Members of the Senate to do just that, so we can come together in a 
bipartisan way and actually get something important and concrete done 
for the true victims of Hurricane Katrina and begin to move on.
  Again, this is a very time-sensitive matter so I urge Members who 
have questions or objections to do this tonight so we can solve these 
problems, pass the bill through the Senate, and make sure we pass this 
enormously vital and crucial legislation before the Congress leaves 
Washington, DC for the October recess.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. VITTER. I am happy to.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. If the Senator will yield for a question and comment, 
let me thank my colleague from Louisiana for his extraordinary 
leadership on this issue. He has been in meetings all week, literally 
for weeks, as I have, and on the phone with everybody you can talk to. 
Of course, the time he spent in the House in Louisiana has served him 
well because he knows how much our needs are. But I want to ask him a 
few questions because he and I are committed to stay tonight until we 
get some kind of resolution.
  Is it the intention of the Senator, the junior Senator from 
Louisiana, that these loans be in the same line as the current 
legislation, which gives discretion on the part of the administration 
to forgive them or not? Or is it the intention of the Senator for us to 
leave current law and absolutely make it certain, when no one else has 
been required to do so, that these loans would have to be repaid under 
all and every circumstance?
  Mr. VITTER. Under the proposed legislation I am talking about, there 
is new language that would tighten up, if you will, the repayment 
possibilities of these specific loans. It would not change all of the 
Stafford Act, in terms of this loan program in general. That new 
language would simply apply to these specific loans.
  That language is included in the proposed legislation for a very 
simple reason, and that reason is that, based on literally dozens of 
discussions with various folks, including in the House, it is very 
clear to me, in fact it is crystal clear to me, this will not pass 
tonight or tomorrow through the process without this language in the 
legislation.
  Having said that, I have also gotten assurances from several people 
in the administration that they are very understanding of the 
extraordinary situation these local governments are in, in terms of 
their financial condition and their ability to pay, and they will be 
extremely open to working out that situation as it pertains to these 
liens over the period of the loans.
  Personally--and I am only speaking for myself--I feel very 
comfortable with those assurances. Personally--and again, I am only 
speaking for myself--I am completely confident that without the 
language you are alluding to, this legislation will not pass the House 
either tonight or tomorrow. So that is the sole reason, that focused 
language

[[Page S11204]]

which applies only to these loans and does not change the Stafford Act 
on this issue otherwise, in terms of other situations--that is the only 
reason that language was included.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I can appreciate that. If you don't mind me pursuing 
that line of questioning. I can most certainly appreciate what the 
junior Senator is saying about the reluctance of the House of 
Representatives and the administration at this point because I have yet 
to receive any letter or assurance, but it is right now the House of 
Representatives that basically would be willing to make loans to the 
devastated cities in the gulf coast, but would insist that those loans 
be paid back, when not insisting on that for other loans that have been 
given to Puerto Rico, and to Florida, and to Alaska, and to other 
places, which were waived.
  I understand the House of Representatives, while allowing others to 
borrow this money and then ask for forgiveness, would not allow 
Louisiana that same privilege. I understand the position of the Senator 
is that we be treated the same, as a first-class State, not a second-
class State. I know that is your position. But it does concern the 
senior Senator that we would have to be dictated to by the House of 
Representatives, that we would have to be treated in some second-class 
fashion.
  I am also appreciating that, while the administration has given you 
an assurance that they do not intend to treat us as second-class 
citizens, I would feel better, before we left tonight, if we had 
something in writing from the administration that they think Louisiana 
deserves the same treatment. For that reason, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
Alabama, and Texas--that we would deserve the same treatment as other 
States.
  That is why I am in a situation here where I want to commend you for 
the compromise we have tried to reach today. It is, indeed, tempting. 
But we are going to have to go home, if we do not get something from 
this administration, and say we have agreed to a second-class status, 
and our people have been hurt and offended and left by a FEMA that is 
not operating very well. That is my concern.
  I know you and I agree about that, but do you want to go ahead and 
answer?
  Mr. VITTER. I will offer two further points of explanation. First, I 
have been working to address these issues specifically with Members of 
this body, including Senator Jeffords of Vermont, who had this specific 
concern about any permanent and global change to the Stafford Act. We 
have worked through that issue very constructively. I thank him for 
bringing that concern to me so we could work it out. I am asking all 
Members who have a concern to do just that, to identify themselves, to 
bring their concern to me.
  Second, I am very comfortable with all the assurances I have received 
from the administration.
  If there is any different language that would apply to these loans, 
perhaps it is partly explained by the fact that the size of these loans 
is well beyond anything that has ever occurred in this loan program 
before. So we are truly breaking new ground in terms of the size and 
the capacity that we are asking to be allowed to have access to because 
of the enormous need for this on the ground in the six devastated 
parishes in southeast Louisiana.
  My final point is, it is very clear to me we either do this or we do 
nothing. One thing I am not in favor of is doing nothing. One thing I 
am not in favor of is giving speeches but going home with absolutely no 
concrete help for these desperate units of local government which have 
done heroes' work in terms of providing police and fire protection, 
health services, and hospital access. They need the help now. They 
cannot wait until 10 days or 2 weeks from now.
  So given this is our situation, I believe this compromise is not only 
fair and just but absolutely essential that we strike today and 
tomorrow.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. If the Senator will yield, I can most certainly 
appreciate that perspective. I definitely agree it is extremely 
important to not just give speeches but to get something that is real 
for our people. But because we have no written commitment from the 
administration, and no resolution, and no letter, and no written 
commitment from the House, no assurance, no resolution, no promise to 
pass the legislation that you have presented and outlined, I am not 
sure even if you and I could manage--because there is not very much 
disagreement between the two of us; but our colleagues have some 
disagreements--if we could pass this legislation in the Senate that it 
is actually really going to do anything for people at home other than 
say the Senate has come together.
  It would not be the first time the Senate has come together, as the 
Senator knows, because this Senate is ready to pass emergency health 
care legislation, and this Senate is ready to pass emergency education 
legislation, and this Senate is ready to pass--and already has passed--
help for small businesses. So it is not the Senate, as the junior 
Senator----
  Mr. VITTER. Senator, I----
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Just 1 minute. Let me finish.
  The Senate is not necessarily the problem. We have been amazingly 
bipartisan. Our committee chairs and ranking members, as the Senator 
knows, have done yeoman's work. And in the Small Business Committee 
that you and I serve on, we have already passed that legislation. But 
the senior Senator remains concerned that we still do not have any 
written assurance or a resolution or something we could take home to 
our mayors, et cetera.
  Let me say one other point. I have read carefully the proposed 
language about lending Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas this money, 
and then making us pay it back when no one else in the country has been 
forced to do that. I have read that language. I have also read the 
language about who is eligible.
  I ask the junior Senator, are you confident in the language--and I do 
not have it in front of me, but I can call it up, not that it is 
filed--that the sheriffs of Louisiana would be included in this 
proposed compromise? Is the Senator from Louisiana indicating that the 
sheriffs of our State are absolutely, positively included?
  Mr. VITTER. Yes, I am completely confident of that.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. OK.
  Mr. VITTER. If the Senator will yield?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Go right ahead.
  Mr. VITTER. A couple points: I think this is a very useful exchange 
because I take it from the Senator's comments that the senior Senator 
is, in fact, one of the folks who has expressed an objection to this 
moving forward tonight.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I have not yet expressed an objection, but I am 
considering it on the grounds--I am not yet expressing objection, but I 
am considering it, respectfully, having complimented the junior Senator 
for the great work he has done, because I am hesitant to accept terms 
of aid that are applied only to us and to no one else, and not because 
the junior Senator objects or other Senators, but because the House of 
Representatives, which is in control of the Republican leadership, has 
decided that the only way that they will amend the law is to force us 
alone, uniquely, to have to agree to pay it back, when no one else in 
America, in the past or the future, will be required to do so. That is 
a hard thing for the senior Senator to agree to, but I am considering 
it, if maybe that is our only option.
  But you can understand why I might be a little bit exercised about 
the House of Representatives saying to people who are desperate--like 
on the front page of the National Geographic--we know you are 
suffering, we know you need help, there is no question you have no 
money to pay your bills, there is no question that we have lent other 
people money and forgiven their loans, there is no question that this 
is the worst natural disaster in the history of the country--but the 
only way we will compromise with you, Senator Landrieu and Senator 
Vitter and Senator Frist and Senator Reid, is if your desperate people 
promise to pay the loan back. And, by the way, we are only making the 
law for you.

  Mr. VITTER. If I could ask----
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Hold on. I will not yield at this moment. If someone--
--
  Mr. STEVENS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana controls the time.
  Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming my time, I would wonder if the Senator objects 
to the fact that under this proposal we

[[Page S11205]]

would also expand in terms of amount and number and capability the 
ability to get these loans? We are getting more of these loans than 
anyone in any other situation would have gotten before. I wonder if the 
Senator would object to that change?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Can I answer that?
  Mr. VITTER. No.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Can I answer that?
  Mr. VITTER. Again, reclaiming my time, I would simply ask directly if 
the Senator could either object or not object--let me know--and also 
help us identify any specific objections that may exist on the minority 
side.
  But in closing, Mr. President, I would just say, again, it is very 
clear to me, having spent a week working on this, that we either do 
this today and tomorrow or we do nothing and go home for 10 days and 
give no relief to these communities and these parishes which so 
desperately need the help. I vote for doing something. I vote for 
leading. I vote for helping in a meaningful and concrete way the people 
of southeast Louisiana and urge all my colleagues to please join me in 
that effort.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are discussions going on concerning 
the future of this bill and what time we may be able to vote and 
dispose of the bill. I did try to go to third reading to make sure we 
would not have amendments coming in here at the last minute that would 
require Members to come back into the Senate to vote at this time.
  I want to state that I do not have any problem with the exchange 
between the Senators from Louisiana. They do have a very difficult 
proposition. I am not going to get into that at this time. But I will 
say this: The arrangement that the junior Senator has made is much 
better than we got after the great earthquake in Alaska in 1964. I 
think people ought to realize that while the numbers of people involved 
in this great disaster from Katrina and the disaster of Rita--we have 
had massive disasters such as our earthquake and our great flood and 
the typhoons in Hawaii. This is not something that is new. The number 
of people may be greater, but the type of disaster is not any greater.
  I would hope we would have a chance to finish the conversations that 
the leadership is having and we can find some way to deal with this 
situation and let people know what time, and if, we are going to be 
allowed to vote on this very important bill that should go to 
conference before we go home.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the calling of the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.



                          ____________________