[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 130 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8794-H8798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMUNITY DISASTER LOAN ACT OF 2005
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1858) to provide for community
disaster loans, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, under my
reservation, I ask the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) to explain
the substance of the bill.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, there is within the construction of FEMA a
loan program called the Community Disaster Loan Program. Currently as
constructed, there is a $5 million limit per loan per community under
the rules that govern distributions of these loans. There is also a
funding limitation of some considerable concern in light of the
community needs pursuant to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The purpose of this legislation is to designate $700 million of
previously appropriated funds for the purpose of making them available
under the provisions of the current Community Disaster Loan Program.
Secondly, the bill would waive the $5 million arbitrary cap in light
of the current need, but only as to the $700 million specified, and
only as to the final disposition of the need for Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita.
Pursuant to those modifications, the Senate has also adopted a
provision which would not allow the waiver of repayment which has been
historically the case over the course of the administration of the
Community Disaster Loan Program. The bill as now constructed does not
permit the waiver of repayment of these loan obligations. This will in
effect create a $700 million loan program which must be repaid by the
communities which have suffered the Katrina-Rita losses without a limit
as to the $5 million cap on a per-loan consideration.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving the right to object, and I thank the
gentleman for that explanation. Earlier this week, under the leadership
of our chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan), 10 House Members traveled to the three principally affected
Gulf States to see firsthand the effects of Hurricane Katrina.
We met with officials in Baton Rouge at the Joint Operation Center
for New Orleans and then on through Mississippi and Alabama, during
which session the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) made, I thought,
a superb, a superlative presentation of the history of the storm and
the disastrous affects of Katrina and the consequences on the people
and the businesses and the need for reconstruction.
Citizens of the Gulf States are doing everything they can to pick up
where the storm left off and rebuild their lives. As we saw, nearly a
month after the storm, they are still hurting. After 5 weeks of debris
removal, the debris remaining is overwhelming.
{time} 1500
Local governments' tax base is gone. In our meeting with Mayor Nagin,
the mayor of New Orleans, he pointed out that the city of New Orleans
accounts for 35 percent of the total economy of the State of Louisiana.
Of course, we also know very well that New Orleans is the world's
most important grain export facility. Yet grain is backed up all along
the Mississippi, the soybean crop coming in that will not be able to
move until New Orleans is able to operate.
In the course of our meeting, Mayor Nagin said, with a heavy heart,
with candor, that he had to leave that meeting and go to another news
conference to announce layoff of half of the municipal workforce of New
Orleans because the city has no revenue coming in and no ability to pay
its workforce.
But it was not just New Orleans. We heard that in Bay St. Louis, we
heard it in Biloxi, we heard it in Mobile. We saw the pain. This
legislation is desperately needed. I support the transfer of $750
million already appropriated in the emergency supplemental of September
8, transferring that money to FEMA, to the community disaster loan
program.
I support waiver of the current $5 million cap, but I think it is
hard to swallow the insistence by the Office of Management and Budget
that the loan
[[Page H8795]]
forgiveness provision is discontinued. I look back over the major
hurricanes of the last decade and a half: 1889, Hurricane Hugo, Virgin
Islands, $50 million forgiven; 1992, Hurricane Andrew, Homestead,
Florida, $10 million forgiven; Kauai in Hawaii, 1992, $50 million,
Hurricane Iniki, forgiven; Virgin Islands, 1995, Hurricane Marilyn,
$127 million, forgiven. Every penny, principal and interest, forgiven.
They needed it. It was desperate for those communities. They needed the
loan forgiveness.
The damage from Katrina as we have seen is unprecedented. It is
heart-breaking, it is devastating. It has affected the gentleman from
Louisiana personally, his family, his constituents. It has affected my
own family. My wife's brothers still live in New Orleans. One
completely lost his home and a second home in Pass Christian.
The situation in Slidell, Louisiana, they would be eligible for a
loan of $5 million. But if they do not recover within 3 years, the loan
and interest under current law must be forgiven. Under the bill
pending, Slidell will have to repay. If they have not rebuilt their
economy, if they have not reconstructed, how are they going to repay?
Now, I am sure that colleagues in the committee will say, welcome
back, we will fix this at a later time. Now is the time to fix it. I
understand, we are not going to stand in the way of the
administration's policy priority here. I think we all accept that with
great reluctance and heavy heart. We need to resolve to come back and
address this at a later time.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from
Minnesota yielding and just wish to express appreciation for those
concerns he has noted. Certainly, the repayment obligation should be
met at some point. The arbitrary deadline, in fact, may be problematic
going forward.
I would suggest in consultation with the other members of the
Louisiana delegation, we fully intend to examine this going forward and
hope to have the opportunity to bring our concerns to the attention of
this body and the Senate as well. The principal concern, as the
gentleman has identified, is the Senate has passed this vehicle in its
current construct. If we were to amend it as suggested, it would have
to return to that body for their agreement.
We are very concerned with potential layoffs occurring next week in
various municipalities. So this loan package is very much an emergency
issue; and albeit with the nonwaiver of repayment provision, we fully
support it in its current form, given the constraints we face.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving the right to object, I appreciate the
gentleman's predicament and position, but I am also quite certain that
within our committee, we will revisit this issue. I certainly intend to
take the first opportunity to do so to correct what I think is an
imbalance.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Melancon) under my reservation.
Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, I am new to the House, so maybe I should
not be so shocked, so disappointed at what I have seen and heard this
week. Maybe failing to address critical needs in a crisis is normal
here. Maybe if I had been here a few terms, I would understand that is
just part of the job to smile when you get nothing and then you say it
is a good compromise.
Maybe with a little seniority, I would understand what it means to be
a Member of the House of Representatives, to shake a lot of hands, make
speeches on the floor, and deeply hope that your district ends up okay.
But I am new to this House. I do not understand. I do not understand
why we cannot do what is so obviously the right thing. I do not
understand how good people can have their hands so completely tied by
leadership that refuses to let their Members voice their conscience. I
have friends here and on the other side of the aisle. I do not
understand why after asking me personally what they can do to help with
this terrible tragedy, they are unable to explain to me why we have to
compromise.
I am new here, Mr. Speaker. I heard the President make promises in
Jackson Square, and I believed them. I believed the White House when
they told me Wednesday that they would help local governments survive
so that we can lay the ground work to rebuild. I believed the Louisiana
Senators when they said they were committed to the same simple request.
Maybe it is because I am new, but what I am having trouble with
today, Mr. Speaker, is the idea that this House would seek to put the
people under south Louisiana under more debt and more pain. The loans
that should be grants are about to become huge millstones around the
necks of the people of south Louisiana when we act today.
When we leave this afternoon, we will have sent its local government
along the gulf coast to hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. Why?
That is what I ask. Why?
Senator Vitter tells us that it is the only way for this to pass the
House. The only way he says that the leadership in this body will lift
a finger to help the people in need in Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama is if we impose a crushing debt on them. All the signs point in
the same direction, Mr. Speaker. The problem is here.
Senator Vitter worked in this House for 6 years and knows this
leadership. He has placed the blame squarely at their feet, and I think
they owe the entire gulf coast a explanation. Who is this compromise
supposed to help, and why is it being done on the backs of those who
need the help the most? Why have 90 percent of previous loans been
forgiven, and why will loans for future disasters be forgiven but not
these?
I will have to support this, Mr. Speaker. Then I am going to go back
home, look my local leaders in the eye and tell them to take the money
and run. Their Federal Government let them down again, just like we
failed in the early days after this storm. They will be asked in 3
years to pay back the money, and that should have been a gift.
My advice to them, again, will be take the money and run. Spend it on
your sheriffs' deputies, your firefighters, your public hospitals.
Spend it and do not pay it back.
Mr. Speaker, I was sent here to do a job, to work for people that I
represent, every day without exception, as hard as I know how. After
Katrina and Rita, that focus has only sharpened. I now represent more
homeless, broken and suffering people than almost anybody in this body.
They have been drowned by the water, whipped by the wind, and now, Mr.
Speaker, failed by the House.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I
yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to object, even though this
legislation is flawed in many ways, as my colleague pointed out,
because we all understand the tremendous need for the people in the
gulf region. I am not a Representative from the gulf coast, but I
certainly understand the impact on tax revenues after a disaster.
Repealing the $5 million cap on community disaster loans is something
that I have been working on along with the New York delegation, ever
since New York suffered at least $5 billion in lost tax revenues
following 9/11 and the loss from the gulf region maybe more.
The bill before us lifts the $5 million cap, but it adds a provision
that has never, ever been seen before with these loans. It prohibits,
literally prohibits, the Federal Government from forgiving any part of
these loans. This is incredibly important because there has been a long
history of canceling these loans after they are given.
I have here with me, Mr. Speaker, a list of all the previous disaster
loans that have been forgiven. So why are we now putting this terrible
burden on the people in the gulf region?
[[Page H8796]]
CDL PROGRAM HISTORY--PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST CANCELLED
[As Sept. 30, 2001--* loan made under Credit Reform Act]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inerest Principal Interest
Loan No. Local Government Status Approved amount rate Amount disbursed canceled canceled P&L cancelled
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
505-1.................................. Madison Co., ID........... Repaid.................. 375,000 7\1/4\ $275,000 .............. .............. ..............
505-2.................................. Rexburd,ID................ Cancel.................. 260,000 7\1/4\ 260,000 260,000 260,000 $249,301
505-3.................................. Fremont Co., ID........... Repaid.................. 321,409 7\1/4\ 300,000 .............. .............. $509,302
505-4.................................. Bingham Co., ID........... W/draw.................. 854,000 7\1/4\ ................. .............. .............. ..............
531-5.................................. Williamson, WV............ Repaid.................. 127,000 7\1/8\ 127,000 .............. 86,339 86,339
531-6.................................. Matewan, WV............... Cancel.................. 12,000 7\1/8\ 7,000 7,00 3,859 10,659
547-7.................................. Hull, MA.................. Repaid.................. 1,369,000 8\3/4\ 765,108 0 .............. ..............
537-9.................................. Johnstown, PA............. Cancel.................. 1,680,000 8\3/4\ 1,680,000 1,880,000 699,782 2,379,782
537-10................................. Franklin Boro, PA......... Cancel.................. 50,000 9\1/2\ 50,000 50,000 30,965 80,965
537-11................................. Dale Boro,PA.............. Cancel.................. 47,000 11\5/8\ 47,000 47,000 24,250 71,250
598-12A................................ Gulf Shores, AL........... Repaid.................. 239,000 9\5/8\ 239,000 .............. .............. ..............
598-12E................................ Gulf Shoers (Sew Bd)...... Repaid.................. 16,100 10\3/8\ 16,100 .............. .............. ..............
598-13................................. Prichard, AL.............. Debt Col................ 1,540,000 9\5/8\ 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,983,789 3,523,789
598-14................................. Gulf Shores WWB, Al....... Repaid.................. 44,000 10\3/8\ 44,000 .............. .............. ..............
638-15................................. Hurtsboro, AL............. Repaid.................. 28,000 13\3/4\ 29,000 .............. .............. ..............
691-16................................. Clifton, AZ............... Repaid.................. 344,639 11 344,639 112,979 69,928 182,805
737-17................................. Wheatland Boro, PA........ Cancel.................. 65,768 9\1/4\ 65,758 85,788 21,681 87,449
753-18................................. Marlington, WV............ Repaid.................. 84,438 7\1/2\ 84,430 .............. .............. ..............
753-19................................. Albright, WV.............. W/draw.................. 16,232 ........... ................. .............. .............. ..............
753-20................................. Pendleton City, WV........ Repaid.................. 113,581 7\1/2\ 113,581 .............. .............. ..............
737-21A................................ Albion Boro, PA........... Repaid.................. 48,242 6\3/4\ 48,242 19,146 4,146 23,292
737-21E................................ Albion (Muny Auth)........ W/draw.................. 79,996 ........... ................. .............. .............. ..............
774-22................................. Vassar, MI................ Repaid.................. 124,115 6\1/2\ 124,115 55,528 21,304 76,832
841-23................................. USVI (Mugo)............... Repaymt................. 89,912,000 8\1/4\ 50,100,000 21,013,658 12,154,386 33,168,044
853-24................................. Port of Tillamook, OR..... Repaymt................. 172,318 8\3/8\ 172,318 .............. .............. ..............
955-25................................. Homestead City, FL........ Cancel.................. 10,325,000 6.73* 10,325,000 10,325,000 3,223,100 13,548,100
955-26................................. Florida City, FL.......... Cancel.................. 1,048,000 8.73* 1,046,000 1,046,000 377,823 1,423,823
955-27................................. City of Miami, FL......... Cancel.................. 5,000,000 5.68* 5,000,000 5,000,000 915,350 5,815,350
955-27A................................ City of Miami, FL......... Cancel.................. 5,000,000 5.47* 5,000,000 5,000,000 707,733 5,707,733
955-28................................. Key Biscayne, FL.......... Repaid.................. 1,000,000 5.88* 1,000,000 .............. .............. ..............
961-29................................. County of Kauai, HI....... Cancel.................. 15,000,000 5.47* 15,000,000 15,000,000 4,071,873 19,071,873
927-30................................. American Samoa............ Open.................... 10,680,000 5,47 10,179,083 8,638,009 3,332,779 11,955,788
997-31................................. Quincy, IL................ Repaid.................. 700,00 5.47* 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-32................................. Brussels Comm Sch #4...... Suspend................. 11,600 5.47* ................. .............. .............. ..............
997-33................................. Calhoun Co., IL........... Repaid.................. 162,000 5.47* 71,000 .............. .............. ..............
977-34................................. Calhoun Comm Sch #4....... Suspend................. 543,000 5,47* ................. .............. .............. ..............
997-35................................. Bluffdale Twp, II......... Repaid.................. 10,000 5.47* 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-36................................. Bluffdale Rd Dist......... Repaid.................. 10,700 5.47* 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-37................................. Carrollton Sch Dist, IL... Suspend................. 762,000 5.47* ................. .............. .............. ..............
997-38................................. Columbia Levee Dist, IL... Cancel.................. 10,000 5.47* 10,000 10,000 2,646 12,646
997-38................................. Green Co., IL............. Repaid.................. 270,00 5.47* 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-40................................. Hillview, IL.............. Repaymt................. 16,725 5.47* 13,500 .............. 4,844 4,844
997-41................................. Patterson Twp, IL......... Repaid.................. 11,600 5.47* 6,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-42................................. Patterson Fld Dist........ Repaid.................. 15,500 5.47* 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-43................................. Walkerville Twp, IL....... Repaid.................. 6,000 5.47* 6,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-44................................. Walkerville Rd Dist....... Repaid.................. 8,300 5.47* 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-45................................. Woodville, IL............. Repaid.................. 9,582 5.47* 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-46................................. Woodville Rd Dist......... Repaid.................. 13,235 5.47* 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-47................................. Grfton, IL................ Repaid.................. 92,000 5.47* 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-48................................. Chouteau Twp, IL.......... Repaid.................. 24,867 5.47* 500 .............. .............. ..............
997-49................................. Chouteau Rd Dist.......... Repaid.................. 48,283 5.47* 500 .............. .............. ..............
997-50................................. Maeystown Fire Dist....... Repaid.................. 10,957 5.47* 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-51................................. Monroe Co. Rd #8.......... Repaid.................. 10,053 5.47* 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
997-52................................. Monroe Co. Rd #9.......... Open.................... 13,109 5.47* 13,109 .............. .............. ..............
997-53................................. Monroe Co. Rd #10......... Open.................... 18,776 5.47* 10,000 3,947 1,088 5,035
997-54................................. Valmeyer, IL.............. Open.................... 97,200 5.47* 97,200 .............. .............. ..............
997-55................................. Valmeyer Sch #2........... Suspend................. 652,295 5.47* ................. .............. .............. ..............
997-56................................. Valmeyer Fire Dist........ Open.................... 7,500 5.47* 7,500 .............. .............. ..............
997-57................................. Hull, IL.................. W/draw.................. 15,694 5.47* ................. .............. .............. ..............
997-58................................. Harrisoinville Levee...... Repaid.................. 67,308 5.47* 36,000 36,000 9,725 45,725
997-59................................. North Coast Railroad...... Open.................... 615,658 5.66* 615,538 .............. .............. ..............
1067-60................................ USVI (Marilyn)............ Open.................... 127,224,000 8.35* 127,200,000 .............. .............. ..............
1175-64................................ Ada, MN................... Open.................... 1,423,448 4.90* 1,423,448 .............. .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. .......................... ........................ $278,657,228 ........... 233,523,891 69,910,035 27,991,491 97,901,526
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you think about it, communities that have been devastated are
not going to be in the position to be able to afford to pay back these
loans. They cannot even afford their operating expenses. They are
laying people off. How in the world is a city like New Orleans going to
be able to afford to pay this back when it will be absolutely years
before their tax base returns to normal?
Mr. Speaker, Congress is not requiring Iraq to pay back the money we
are giving them. Why are we making the people of the gulf coast pay us
back now? It is terribly unfair, and I would say unpatriotic. Why are
we giving a priority to contractors in Iraq over the people in
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama? Again, we are not being required
to pay back in Iraq, but now they are telling these devastated
communities and people that they have to pay it back.
Mr. Speaker, this morning, along with the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) and
others, we have introduced H.R. 4012. This bill would remove the $5
million cap, give assistance grants and allow for these loans to fully
cover the expenses of the towns, counties, and parishes up and down the
coast. We have already appropriated at least $84 billion in aid for
Katrina. We have identified the need. Why in the world are we setting
up in this legislation new restrictive qualifications for the people in
the gulf coast?
So I join my colleague in his efforts and other efforts on both sides
of the aisle to remove this in the future. But it is wrong, in my
opinion, to place this burden now on the people of the gulf coast.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) for her observations.
I am happy to yield further to the gentleman should he wish.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy. I shall be brief.
I wish to express appreciation to those Members who brought to the
House's attention that the waiver of repayment has been stricken from
the bill, but I would also indicate that in discussions with people and
in the loan construction packages they have great latitude as to terms
and conditions of repayment. They have been quite assuring that they
will work with communities in a manner which is responsible to assure
relief is provided, but that the taxpayers of the United States have
some assurance that, when possible, communities will give back that
which was extended during times of hardship.
I would also want to point out that there literally have been
billions of dollars made available to constituents in Louisiana of
great scope and consequence from the FEMA checks to the provision of
temporary housing. There has been a great deal of work conducted here.
{time} 1515
I wish to express appreciation for the administration and all those
who are engaged in this work and to the people of this great country,
who have given
[[Page H8797]]
voluntarily huge charitable contributions to various organizations to
be of assistance to us. We are indeed appreciative, and we do not wish
to leave the House floor today with the impression that Louisianans
have been ignored. Far from it.
We have a long way to go. There is much work to do. There is
suffering still far too rampant in our communities. This act today will
go another small step in helping those people get back to normality.
But there is a lot happening as fast as can be conducted, I believe, in
the State of Louisiana, and I am sure in other coastal States as well,
and I would like the record to reflect some balance, that it is not as
fast as everyone would like, but help is coming, and I appreciate the
gentleman's allowing me to make that statement.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his observation. Again, I wish other Members had been present to
hear his discussion and presentation of the State of affairs of the
pre- and post-Katrina effects in Louisiana and throughout the gulf. The
gentleman has certainly become a scholar of the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the record at this point a compilation of
the expenditures by FEMA and insured losses for fiscal year 1980
through 2000.
NATURAL DISASTERS IN THE UNITED STATES--FEMA EXPENDITURES AND INSURED LOSSES FISCAL YEARS 1980-2000
[dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA Disaster
FY Major Disasters* (affected states, total FEMA cost Relief Fund Insured Losses Total
to date) Expenditures* Expenditures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980..................................... .................................................. 849.10 1,177.00 2,026.10
1981..................................... .................................................. 228.96 714.00 942.96
1982..................................... .................................................. 115.11 1,528.00 1,643.11
1983..................................... .................................................. 245.23 2,254.00 2,499.23
1984..................................... .................................................. 296.42 1,548.00 1,844.42
1985..................................... .................................................. 319.17 2,816.00 3,135.17
1986..................................... .................................................. 497.73 871.00 1,368.73
1987..................................... .................................................. 246.03 905.00 1,151.03
1988..................................... .................................................. 189.61 1,409.00 1,598.61
1989..................................... Hurricane Hugo (NC, SC, PR, VI): $1.31 billion; Loma 138.56 7,642.00 7,780.56
Prieta Earthquake (CA): $868.12 million.
1990..................................... .................................................. 2,026.26 2,825.00 4,851.26
1991..................................... .................................................. 391.51 4,723.00 5,114.51
1992..................................... Hurricane Andrew (FL, LA): $1.85 billion; Hurricane 1,725.57 22,907.00 24,632.57
Iniki (HI): $257.5 million.
1993..................................... Midwest Floods (IL, IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD, WI): 2,553.90 5,705.00 8,258.90
$1.17 billion.
1994..................................... Northridge Earthquake (CA): $6.94 billion; Tropical 4,357.35 17,010.00 21,367.35
Storm Alberta (AL, FL, GA): $524.44 million.
1995..................................... Hurricane Marilyn (PR, VI): $484.0 million; 2,685.03 8,310.00 10,995.03
Hurricane Opal (AL, FL, GA): $201.4 million.
1996..................................... Hurricane Fran (MD, NC, PA, SC, VA, WV): $608.39 3,613.60 7,375.00 10,988.60
million; Hurricane Hortense (PR): $291.6 million.
1997..................................... Red River Valley Floods (MN, ND, SD): $730.43 4,344.92 2,600.00 6,944.92
million.
1998..................................... Hurricane Georges (AL, FL, LA, MS, PR, VI): $2.48 4,067.09 10,070.00 14,137.09
billion.
1999..................................... Hurricane Floyd (CT, DE, FL, ME, MD, NH, NJ, NY, NC, 4,402.61 8,321.00 12,723.61
PA, SC, VT, VA): $880.4 million; Hurricane Irene
(FL): $134.9 million.
2000..................................... .................................................. 2,375.01 4,300.00 6,675.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (1980-2000).................... .................................................. $35,668.77 $115,010.00 $150,678.77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (1993-2000).................... .................................................. $28,399.51 $63,691.00 $92,090.51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The amount listed after each major disaster represents obligations for specific events that may have affected more than one state and whose related
obligations fall over a number of fiscal years. The amount includes funds obligated from the Disaster Relief Fund for Federal Emergency Management
Agency assistance programs, hazard mitigation grants, federal mission assignments, contractual services and administrative costs. Figures do not
include funding provided by other participating federal agencies, e.g., Small Business Administration and Agriculture Department Farm Service disaster
loan programs.
* FEMA Disaster Relief Fund expenditures represent obligations by fiscal year for all disasters declared to that date that are not officially closed.
Sources: FEMA; Insurance Services Offices, Inc. Fact Books. Insured losses include catastrophes resulting in insured losses of $5 million or more.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gingrey). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object to the
gentleman's request, it is my understanding that this bill allows $750
million of the $50 billion in disaster relief funding that we provided
to be used for loans to assist local governments in providing essential
local services. It is also my understanding, as has been discussed
here, that there is a ``fig leaf'' attached to this bill, at least it
has been called that by some, which would create the impression that
these communities are going to be provided loans, rather than grants,
and that these loans must be repaid.
I would simply make this observation: This country forgave debt to
Eastern Europe, billions of dollars worth of debt. We forgave debt to
the tune of billions of dollars for Third World debt. Yet we are being
told today that somehow we are supposed to believe that the communities
who are supposedly assisted by this legislation will in some way be
able to pay back the debt which they would incur under this
legislation.
I think we are fooling the American people if we pretend that those
communities are going to have the capacity any time soon to repay those
debts, and I suspect that this provision is here more to deceive the
American people about the true cost than to in fact reflect reality.
I think that if we are going to be honest with the American people
and if we are going to be fair to the recipient communities, we need to
recognize that these communities are not likely to have any ability to
repay that was any greater than the ability of Eastern Europe or the
Third World to repay the debts that we forgave in those cases a long
time ago. That is one concern I have with the bill.
The second concern I have with the bill is a conservative concern, if
you will, because while it is assumed that this bill will provide loans
for functions such as police protection, fire fighting and everyday
emergency work, in fact there is no guarantee that that is the only
purpose for which these funds will be used. Because of that, I want to
ask the gentleman whether or not he would be amenable and whether the
majority leadership would be amenable to adding the following section
to the legislation that the gentleman seeks to have considered. That
would read as follows:
``Section 3, reporting requirements. The Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Select Committee on
Homeland Security and Government Affairs shall be notified no later
than 15 days after a loan is made pursuant to this act. Such
notification shall include the following: Number one, the amount of the
loan; number two, an assessment of the borrower's financial position;
number three, reasons for the necessity of the loan; and number four, a
description of the essential services to be provided with the funding
from the loan.''
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the reason for the
gentleman's inquiry and the illustrative list gentleman presents is
very reasonable. In other circumstances, we found ourselves with the
luxury of a little time with which to consider the matter. If we were
to agree to that modification, I understand the matter would be
referred to the Senate for further consideration and may well put in
jeopardy the adoption ultimately of this loan program, which we are
hoping to have in effect and available on Monday morning to affected
communities.
I have, however, conversed with the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman
Young), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar)
and others on the committee who have jurisdiction over FEMA matters in
[[Page H8798]]
which this loan program is domiciled, and have assurances from them
that we will visit the gentleman's concerns and adopt a reporting
regime, if not exactly, very similar to this.
I would be supportive of and I am sure all members of the Louisiana
delegation who are here on the floor would also support the gentleman's
request, but would respectfully ask, given the concerns of time and the
issues at hand, that the gentleman would withdraw his objection. We
would be happy to note formally in the record our agreement to proceed
with the gentleman on our return to work absent the Columbus Day recess
to achieve the gentleman's interest.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I have been told by
several people that they do not want me to pursue this because ``the
Senate is going out of session and it will be hard to get an amended
version considered by the Senate.''
Heaven forbid that we should ask the Senate to come back and work on
something of this urgency. This is the same Senate that did not
hesitate to come back in order to tell one American family, the Schiavo
family, how they should deal with an end-of-life issue for one of their
family members, and yet we are told that we should not build in this
protection for the taxpayer because it might inconvenience the other
body.
I am very reluctant to agree to proceeding with this legislation
without this reporting requirement because, as we have just discovered
under the previous $50 billion that we provided to FEMA, they have
given us a miserable explanation of the money that they have spent so
far. They have given us meaningless spreadsheets and money defined in
very broad, meaningless categories that tells the Congress nothing that
will enable us to exercise our responsibilities as watchdogs of the
public purse.
So, I guess my question is, if I withdraw my reservation, how soon
can we expect to have this kind of reporting requirement brought to the
House so that we know that in fact the money which is being provided
will be used only for the purpose for which it is described today?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank
the gentleman for his question. I would point out, we would act
forthwith, and perhaps there would be additional items that we would be
interested in having reported to us on the matter of these loan
dispositions. So we have some accountability to our constituencies and
know what local governments are seeking in the way of assistance and
how we may further provide aid.
So the gentleman's point is important to us in the delegation as well
as to the gentleman for his own satisfaction that the funds are being
used appropriately.
I would like to have the possibility of working with the gentleman's
staff over the recess week we are about to enter into, in consultation
with the staff from the offices of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), to try to
perfect a reporting regime that the gentleman and I and the chairman
would find acceptable to achieve his goals, and it would be obtained as
soon as agreement can be obtained. I would commit our delegation to be
fully supportive of that effort.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have not communicated with the
gentleman from Minnesota, because I support what the gentleman wants to
do, but I would suggest that if the gentleman from Minnesota and I can
reach this agreement, and I am sure we can, we can come out with a
resolution out of our committee immediately and bring it to the floor
under unanimous consent, because what I think what the gentleman is
asking is very legitimate.
I will commit that to the gentleman as chairman of the committee, and
I am sure the gentleman from Minnesota and I can work that out. So I
give you that commitment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I thank both
gentlemen for their responses. Let me say that while I intend to
withdraw my reservation, given those assurances, I would hope that that
would happen as soon as possible, and I would also hope that sometime,
somewhere, someone will explain to me why we can forgive billions of
dollars of debt to the Third World, billions of dollars of debt to
Eastern Europe, but not recognize that American citizens may need that
same privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 1858
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Community Disaster Loan Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 2. DISASTER LOANS.
(a) Essential Services.--Of the amounts provided in Public
Law 109-62 for ``Disaster Relief'', up to $750,000,000 may be
transferred to the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program
for the cost of direct loans as authorized under section 417
of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5184) to be used to assist local
governments in providing essential services: Provided, That
such transfer may be made to subsidize gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed
$1,000,000,000 under section 417 of the Stafford Act:
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 417(b) of the
Stafford Act, the amount of any such loan issued pursuant to
this section may exceed $5,000,000: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 417(c)(1) of the Stafford Act, such
loans may not be canceled: Provided further, That the cost of
modifying such loans shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a).
(b) Administrative Expenses.--Of the amounts provided in
Public Law 109-62 for ``Disaster Relief'', up to $1,000,000
may be transferred to the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan
Program for administrative expenses to carry out the direct
loan program, as authorized by section 417 of the Stafford
Act.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________