[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 76 (Thursday, May 8, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3946-S3966]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2007

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2284, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2284) to amend the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968, to restore the financial solvency of the flood 
     insurance fund, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Dodd/Shelby amendment No. 4707, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       McConnell amendment No. 4720 (to the text of the bill 
     proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 4707), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Allard amendment No. 4721 (to amendment No. 4720), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Landrieu/Nelson (FL) modified amendment No. 4706 (to 
     amendment No. 4707), to improve the Office of the Flood 
     Insurance Advocate.
       Nelson (FL) amendment No. 4709 (to amendment No. 4707), to 
     establish a National Catastrophe Risks Consortium and a 
     National Homeowners' Insurance Stabilization Program.
       DeMint amendment No. 4711 (to amendment No. 4707), to 
     require the Director to conduct a study on the impact, 
     effectiveness, and feasibility of amending section 1361 of 
     the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to include widely 
     used and nationally recognized building codes as part of the 
     flood plain management criteria developed under such section.
       DeMint modified amendment No. 4710 (to amendment No. 4707), 
     to end the premium subsidy for any property purchased after 
     the date of enactment of this act.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to inform my colleagues we are open 
for business. I know there are amendments that Members have they would 
like to be considered. I am more than happy, with my colleague, the 
ranking member, Senator Shelby, to try to consider those amendments and 
deal with them expeditiously.
  Last evening, we entered a unanimous consent agreement which requires 
that all amendments be offered,

[[Page S3947]]

debated, and voted on by the close of business today. The close of 
business today can occur any time between now and midnight. I suspect 
most Members, knowing there may not be any votes tomorrow--I forget 
exactly what the leader said about that. I think there is a possibility 
of no votes tomorrow depending on the schedule and agenda. If that is 
the case, if we deal with these amendments between now and the early 
part of the afternoon, we can complete the business of this bill until 
next week when we will have votes on energy issues before final passage 
of the flood insurance bill.
  Again, I am willing and anxious to consider the amendments. I know 
several people have amendments. They offered some of them last evening 
and debated them to some degree. So we are prepared to enter into a 
little more debate and get to some votes. My idea is, to satisfy the 
convenience of Members, to try to consider three or four of these 
amendments and then hold a period of 45 minutes or so to vote on three 
or four items at a time rather than bring Members over every half hour 
for a 15-minute vote. We will try to deal with several amendments and 
then have a period of voting before considering the second tranche of 
issues.
  I know Senator Shelby is in the vicinity. We are here to entertain 
these proposals.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. What is the pending business of the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 4710 to S. 2284.


                Amendment No. 4716 to Amendment No. 4707

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside and 
amendment 4716 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4716 to amendment No. 4707.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require persons located in flood prone areas to hold flood 
  insurance as a condition for receiving federal disaster assistance)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

       No person shall be eligible to receive disaster assistance 
     under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) or the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) relating to damage to a property 
     located in a 100-year floodplain caused by flooding, unless 
     prior to such flooding that person purchased and maintained 
     flood insurance for that property under the national flood 
     insurance program established under chapter I of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4011 et seq.).

  Mr. COBURN. First of all, let me compliment the chairman and ranking 
member on this bill. They have made some tremendous strides in trying 
to fix this program. The one thing we have not done is we have not 
asked people in this country, who are in flood-prone areas, to actually 
be responsible. We are going to get about $17 billion and charge it to 
our grandkids because we have to get rid of some debt because the 
insurance program had not done in the past what we intended it to do. I 
believe you have fairly well fixed that for the future--my hope is that 
you have. I am not convinced of that yet.
  What this amendment does is requires FEMA and the Small Business 
Administration to withhold any Federal flood disaster payments and 
assistance to people who have not purchased flood insurance. These are 
people who reside in a 100-year flood plain zone, meaning that 
catastrophic flooding is expected to occur once every 100 years. These 
are known as special flood hazard areas.
  Owners of properties in these flood-prone areas are already required 
by law to have flood insurance. Yet what we have seen is, time and time 
again, they do not have it. So, in effect, even though there is a 
requirement for flood insurance to be there, they do not have it, so 
the cost, in terms of disasters, goes up for the Federal Government.
  The whole purpose behind this bill in the first place, when it was 
first initiated, was to lessen the cost of the American taxpayer in 
terms of disasters so owners of properties in these flood-prone areas 
are required by law to purchase flood insurance if they have a 
federally backed loan. This amendment would simply ensure that the law 
is enforced.
  I know this is a hard amendment because what we think about is what 
about those bad actors, what about those who do not--what we are doing 
to them. But actually we ought to think in the positive, that if, in 
fact, you are supposed to have flood insurance and you do not, how do 
we ever force everybody to do that unless there is a consequence? The 
consequence ought to be, if you did not follow the rules of purchasing 
flood insurance when you lived in a 100-year flood plain zone, a high-
risk area, then you are asking the rest of the taxpayers not only to 
rebuild your home but to also give you the benefit of not paying a 
premium on flood insurance. Those people in those areas are actually 
taking advantage of the rest of the American taxpayers if, in fact, 
they do not follow the law.
  So this is simply saying: OK, here is the law. You have a federally 
backed mortgage. Your mortgagor is supposed to require that--as a 
matter of fact, it was fixed in 1994, I believe, that if you do not, 
they would. What we have seen in the last disasters is the owner did 
not, and the mortgage backer did not. Consequently, we had a large 
number of people who had no flood insurance.
  Now, all this amendment says is, OK, we are putting you on notice 
right now, if you have a federally backed mortgage and you are in a 
flood plain zone and you do not have flood insurance, you do not get 
the disaster relief. You do not get the grant. You do not get what 
everybody who follows the rules gets.
  The problem with not accepting this amendment is we will undermine 
the rest of the flood insurance program, the very good work that the 
chairman and ranking member did on this bill, because if there is no 
consequence to not following the law, not buying insurance, why will 
anybody buy the insurance? In other words, if we are still going to 
pony up the money, what is the incentive to get them to do that? I know 
the chairman and the ranking member are concerned about that.
  Some statistics are real important. On the repetitive loss 
properties, what we know is that 1 percent of the properties in this 
country over the last 15 years account for about 34 percent of all of 
the expenditures. In other words, they have been damaged time and time 
again. And the chairman and the ranking member have done a good job in 
terms of addressing how we fix that in the outyears. But when one-third 
of the money goes for 1 percent of the homes, something is very wrong.
  All this amendment is designed to do is to bring them forward so we 
lessen this amount. More than 50,000 of these repetitive loss 
properties have flood coverage right now but 61,000 do not; 61,000 of 
the repetitive loss properties have no flood insurance right now.
  So how do we make them do it? Where is the teeth to make them do it, 
other than to know that next time, unless they have flood insurance, 
they are not going to get the benefit the rest of the American 
taxpayers get in terms of helping them out of a jam. Ultimately, what 
this does is it incentivizes us to have people take risks that would 
not otherwise take risks because they know we have their back. All this 
amendment says is, be an adult; participate in carrying some of the 
risk.
  So when over 50 percent of the repetitive loss properties have no 
flood insurance, I would like to know how we are going to get them to 
get it under this bill if there is no teeth to make them do it.
  Now, I have every intention, as I have spoken to the chairman and the 
ranking member, of withdrawing this amendment. But my hope would be 
that in conference you would address this incentive issue because I 
believe right now there is a large incentive not

[[Page S3948]]

to insure their property because we have their back and there is no 
hard penalty to do that.
  If in fact I have a home and it is one of the repetitive loss 
properties and I do not buy flood insurance, we have a hurricane or a 
storm and it is damaged and I know I can still get it fixed, why am I 
going to buy the flood insurance? Especially, let's say, I do not have 
a loan on it. Let's say I am down there. I am in a very high risk area. 
I do not have any loan on it and, to me, I know if I get a flood, no 
problem; the Government is going to back me up.
  So what we are doing is sending a signal to the people basically who 
have no mortgage: The rest of the American people are going to insure 
you for your flood. And I do not think that is right.
  I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. I think the 
amendment would markedly strengthen what this bill is trying to 
accomplish. My hope would be that in conference, if you do not like my 
language, you at least put something into the bill that will have some 
teeth that forces good behavior and forces those who own the properties 
to actually have some responsibility for the properties. I am not 
against us helping to create an insurance market. I am not sure this is 
the best way to do it. But we have certainly made big strides to 
improve the bill.


                      Amendment No. 4716 Withdrawn

  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4716) was withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to respond to the Senator from 
Oklahoma and commend him for his efforts in this area.
  What Senator Dodd and I and other Members, including the Presiding 
Officer at the moment, who is involved in banking issues and insurance, 
and so forth, know is that this flood insurance program is bankrupt, as 
does the Senator from Oklahoma. It is not working. And what we are 
trying to do is move it toward an actuarially sound basis.
  The Senator's suggestion is something I think we ought to consider as 
we move along down the road because we want to make sure nobody beats 
the system. In other words, the more people who are involved in the 
flood insurance program, proper mapping is going to mean lower premiums 
to everybody. And the problem, in the long run, as we have 
catastrophes, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes--well, in this case 
floods and water--that the insurance would take care of it rather than 
thinking, as the Senator from Oklahoma says: Well, I do not have to 
insure you; the Government, the taxpayer, the people will take care of 
me in the end.
  I think that is what we are trying to prevent. I think the Senator 
from Oklahoma has a very good point.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in response to Senator Coburn's earlier 
comments, I thank him for his courtesy in withdrawing the amendment. He 
is raising a very legitimate issue about how we get greater compliance, 
as Senator Shelby pointed out, and achieve greater actuarial soundness 
in a program that is in desperate need of that.
  The bill does something else. In fact, we voted on it last evening. I 
believe Senator Landrieu and Senator Dorgan offered an amendment that 
would have stripped out the mandatory requirements of people being 
required to pay premiums if they live in these high-risk areas. That 
amendment was defeated pretty soundly here. It is less than a dollar a 
day, about $316, I think, to a maximum of $350 a year under our bill 
for about 350,000 dollars' worth of coverage: $250,000 for the 
property, $100,000 for contents.
  The House bill actually goes out a bit higher. Senator Vitter wanted 
to raise that number. Senator Shelby and I opposed that amendment. I am 
not unsympathetic to Senator Vitter's suggestion in certain high-cost 
areas that $250,000 ought to be a bit higher.
  But the point Senator Coburn is making is that we want to get people 
here to contribute. We have 25 percent of the claims that are coming 
from these risky areas where only 1 percent of policies are actually 
being paid. So one out of every four dollars that is going out for 
coverage under the flood insurance program is in these areas, and yet 
less than 1 percent of the premiums are being paid out of those areas.

  So, clearly, if you are going to be actuarially sound, you get that 
many claims out of that area, you have to get more compliance. How do 
you do that? Our bill does not go as far as Senator Coburn's does, but 
in our bill we require, as we do under a lot of similar areas, that the 
banks be required to collect these premiums, in fact, even hold them in 
escrow so we have a better assurance that we are going to get a lot 
more compliance with that approach.
  But I am certainly sympathetic to the goals of ensuring that we get 
as much compliance as possible, and how you do that is a legitimate 
debate. I appreciate his raising the issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dodd. I think when you 
fixed this in 1994 or 1997 is when you required the banks on the 
mortgage to have a notice and pay it and then add to it. But it 
obviously was not enough teeth to get us up to where we need to be. So 
I think we need something stronger than that.
  Overall--and this is no reflection on the good work that has been 
done on this bill but we have to ask ourselves--we are talking about 
$30 billion with this bill. That is going to actually go against the 
Treasury. We are going to have $17 billion that we are going to kiss 
off. We are going to say the people who are living in these flood-prone 
areas, because their insurance did not truly reflect--we did not have 
it spread broadly enough, $17 billion of it we cannot pay back, so we 
are going to forgive that.
  Well, what does forgiving that mean? What that means is we are going 
to take the money from the Treasury, we are not going to charge it to 
the National Flood Insurance Program, but someone is going to have to 
pay that off. And who is going to pay that off? It is going to be our 
kids. And there is almost $9 billion in interest that is going to be 
not paid off, so we are going to charge that to our kids. Then there is 
another $3 billion still, I understand, to come from the Katrina-Rita-
related storms in terms of payments that are also going out.
  So what we are going to have is $30 billion, because the program was 
not actuarially sound in the past, that now we are saying to our kids 
and grandkids we are going to make actuarially sound, and they are 
going to pay.
  So what we are doing with this bill--and, again, it is not an 
indictment. You made a lot of headway, but there has to be another way 
to fix this rather than charge it to our kids. So when you take this 
$30 billion, on top of the 10 we have now and the $74 trillion that is 
coming, we have a significant debt in terms of being fair to the next 
generation. This bill underlies and forgives all the debt to the 
Treasury, and it translates into roughly $30.2 billion. That is how 
poorly the program worked in the past.
  Again, I think we have made major improvements to the bill. But I 
believe it is important enough for us to vote on whether we want to 
send another $30 billion toward our kids rather than make people who 
have homes in flood-prone areas who are getting the benefit from it pay 
for a portion of the cost.
  Mr. President, I make a point of order that the substitute amendment 
violates section 201 of S. Con. Res 21 of the 110th Congress and ask 
for the yeas and nays associated with that, according to however the 
chairman would like to schedule votes.
  I know he will make a motion to waive the point of order. That is 
expected. But I would like to have a vote on that, if I could.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act 
for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.

[[Page S3949]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to 
waive the Budget Act with respect to the Coburn budget point of order 
occur at 12 noon today, with 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote 
equally divided and controlled by myself and Senator Coburn or our 
designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. I would like to make one more point. Politics is 
politics, but in the realm of politics the long term is what is getting 
ready to happen in this country because we are on an unsustainable 
course. I believe we have to be guardians for the future. And I believe 
in waiving the pay-go rules we are not doing that; that we are not a 
guardian for the future.
  If you think about $30 billion, you are asking every person in this 
country this year to pay an extra $100 because this program was not 
funded and arranged properly.
  What we also ought to consider is making sure we never do this again. 
And I would hope that when and if this budget point of order is waived 
the chairman and ranking member will put something in the bill that 
prohibits us from going back and ever waiving debt for this program 
again.
  He wants it actuarially sound, I know that. I know the ranking member 
wants it actuarially sound. But it is truly unfair, when we spend 
$28,500 per household at the Federal Government level and the median 
income in this country is $42,000 and we are already spending 70 
percent of that at the Federal Government level and a third of it we 
are not paying for, we are borrowing from our children, to add on 
another $30 billion. What we are talking about is opportunity. We don't 
want to be tough enough now to not take opportunity away from our kids. 
So the choice is, can we have what we want now and it not hurt our 
children. The fact is, we can't. We are hurting our kids when we 
borrow, when we forgive this money. What we should be charging this 
money to is to the people who have benefited from the coverage. That is 
who ought to be paying for it. That is who got the flood insurance at a 
falsely low rate. My hope is that we think long term, not short term. I 
know you have done that to a great extent in the bill. But my hope is 
that somehow when you are in conference, that you might put some type 
of prohibition of ever waiving the debt again, to force the program to 
always be actuarially sound. If we could do that, we would not ever get 
to this point again. I know the chairman doesn't want us to get to 
where we are waiving this debt again, which will force the flood 
insurance program to be on the same footing as every other insurance 
company.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for taking two of my 
amendments, one a study on reinsurance. The reinsurance we have right 
now is the American taxpayer. That is who is going to do the 
reinsurance this time of $30 billion. I am appreciative that they 
considered this and accepted it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Let me underscore the 
point that, some 23 years ago, I was a new Member of this institution 
sitting in that last chair over in the corner, and I offered a pay-as-
you-go budget. I think I got 24 votes in 1983 or 1984. I have strong 
feelings about whether we will be accountable and whether we pay for 
what we want to do. My colleague from Oklahoma certainly raises a point 
I have raised for as long as I have been here and tried legislatively 
to insist upon some accountability in how we do things. With this 
program, obviously the problem we are in is by attaching these 
additional costs onto the premium cost today, we make it prohibitive 
for a lot of people. So we were faced with a choice which was not one I 
would have preferred. But we have ourselves in a position in this 
country today where we are spending almost that amount of money every 
month on the conflict in Iraq, and we are not paying for it, something 
Harry Truman would not have tolerated. In the war in Korea, he said we 
would go to Korea provided the American taxpayer was willing to pay for 
it.
  Every 8 weeks we are accumulating a debt and passing it on to my 3-
year-old. The Senator knows I have young children. Every 8 weeks we are 
asking my daughter to assume the financial responsibility of this 
conflict. In addition to this program, we are trying to make a 
difference in people's lives, where they may lose their homes and their 
life's possessions. That is certainly one I would like to see us 
account for, but we are facing a situation today where I have to try 
and move this along. But I would hope that on a whole host of these 
issues, where we are talking about deficit financing or financing 
things without paying for them, that we would apply the same standards 
so we have this kind of uniformity to our concerns. And certainly, the 
$2 billion every week, the $12 billion every month, the $24 to $30 
billion every 2 months is another example of what happens when we ask 
the American taxpayer in the future to assume a responsibility. It is a 
legitimate point the Senator raises. I identify with it. In my tenure, 
I have tried to do something about it. Hopefully, we have done that, 
Senator Shelby and I.
  I appreciate his kind comments about our effort in this bill to put 
this program on the kind of footing that never causes us to come back 
here again under similar circumstances and make a similar request for 
excusing a responsibility that FEMA had to borrow from the Federal 
Government to meet that $17 billion worth of obligations after the 
storms of 2005, which devastated a good part of the country.
  At the appropriate time, we will have a vote on the Senator's motion. 
In the meantime, we have some other amendments that I think are coming. 
I know Senator Nelson and Senator DeMint and others have some 
amendments. I am happy to consider those as soon as they come over.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I want the record to show I voted against the last 
supplemental because it was not paid for. No. 2, it had $27 billion of 
extraneous spending that was not paid for either that was offered by 
the Appropriations Committee. It has to start somewhere. I am OK with 
it starting with me. I don't earmark anything back to Oklahoma. I look 
at every appropriations bill and see if it is wise. So consequently, I 
vote for few appropriations bills because they are not wise, with the 
waste that is in the Federal Government.
  One final point. According to GAO, IGs, and the Congressional 
Research Service, we have $300 billion of waste a year in the Federal 
Government. The Congress didn't do anything about it. We have plenty of 
ways to pay for the war, pay for this, and do other things, if we do 
the hard work of oversight and make the hard choices about prioritizing 
what is important. But we find that very difficult to do as a body. I 
am worried that we find that because we are not thinking long term. We 
are thinking short term.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I made this point about an hour ago. We all 
are familiar with what happens toward the end of the week here. I know 
Members are asking me what time we will be adjourning. That is a 
leadership decision, obviously. But we are required now, under the 
unanimous consent agreement of last evening, that all amendments will 
be considered by the close of business today. As I pointed out earlier, 
that close of business could occur at any point between now and 
midnight. But I suspect most Members are making plans to probably head 
back to their respective States for Mother's Day weekend sometime late 
this afternoon or early evening. If you have amendments on this bill, I 
urge you to come to the floor and offer them. Coming over at 3 o'clock, 
there is no guarantee that you are going to have the opportunity to 
make the case on behalf of the proposal, to the extent you would like.

[[Page S3950]]

  I urge Members on both sides to come to the floor. I appreciate the 
fact that last evening several did make their case, and we are 
scheduling votes for early this afternoon on those matters. In the 
meantime, I would like to line up other votes on these matters so we 
could conclude work on this bill at a reasonable hour this afternoon 
that would allow Members to meet their travel obligations. In the 
absence of that, we may be here until very late this evening, which I 
know will throw a monkey wrench into people's plans. We are here. We 
have been here. We will be here. But we have been in a quorum call 
waiting for Members to come over with their ideas. Coming around 4 or 5 
this afternoon and wondering whether we are going to leave 15 minutes 
later is not going to happen. I urge Members now to be here and make 
their case or let us know that you don't intend to offer the amendment, 
in which case we can clear the decks and get to the few votes we have 
remaining and move on. One way or the other, we are happy to accept.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 4709 Withdrawn

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw amendment No. 4709.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 4707

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the motion to waive.
  Who seeks time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I should begin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me first of all say on this motion by 
our colleague from Oklahoma that Senator Shelby and I, and I believe 
most of us here, don't have a philosophical disagreement. I think we 
all appreciate the fact that we have ourselves in a situation where we 
have massive deficits that are growing by the hour. We have seen it in 
a number of areas. This is one in which we are actually forgiving a 
debt. Obviously, to do so, it is going to require at some point for us 
to pay for this debt and obligation. Senator Coburn says we ought to be 
doing that under the pay-go rules. As someone who has over the years 
authored, in fact, legislation requiring pay-as-you-go proposals, I am 
very sympathetic to this idea. I would like to see us apply it more 
uniformly in many ways.
  Senator Shelby and I are doing our best to take this program, which 
is absolutely critical, and to put it on a sound actuarial footing and, 
by doing so, move us forward. We can't do that if we don't have an 
excuse, if you will, on this debt that is out there today. We have 
raised the cost of premiums to a prohibitive level.
  So I am moving to waive this point of order the Senator from Oklahoma 
is making, with the full understanding that it is a legitimate point he 
is making. But if we are going to succeed with this program and get it 
done, we can't do otherwise. We will be stuck with a program that will 
be far too costly.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support us on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a great choice. We can prove to 
the American people we either really care about the budget or not. This 
violates pay-go rules. We shouldn't send $30 billion to our grandkids. 
We ought to take it from some of the excess we have today.
  I agree Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby have done a good job on this, 
but I don't think our grandchildren ought to pay because we designed a 
program in 1977 and modified it in 1994 and it still doesn't work and 
then have them pay $40 billion. We ought to enforce the pay-go rules, 
and we ought to come up with another way to pay for this money.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the point of order under section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 against 
the Dodd substitute amendment.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yea and nays resulted--yeas 70, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Vitter
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     McConnell
     Pryor
     Sununu
     Thune
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Clinton
     McCain
     Obama
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 70 and the nays are 
26. Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4734

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself and Mr. 
     Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 4734 to amendment No. 
     4707.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide compensation to the citizens of Fernley, Nevada 
              damaged by the failure of the Truckee Canal)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FERNLEY FLOOD COMPENSATION.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Covered person.--The term ``covered person'' means a 
     United States citizen, an alien lawfully admitted for 
     permanent residence, the City of Fernley, Lyon County, a 
     person that is not an individual, or a school district.
       (2) Fernley flood.--The term ``Fernley flood'' means the 
     breach of the Truckee Irrigation Canal on January 5, 2008, 
     and subsequent flooding of the City of Fernley, Nevada.
       (3) Injured party.--The term ``injured party'' means a 
     covered person that suffered damages resulting from the 
     Fernley flood.
       (b) Compensation and Source of Funds.--
       (1) Compensation.--Each injured party shall be eligible to 
     receive from the United States compensation for damages 
     suffered as a result of the Fernley flood.
       (2) Source of funds.--The Director shall compensate each 
     injured party for damages resulting from the Fernley flood 
     from the permanent judgment appropriation under section 1304 
     of title 31, United States Code.
       (c) Insurance and Other Benefits.--The Director shall 
     reduce the amount to be paid

[[Page S3951]]

     to an injured party relating to the Fernley flood by an 
     amount that is equal to the total of insurance benefits 
     (excluding life insurance benefits) or other payments or 
     settlements of any nature relating to the Fernley flood that 
     were paid, or will be paid, to that injured party.
       (d) Acceptance of Award.--The acceptance by a injured party 
     of any payment under this section shall (excluding claims 
     relating to life insurance benefits)--
       (1) be final and conclusive as to any claim of that injured 
     party relating to damages suffered because of the Fernley 
     flood; and
       (2) constitute a complete and full release of all claims of 
     that injured party relating to the Fernley flood against the 
     United States, the State of Nevada, Lyon County, Nevada, the 
     City of Fernley, Nevada, and the Truckee-Carson Irrigation 
     District.
       (e) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director shall promulgate and 
     publish in the Federal Register interim final regulations to 
     carry out this section.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 4715, As Modified

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and I call up amendment No. 4715, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4715, as modified, to amendment 4707.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 11, line 11 after the first period, insert the 
     following:
       ``(h) Use of Maps to Establish Rates for Certain 
     Counties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Until such time as the updating of flood 
     insurance rate maps under section 19 of the Flood 
     Modernization Act of 2007 is completed (as determined by the 
     district engineer) for all areas located in the St. Louis 
     District of the Mississippi Valley Division of the Corps of 
     Engineers, the Director shall not--
       ``(A) adjust the chargeable premium rate for flood 
     insurance under this title for any type or class of property 
     located in an area in that District; and
       ``(B) require the purchase of flood insurance for any type 
     or class of property located in an area in that District not 
     subject to such purchase requirement prior to the updating of 
     such national flood insurance program rate map.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `area' does not include any area (or 
     subdivision thereof) that has chosen not to participate in 
     the flood insurance program under this title as of the date 
     of enactment of this subsection.''.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have a window here. I see Senator Thune 
and he has the possibility of offering his amendment. I think Senator 
Boxer wants to express herself on that. She may be on her way over. If 
my colleague from South Dakota is prepared to offer his amendment, or 
talk about it, that would be helpful. Anybody else who has amendments 
who would like to offer them--I see the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Connecticut, how 
many amendments are remaining on this bill, based on what he knows at 
this time?
  Mr. DODD. I am glad the Senator clarified that. We have about five or 
six, based on what I know. There will be five or six votes at the most, 
as of now.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am still trying to determine whether I can successfully 
offer an amendment. I know I have a right to offer it, but whether it 
is successful----
  Mr. DODD. That is the Senator's problem.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a point again to the Senator 
from Connecticut and see if there is any mutual understanding on these 
issues.
  To use one example, we had a city that was completely evacuated in my 
State by a flood 10 years ago--actually 11 years ago now. It was the 
largest evacuation of any city since the Civil War. A city of 50,000 
was completely evacuated because of a flood. In the middle of that 
flood, there was a fire in downtown Grand Forks, ND. A city that was 
flooded and evacuated was on fire.
  In the intervening 10 years, there has been a flood protection plan, 
a very expensive one, $416 million, built to protect that city. The 
residents of that city, I believe, paid 45 percent of the cost of that 
flood protection plan.
  As I read title VII--I believe it is on page 9 of the legislation--
what is being said now is this city that has a 250-year flood plan, 
that is to protect against a 250-year flood, will be told: By the way, 
you residents, yes, you paid a lot of money for flood protection. It is 
blue ribbon, first rate, first class protection against a 250-year 
flood, but we have now decided you have to ante up $1 a day to buy 
flood insurance.
  They are going to ask the question: What is this flood protection we 
paid for? We were told this was blue-ribbon flood protection. I know 
you have a 250-year flood protection levee; now we want you to buy 
flood insurance.
  Is there anything in the legislation that allows FEMA to look at this 
situation, here is a levee that gives 100-year protection, here is a 
levee that gives 250-year protection, and here is one that doesn't give 
any at all? We have different kinds of insurance. Would FEMA be allowed 
to take a look at a new state-of-the-art, blue-ribbon, 250-year flood 
protection device and say those folks don't need to buy flood 
insurance, they just paid a substantial portion of the cost of a 
significant new flood protection device?
  I ask the Senator from Connecticut, what is his intention with 
respect to that provision of the law?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from North 
Dakota. I am familiar with the community. As my colleague will recall, 
at his invitation, I gave the commencement address at the University of 
North Dakota a few years ago and arrived a day or so early. I had an 
opportunity to visit the mayor and actually see the city that went 
through that remarkable devastation of flood and fire, simultaneously, 
in fact, and the rather remarkable recovery and great spirit that 
exists in that community.
  Here is what we are doing. There are those who believe if you have 
any kind of a dike, dam or levee, that you should not have to pay for 
flood insurance. We cannot tolerate that in a sense. We have 130 dams, 
levees, and dikes that are at great risk of one kind or another in 
these residual risk areas. About 25 percent all the claims against the 
flood insurance program come out of these residual risk areas, not the 
coastline. Clearly, having dikes, levees, and dams help.
  The fact is, the reason there is a dike, levee or dam is because it 
is in a residual risk area. Anything made by man or nature, there is no 
guarantee in perpetuity it is going to survive, even the 250 years 
about which we talked. What better example than Louisiana. We spent 
millions of dollars on a system down there that didn't work, 
ultimately. The idea of having someone pay a maximum of $350,000 worth 
of insurance--actually, the average cost is $316 a year. Less than a 
dollar a day for this kind of coverage is something we feel is 
dispersing that risk, bringing the cost in for the program.
  Let me say to my colleague from North Dakota, he makes an interesting 
point. We are, in fact, in discussions with the other members of the 
committee on this very point, where you might be able to prorate, it 
seems to me, some of these costs based on the quality of that dam, dike 
or levee. I cannot subscribe to the notion of eliminating it 
altogether, but certainly when you have a state-of-the-art facility, 
then as a result of that, there is less of a risk. There still is risk. 
So you may bring down the cost of that risk.
  We are negotiating about doing that as a way to recognize those kinds 
of contributions. So there would be some prorating.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand the notion of residual risk, and I think the 
Senator from Connecticut will agree those residual risks are different 
in different circumstances. I am not suggesting if you are behind a 
levee, wherever that levee is, you shouldn't have to buy flood 
insurance. But I am suggesting if you exhausted yourself and your 
community and your region producing a state-of-the-art flood control 
plan and spent a lot of money doing so, including your own money, and 
you are now told you have a 250-year protection, that when somebody 
from FEMA comes in and says, it doesn't matter a bit, it is irrelevant 
you built that, it

[[Page S3952]]

doesn't matter, you are going to be required to purchase what our 
friends from the committee have now enacted--if my colleague from 
Connecticut is saying this legislation either will or, as we might want 
to change it, could allow FEMA to take a look at that brand new 250-
year flood protection plan and say, in this circumstance you have 
minimal requirements----
  Mr. DODD. I think it is a very good idea and suggestion and one about 
which I have not had a chance to get into a long conversation with 
Senator Shelby. I like the concept, the idea.
  Remember this. The insurance program, putting aside whether you think 
the cost is high or low, without the insurance program, and if things 
don't work and you lose your home, there is no program of Federal 
disaster relief that rebuilds your home.
  What the insurance program does for $316 a year is it gives you a 
chance to rebuild your home and the contents you lose. There is no 
disaster relief program the Senator from North Dakota and I have been a 
part of that provides that kind of assistance to homeowners affected by 
natural disaster.

  This insurance program has great value to these people who live in 
these areas. It is a cost but actually has a value. I think the numbers 
ought to be higher than $350,000. I live in a higher cost area. So a 
$250,000 home in my State is less than the median cost of a home. I 
would like to see those values go up again. I presume in North Dakota 
$250,000 may be more a median cost of a home.
  The idea that you are going to get for that $316 a year $350,000 back 
to rebuild that home of yours has value. I think prorating, based on 
the condition of dikes and levees, makes good sense. We will try to 
work on it.
  Mr. DORGAN. We don't have a problem with the merit and value of flood 
insurance. I think the program makes sense. We have an agreement, as it 
is currently written, and I hope we can perhaps modify it in a 
managers' amendment. On page 9, section 7, it appears to me FEMA would 
be required to come in and say: Ah ha, you are behind that levee; 
therefore, you must purchase this insurance. I hope what the Senator 
from Connecticut intends with this is that it be risk based because 
there will clearly be a different risk attached to someone who has a 
brand new levee system that they exhausted themselves paying for over 
the last 10 years. It is all done. They cut the ribbon, they 
celebrated, they had the town band out, in fact, but they are told by 
FEMA: That is not a factor.
  Mr. DODD. I think we are on the same page.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let's see if we can craft something between now and the 
end of the day. I would not offer the amendment; the Senator from 
Connecticut will offer it, and it represents our combined views about 
this issue.
  I appreciate my colleague having this colloquy.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. It is a very good suggestion; once 
again, a very good suggestion.
  The door is open for business. If anyone has amendments, we would 
like to have Members come over and offer the amendment. In the 
meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. DODD. Yes, I withhold.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Oil and Gas Prices

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to make a point. I don't know yet 
if there is a markup this afternoon of the Appropriations full 
committee. If there is, I am intending to offer a couple amendments to 
that markup. I wish to describe one amendment that I plan to offer, and 
that relates to dealing with oil and gas prices.
  The price of oil is way beyond that which is justifiable by simple 
supply and demand conditions. It is bouncing around like a yo-yo up 
around $120 and as much as $124 a barrel of oil. There is no 
justification in the supply and demand of oil for that price. It is 
damaging to the economy, and it hurts a series of industries in this 
country. The airline industry and trucking industry are just two 
examples. It hurts every American as they pull up to the gas pump to 
figure out where they are going to get the money to pay for the 
gasoline price.
  What is happening? At the moment, a couple of things are happening.
  One, we have an unbelievable bubble of speculation in the futures 
market. I have people say to me: That is not true. It is true. It is 
hard to justify the current price of oil given the physical elements of 
the market today. What we have is people entering the commodities 
futures market that have no interest in buying oil. They buy oil and 
sell it. They never take possession of it. They buy what they will 
never get from people who never had it. They are making money on both 
sides of the transaction because they are waging. To put it plainly, 
they are gambling. That is speculation. We have an orgy of speculation 
on the futures market.
  We had people testify in the Senate and House that it adds $20 to $30 
to a barrel of oil. Should we sit back and watch a bubble develop and 
say, ``Whatever the consequences, that is fine?'' The answer is no, of 
course, we should not. Buy stock on margin and it will cost you a 50-
percent margin requirement. If you want to buy oil on margin in the 
futures market for crude oil, then you pay 5 to 7 percent.
  We have hedge funds neck deep in the futures market. We have 
investment banks neck deep in the futures market. Are they are oil 
experts? Do they want to own oil? No, they want to speculate on oil and 
make money.
  The fact is, it is damaging this country's economy. We ought to wring 
that speculation out of those commodity markets. We ought to be 
increasing margin requirements. I know it is hard to do, but we ought 
to do that. When we see this kind of speculation damaging our country 
by driving up oil prices and driving up gasoline prices, we ought to do 
something about it.
  Second, we are now putting oil underground right now. We are taking 
sweet light crude oil off the Gulf of Mexico and sticking it 
underground in something called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I 
think it is fine to have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if we run into 
trouble. It is nice to have an oil reserve. Yet, that reserve is 97 
percent full. Still, this administration is taking up to 70,000 barrels 
a day, every single day, and sticking it underground.
  They say it doesn't affect the price. Of course, it affects the 
price. We had testimony before the Energy Committee that because it is 
a much more valuable subset of oil, called sweet light crude, that it 
has as much as a 10-percent impact on the price of oil and gasoline. 
So, of course, it affects the price.

  I think it is nuts for this country to be taking $124 barrel of oil 
and saying let's stick that underground and save it for a rainy day. I 
tell you what, it is a rainy day these days when you have to pay this 
price at the pump. It is a rainy day these days when you see four, five 
airlines go belly up because they cannot afford the fuel. It is a rainy 
day these days when truckers say that we have to park the truck because 
we can't afford the fuel. An entire industry is at risk.
  The fact is, we have to do something about it. I mentioned two 
things, both of which are tangible and real and both of which are 
causing this increase, at least a significant part, in my judgment, in 
the increase in the ramp-up of the price of oil and gasoline.
  The President believes that there is not much anybody can do in the 
near term. This is not a time to wring our hands, mop our brow, gnash 
our teeth and say there is not much anybody can do. This is a time for 
us to try to figure out what is happening and try to respond to it. It 
is doing great damage to our economy.
  In the longer term, I believe that there are things we need to do. We 
are unbelievably dependent on overseas oil. We are unbelievably 
dependent on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Venezuela. Sixty percent of 
our oil comes from offshore. As I described before and others have, we 
stick straws in this planet and suck oil out of the planet. Every day 
we suck out 85 million barrels of oil. One-fourth of that has to be 
used in this country.
  Let me say that again. The appetite of oil is this: One-fourth of all 
the oil we pull out of the planet every day is used in this little 
place called the United States of America. Sixty percent we get from 
outside our country. Seventy percent of it is used by vehicles. We have 
a lot to do.

[[Page S3953]]

  After 32 years, we finally mandated an increase of 10 miles per 
gallon in 10 years on a range of vehicles. We also need to produce 
more. I and three others in this Chamber got the law changed to allow 
us to go into lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico and finally produce more 
oil and gas. Frankly, we ought to open up more of the Gulf of Mexico. 
That is the greatest potential reserve on the Outer Continental Shelf. 
I and three others introduced the legislation and got it passed and 
opened up lease 181. If you look at the Gulf of Mexico, California, and 
Alaska, and the East Coast, the greatest potential reserves are in the 
Gulf of Mexico.
  We need to conserve more and produce more. We need greater efficiency 
for all we use, and we especially need to move into renewables.
  I understand we have to do all of that. At the moment and in the 
short run, we have to take specific steps that will put downward 
pressure on prices. John Maynard Keynes said, ``In the long we are all 
dead.'' That is an economist talking. We can talk about the long run 
here, but let's also talk about the short run right now.
  What can we do to address something that most Americans understand is 
a very serious problem? The issue is price of gasoline? I am just 
saying this, and there are those who disagree with me. Look at the 
commodities market and look at this orgy of speculation. This is a 
bubble. Wouldn't it be nice if someone had looked at that bubble as it 
built with respect to home mortgages and home prices? We have seen a 
lot of bubbles. We have seen the tech bubble. We have seen the bubble 
in home prices. Every bubble bursts. This one will. But in the 
meantime, how many additional casualties will we see on the side of the 
road? Look at what's happening with American families, American 
business, American industries. How many casualties? The big integrated 
oil companies go to the bank with a ``permagrin.'' They can't stop 
smiling because they are depositing our money in their bank accounts. 
But it is not only the big integrated oil companies, it is the OPEC 
countries. They are going to the bank everyday with our money because 
we recycle this money to provide for a bank account for the Saudis and 
others just like we do for the major integrated companies.
  I do not think there is any justification for this price. This 
Congress is prepared to act. Senator Reid and others have joined 
together, and I am a part of it to deal with this issue of putting oil 
underground. We are going to stop it in its tracks. I introduced a 
bipartisan bill a couple of months ago to suspension the filling of the 
SPR. Our entire caucus is also behind the proposition. We believe it's 
time to begin to wring this speculation out of the futures markets and 
stop this insidious rise in oil prices.
  While we need to move beyond oil, right now we still need oil. There 
is no question about that. We need to find more, and we need to use 
less, to the extent we can. That means more production and more 
conservation. In the meantime, when markets do not work and people are 
doing things that have no common sense at all, such as putting oil 
underground when oil is $120 a barrel, then this Congress has a 
responsibility to act. We need to get things straight. Let's set things 
right; let's stand up here on the side of the American consumer and on 
the side of American businesses who need this energy.
  One final point: In yesterday's The Wall Street Journal, they wrote 
one of those editorials that must make those folks grin like Cheshire 
cats as they sit there with their gray suits on, behind horn-rimmed 
glasses, deciding what to write next in the Wall Street Journal about 
the Senate. Did you see what those folks did in the Senate--Dorgan, 
Schumer, and others? What they did is said we should put pressure on 
the Saudis because the Saudis want to buy precision weapons for their 
own security from us. We should say that maybe they need to be 
producing more oil. Of course, the Wall Street Journal had an 
apoplectic seizure over that.
  Here are the points. The Saudis are producing 800,000 barrels a day 
less than they did 2 years ago. It is not lost on them what this is 
doing to price. It is not lost on them, or it should not be, what this 
is doing to our country. They are pumping 800,000 barrels a day less 
than they did 2 years ago and then they say to this administration we 
wish to buy sophisticated weapons from the United States because we 
have our strategic military concerns in our region. Maybe we say to the 
Saudis: The United States has strategic concerns in our country as 
well. Why are you pumping 800,000 barrels a day less when you could be 
putting more oil on the world market? Partnerships work both ways.
  I am very concerned about arming the Middle East. I am going to speak 
about that at some point later. But our point to the Saudis and the 
point in the Middle East was simple. If you are pumping 800,000 barrels 
a day less per day and then demand weapons from the U.S. without 
reciprocating then it's not going to work.
  That is a long statement to say it is time for us to act. Senator 
Reid, Senator Klobuchar, other Members and I have decided we are not 
going to sit here like potted plants. When something is happening in 
the futures market and when something is happening to take oil off the 
supply to put it in the SPR, then we have a responsibility to act. I 
intend to be a significant part of that.
  If we have the markup in the Senate Appropriations Committee this 
afternoon, I intend to offer a couple amendments at that appropriations 
markup. Unfortunately, I understand it may well be canceled this 
afternoon.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank Senator Dorgan for his leadership in this 
area. He was ahead of this. Before the crisis got to the pocketbooks of 
Americans, he was predicting what has happened. He has been proactive 
about this.
  But can the Senator talk about the strategic reserve, the petroleum 
reserve? I know there is some bipartisan support for doing this, is 
that correct, for stopping putting our oil there?
  Mr. DORGAN. It is the case. I have introduced legislation here in the 
Senate. Fifty-one Democratic Senators, including Senator Obama and 
Senator Clinton, signed a letter to the President saying stop sticking 
oil underground for the rest of 2008. Also, a couple of weeks ago our 
Republican colleague, Senator Hutchison, led on a letter to the White 
House saying, yes, we agree. We ought to stop sticking oil underground 
at this time. There were 15 Republicans who sent that letter. Further, 
Senator McCain said it was nuts to stick oil in the SPR while on the 
campaign trail. When you add that up, that is 67 people in the Senate. 
That is a veto-proof majority.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. How much is it expected to save? Is there an immediate 
impact we might expect in savings per gallon?
  Mr. DORGAN. There are several views on that, but we know it is a lot 
more than zero like the Administration assumes. We don't know exactly 
what the savings would be. We do know this: If today 70,000 barrels, 
especially the sweet light crude--which is the most valuable subset of 
oil--were put back into this marketplace, then people have testified in 
the Senate that it could impact as much as 10 percent of the price of 
oil and gasoline.
  We know it would impact the price. Some say 70,000 barrels is not 
very much given what is used in a day. It is true, 70,000 barrels is 
not all that much, but this is sweet light crude which is very 
different. We had an economist named Dr. Verleger testify before the 
Energy Committee and make that very point.
  This is a more important point. There are plenty of Members of the 
Senate who have now joined on this.
  I was just informed the markup starting at 2 this afternoon has been 
canceled. This is where I was going to offer this amendment, so the 
amendment I expect to be able to offer will now wait until next week. 
We will get this done. We cannot sit around and allow things to happen. 
We have to make things happen, good things happen for this country and 
for the economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            RENEWABLE ENERGY

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am going to speak on another topic

[[Page S3954]]

which is somewhat related to Israel's 60th anniversary. It is about 
energy security and climate change and the potential economic value to 
our country. The way it is related to Israel is this. As we look at the 
fact that we spend $600,000 a minute on foreign oil, much of that money 
going to countries that we might not want to be doing business with if 
we had a choice, Israel, like our country, is very interested in 
developing alternative energy. If we can cut our dependence on foreign 
oil, we will enhance our own security as well as Israel's security.
  Last winter I visited the new headquarters of Great River Energy, one 
of the biggest electric co-ops in Minnesota, to talk about renewable 
energy.
  Great River is building a new energy-efficient office complex in the 
suburb of Maple Grove, MN. But what I remember best about that day is 
the huge wind turbine that towers over the building, and the way its 
blades were rotating in the January winds. This is literally in the 
middle of a suburban shopping mall.
  It might seem odd that a company would put up a wind turbine in the 
suburbs of Minneapolis--in fact, it has become a landmark for the 
commuters who drive past each morning and evening.
  It might seem even more odd that an electric utility would erect that 
symbol of green energy in front of its new headquarters.
  But what Great River understands--and what that wind turbine 
symbolizes--is that clean, alternative energy represents a huge 
opportunity for our country.
  Great River is not alone among utility companies that can see the 
green future before us. Xcel Energy, based in the Twin Cities and in 
Colorado, already gets more than 10 percent of its power from wind. It 
has pledged to generate 30 percent of its electricity from renewable 
sources by 2025 and reduce its carbon emissions by more than 20 percent 
over the next 12 years. In fact, Xcel was supportive of our state 
legislature which put in place one of the most aggressive renewable 
standards in the country.
  Xcel's CEO, Dick Kelly, recently said that Xcel intends ``to push it 
to the max. But it would be nice to have a policy at the federal level, 
a national policy, so we all know what the rules are.''
  As we prepare to debate the landmark climate-change legislation that 
will come before us in a few weeks, I hope we keep these two examples 
in mind.
  Because here is what they show us: Global climate change represents a 
world of challenges. But it also represents a universe of 
opportunities--for American business to develop new products and 
technologies, for consumers to save money on their energy bills, for 
America to achieve greater energy security and independence.
  First, there is opportunity for consumers.
  The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that American 
motorists were able to cut their gasoline consumption by almost 15 
percent annually as a result of the last fuel-economy standards that 
Congress enacted in 1975--standards that also reduced the emission of 
greenhouse gases. The new CAFE standards that we adopted in December 
will not only further slow the emission of greenhouse gases--but they 
will also save the average consumer as much as $1,000 a year at the gas 
pump.

  We are developing the technology to take these efficiencies even 
further and they make savings at the pump even greater. The 
opportunities lie not only in producing cheaper and renewable sources 
of fuel, including cellulosic ethanol, the next generation of ethanol 
but in making our vehicles more efficient. Increased efficiency is 
perhaps our greatest opportunity to stretch a family's energy dollar--
$4-a-gallon stretches a lot further when it will take your car 50 miles 
instead of 25. The next generation of hybrid cars, as well as the 
development of cars powered by other renewable sources such as 
electricity or hydrogen, open a new world of opportunity for the 
American consumer; an opportunity for innovative American companies to 
be at the forefront; an opportunity to reduce our environmental impact 
while reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
  Then there is electricity. If every American household replaced just 
one light bulb with a compact fluorescent bulb, the country would save 
$600 million in annual energy costs, the nation would save enough 
energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year--and we would 
prevent greenhouse gas pollution equivalent to the emissions of more 
than 800,000 cars,
  There is also opportunity for business.
  The Safeway grocery chain decided recently to install solar panels on 
23 of its supermarkets to provide energy for heating, cooling and 
electricity.
  They estimate that they will cut their electricity costs by 20 
percent and that they will remove 12.6 million pounds of carbon 
emissions every year.
  General Electric, one of the biggest corporations in the world, has 
moved aggressively into what it calls ``green products'' such as 
energy-efficient appliances and components for wind turbines. Its sales 
of green products have doubled since 2005 to $12 billion, and the 
company aims for $20 billion of green products sales by 2010. This is 
our ``building a fridge to the next century.''
  In my home State, the State of Minnesota, in the town of Starbuck, 
there is a small company called Solar Skies. There are just 10 
employees at Solar Skies, but those 10 people decided to take a risk, 
to leave their jobs, and to go to work for a place that makes solar 
panels. Those employees are devoted to the idea that we can create a 
new energy future for all of us. They believe in their work and are now 
reaping the benefits of the opportunity created by this new energy 
economy. When I visited them, they actually had me jump up and down on 
the solar panels to show that they could withstand hail damage; I am 
sure they would welcome the Presiding Officer from the great State of 
Montana to do that as well.
  Clearly, the people at Solar Skies are not the only ones to 
understand the opportunity. If you look at the leading indicator of 
American investment, venture capital, you will find that it reached 
$2.9 billion of investments in green technologies last year, up 78 
percent from a year earlier.
  Clean technology is not only the fastest growing portion of the 
venture capital market, it is now the third largest category, behind 
only biotech and computer software.
  So today we have to ask ourselves, Does the United States want to be 
a leader in creating the new green technologies and the new green 
industries of the future or are we going to sit back and watch the 
opportunities pass us by? I am determined that we will be a leader.
  As you know, this is my third speech on climate change every week up 
through the debate. The first was an overview, and the second one was 
about leadership and the need to push this country forward, to be a 
world leader on this climate change issue and on technology. Today, we 
are talking about the possibilities of new jobs for this country, for 
our country as a whole.
  This is also an opportunity to create an energy-secure future, to 
free our country from its dependence on foreign oil. We spend literally 
$41 million every hour on imported oil, and much of the money simply 
goes back to countries that are not our friends.
  The Council on Foreign Relations recently studied this question, and 
they said:

       America's dependence on imported energy increases its 
     strategic vulnerability and constrains its ability to pursue 
     foreign policy and national security objectives. The lack of 
     sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. 
     foreign policy and U.S. national security.

  But the report also concluded that a determined conservation effort 
could:

       Unleash remarkable forces for innovation in this country. 
     Entrepreneurs are seeking new ideas for products and services 
     such as batteries, advanced oil and gas exploration and 
     production techniques and biofuels.

  By reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases through conservation 
and new technology, we can reduce our use of imported oil and leave our 
country in a stronger international position. This is not only wishful 
thinking. It has worked before. Conservation initiatives enacted after 
the first OPEC oil embargo reduced the oil intensity of our economy, 
saving our country the equivalent of 15 million barrels of oil

[[Page S3955]]

per day. Today, a comprehensive policy to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, including higher fuel standards for cars and trucks, 
development of clean alternative sources of energy, and better energy 
efficiency standards for buildings, can do this.
  Look at the Chevy Volt. Two years from now, the Chevy Volt will be 
available for purchase. You can plug your car in, you go 30 miles, and 
then it transitions over to fuel. In other words, if you are driving 
through Montana or Minnesota and it is 10 below zero, you are done with 
your 30 miles, and it is not going to stop, it transitions over to 
fuel, and hopefully that will be alternative fuel.
  We can cut our oil consumption by as much as 35 percent by 2030--more 
than offsetting the oil we import from OPEC today--just by putting in 
place these higher fuel economy standards for cars and developing clean 
alternative sources of energy and better energy efficiency standards 
for our buildings.
  A study last year by the McKinsey Global Institute concluded that 
projected electricity consumption in American homes in 2020 can be 
reduced by more than one-third if high-efficiency measures were adopted 
nationwide, including lightbulbs, water heaters, kitchen appliances, 
room-insulation materials, and standby power. But here is what is 
interesting. The report warned that market forces alone, even with 
higher energy prices, would not be sufficient to make the most of these 
energy-efficient technologies. What is required is leadership from 
Washington, leadership from this Chamber, leadership from the White 
House, a new national strategy to wean the country from fossil fuels, 
to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, and to set the stage for 
this new energy economy.
  This is the heart of the climate change legislation that will come 
before us in the next few weeks: a strategy to cap and reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, then use a cap-and-trade system so that the 
private sector achieves these reductions in the most efficient way 
possible. The market is ready, but it needs leadership from us.
  Last year, Minnesota's own Tom Friedman had a cover story in the New 
York Times Magazine, ``The Power of Green.'' It should be required 
reading for anyone who cares not only about the future of our 
environment but also our economic future and our future national 
security.
  In the article, Tom Friedman asks: How do our kids compete in a 
flatter world? How do they thrive in a warmer world? How do they 
survive in a more dangerous world?
  The answer is, in making the most of the economic and technological 
opportunities to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and the 
greenhouse gas pollution that comes from it, we do better.
  Friedman said that clean energy technology is going to be the next 
great global industry. He went on to propose the Green New Deal, one in 
which the Government's role is not funding projects, as in the original 
New Deal, but seeding basic research, providing loan guarantees where 
needed, and setting standards and incentives and taxes that will spawn 
all kinds of new technologies.
  We are trying to do that right now with the wind tax credit, the 
renewable tax credit, for geothermal and for solar and other kinds of 
renewable energy. I believe this is not all about cutting back or 
hunkering down, it is about seizing opportunity.
  In his words:

       It's about creating a new cornucopia of abundance for the 
     next generation by inventing a whole new industry. It's about 
     getting our best brains out of hedge funds and into 
     innovations that will not only give us the clean-power 
     industrial assets to preserve our American dream, but also 
     give us the technologies that billions of others need to 
     realize their own dreams without destroying the planet.
       It is about making America safer by breaking our addiction 
     to a fuel that is powering regimes deeply hostile to our 
     values. And, finally, it is about making America the global 
     environmental leader, instead of a laggard.

  Oponents of the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill say we cannot do 
this because it will somehow cripple our economy. I say we cannot 
afford not to enact climate change legislation because global warming 
will cripple our economy.
  A recent economic study commissioned by the Pew Center on Global 
Climate Change concludes that, under at least one scenario, higher 
temperatures could cut more than $100 billion off American economic 
output over the next century, largely because of damage to agriculture, 
forestry, and commercial fishing.
  Now, look at this. The temperature in the last 100 years is up 1 
degree. That does not sound like much until you realize it has gone up 
only 5 degrees since the height of the ice age. Our EPA, using data, 
well-founded scientific data, projects that temperatures in the next 
century will go up 3 to 8 degrees.
  So this idea that we can lose $100 billion off American economic 
output over the next century is not some farflung idea, it is based on 
scientific research. Unless we can confront this problem and confront 
it now, those costs will simply go higher and higher. We will also miss 
the opportunity for new jobs, for new products and technologies, new 
consumer savings, and a more responsible climate change policy. It is a 
big challenge. But meeting challenges is what our country does best. 
Just look at history.
  When the space race began with the launch of sputnik in October 1957, 
American citizens listened with indignation and fear as the first 
manmade satellite, a Soviet satellite, beeped its way around the Earth. 
Yet it inspired our Nation and its universities to make a historic 
investment in math and science education. Within a decade, our country 
tripled the number of science and engineering Ph.D.s--tripled them.
  In 1961, President Kennedy issued a challenge to our Nation: Put a 
man on the Moon by the end of the decade. We answered the call. On July 
20, 1969, what seemed impossible became reality when Neil Armstrong 
took that giant leap for mankind.
  But the space program was not only a success because we put a man on 
the Moon before the Soviets, it also spurred countless other 
innovations in industry. I love saying this in front of our pages 
because I think they were not born when this happened. To them, this is 
commonplace, but back then we did not have these things. This is what 
it has spurred. It spurred industries and innovations such as weather 
satellites, solar technology, digital wristwatches, ultrasound 
machines, laser surgery, infrared medical thermometers, programmable 
pacemakers, satellite TV broadcasts, high-density batteries, high-speed 
long distance telephone service, automatic insulin pumps, CAT scans, 
radiation-blocking sunglasses, GPS devices, and the little chocolate 
space sticks my family would take when we went on camping trips in the 
1970s. That all came out because we had a President who said we have a 
national goal, we are all part of the same Nation, and we are going to 
reach the goal. We can do the same thing with climate change and energy 
independence.
  Today, it is not a Russian satellite streaming across our skies that 
should galvanize our Nation into action. It is the multiplying 
smokestacks in China, it is the receding glaciers in Greenland and 
Antarctica, and it is the rapidly rising global temperatures, and it is 
being leapfrogged by countries like Brazil that are now fuel 
independent because their Government put in place a policy for 
alternative biofuels.
  But just as sputnik sparked a new age of prosperity and opportunity, 
these trends can lead to opportunities for the strengthening of our 
economy and renewing our leadership in the world. In doing so, we will 
create a better economy for the next generation by developing whole new 
industries, which will not only help us preserve our American 
leadership in the world but will also help to deploy technologies 
billions of others need to realize their own dreams without destroying 
the planet.
  I believe we have the responsibility to confront a grave threat to 
our environment and our health. I believe we have the opportunity to do 
a great service to the people of this country. I believe that before us 
now we have the opportunity to make our economy stronger and more 
efficient. But it is rare that we have the opportunity to accomplish 
all three at once, to accomplish so many good things in one bold 
stroke. This rare opportunity will come before us in a few weeks when 
we take up the landmark Lieberman-Warner bill to address the challenge 
of

[[Page S3956]]

global climate change. We must seize that opportunity.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today, the 
Senate resume the DeMint amendment No. 4710, as modified, and that 
there be 20 minutes of debate prior to a vote with respect to the 
amendment, with 15 minutes under the control of Senator DeMint and 5 
minutes under the control of Senator Dodd or his designee; that no 
amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and that upon 
the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in 
relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentarian.


                                 Trade

  Mr. President, for the last year, 15 months, 16 months, or so, as I 
have traveled throughout my home State of Ohio, I have held 95 or so 
roundtables with small business owners, entrepreneurs, workers, 
community leaders, family farmers, educators, and everywhere I go I 
hear variations of the same story--about plants that have closed and 
left for Mexico or China, and workers, often in their fifties and 
sixties, who have few alternatives.
  Manufacturing has been devastated over the past 5 years. Ohio has 
lost upwards of 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001, and this 
administration has been largely indifferent.
  One of these roundtables was held in Tiffin, OH, a small 
manufacturing city of about 20,000 people, an hour or so from Toledo. A 
company well known, American Standard, a company that makes plumbing 
equipment, was bought out by an investment banking firm from Boston in 
November. In December, they notified the workers they were going to 
shut down the plant and move its production elsewhere.
  A couple hundred workers lost their jobs, many of them lost big 
chunks of their pension, and some of them lost their health care. Yet 
the investors who came in and bought American Standard did, of course, 
very well.
  Today, Ohio and its neighbors feel this problem of plant shutdowns, 
what it means not just to the workers and their families, but what it 
means to the communities as it relates to police protection and fire 
protection and teachers, as these communities are badly hurt, 
particularly smaller cities, and they simply cannot afford to hire as 
many police and firemen and teachers.
  Ohio and its neighbors feel this problem most acutely, but it is the 
Nation's problem. Our economy cannot prosper unless we make and sell 
goods as well as services. Yet for the past several years, much of our 
Nation's greatest engineering prowess has not gone to Toledo or Dayton 
or Youngstown but, instead, to Wall Street.
  Unfortunately, traditional manufacturing has declined as a share of 
our economy, while the manufacture of financial products has become 
increasingly important.
  When I was elected to Congress in 1992, our trade deficit was $38 
billion--$38 billion a decade and a half ago. Today, it exceeds $800 
billion. With oil reaching $121 per barrel, and perhaps higher soon, 
the trade deficit will likely only increase in the years ahead.
  Leading up to the Ohio Presidential primary in March, the media 
focused on NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. In Ohio, 
when we talk about NAFTA, we mean our overall trade policy, be it with 
Mexico and Canada, or China, or Central America. But the media, of 
course, hears only the word ``protectionism.'' When you think about it, 
that is a pretty interesting choice of words. On the one side you have 
proponents of free trade, while on the other side you have what many 
papers label as ``protectionists.''
  Those of us in favor of fair trade are, indeed, trying to protect 
what we believe is important. We would like to protect the labor 
standards our country has fought so hard to establish over many 
decades. We would like to help our trading partners, the developing 
world, to improve their labor standards. We would like to protect 
consumers in this country from defective and even dangerous products. 
We would like to protect our children from toys covered with lead paint 
and our hospital patients from tainted blood products. We would like to 
protect the ability of our manufacturers to compete against foreign 
companies without having to overcome trade barriers such as currency 
manipulation.
  So, yes, there are things I would like to protect. But so-called free 
traders are interested in protecting their interests, as well. They 
would like to protect their beef from imports. They would like to 
protect pharmaceutical companies, as they do. They would like to 
protect financial services. In fact, trade agreements of recent years 
basically are chock full of protections--protections for the financial 
service industries, protections for the pharmaceutical industry, 
protections for big oil.
  In fact, NAFTA--what I hold in my hand is not the actual NAFTA trade 
agreement but NAFTA was about this size. NAFTA contained hundreds of 
pages of protections--protections in areas that go way beyond tariffs 
on goods. It is similar with the Colombia trade agreement; it is also 
about this size. If they were free-trade agreements, you could have 
written them on about this many pages: five, six pages. All you would 
need is a tariff schedule--a schedule of tariffs we were going to 
reduce or eliminate. But, instead, NAFTA and the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement and these others are this big. Do you know why?
  It is not just the tariff schedules. They also have protections for 
the drug industries, protections for the banks, protections for the oil 
industry, protections for all kinds of corporate interests in every one 
of these trade agreements. That is why when we talk about protections, 
let's be fair. Yes, to be sure, I want to protect workers. I want to 
protect communities such as Tiffin, OH. I want to protect Sandusky and 
protect Lorain and protect Springfield and protect Zanesville. I want 
to make sure those communities are not devastated by these trade 
agreements that have all kinds of protections for the largest corporate 
interests but very little for the environment, even less for workers, 
and even less still to protect our food supply and our toy supply for 
our children.
  We need to recast this debate. Those of us who want to change the 
rules are not protectionists, in spite of what every elitist newspaper 
from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times and everything in 
between likes to say. Those of us who want to enforce trade laws and 
defend against bumping Chinese steel products are not protectionists. 
Those who want safe ingredients in pharmaceuticals we import are not 
protectionists. Those who want to make sure our children's toys coming 
from China--after our toy companies outsource jobs, push the Chinese 
subcontractors to cut costs. They cut costs by putting lead-based paint 
on toys because it is cheaper, it is easier to apply, it is shinier, it 
dries faster. Yet then these products, these toys come into the United 
States, and the Bush administration has weakened consumer protection 
laws and cut the number of inspectors so, because of this trade policy, 
this protectionist, protect-industry-at-all-costs trade policy, we have 
these tainted toys entering the bedrooms of too many of our children.
  Trade is not just about exchanging goods between countries. Trade, 
when done right, is about lifting workers in the United States and 
lifting workers abroad out of poverty. It is about creating new 
industry. It is about creating new business. It is about creating new 
jobs. It is about ensuring strong and thriving economies for all 
parties involved.
  Fair trade products--for example, coffee, tea, bananas, flowers--
products once relegated to specialty shelves in health food stores have 
now found their way into mainstream America.
  Costco and McDonalds have begun to promote fair trade. That is fair 
trade

[[Page S3957]]

where workers share in some of the profits they produce for their 
employers. They know it means quality products and good business sense 
at home. In the coffee fields of Nicaragua, fair trade products mean a 
bright future for tens of thousands of young girls--girls who often 
would not have been able to go to school, but they are able to because 
their parents--coffee farmers in the case of Nicaragua--are making an 
income that gives them enough, sometimes more than $1 a pound, as 
opposed to coffee that is not fair trade where maybe they get only half 
that. The kids of those workers do not get to go to school.
  Fair trade products mean that farmers in developing nations earn two 
to three times more for their products, and those children, as I said, 
can get an education.
  Fair trade products mean workers on flower farms across Latin America 
will be free from poisonous pesticides that cause death and birth 
defects.
  Fair trade products mean that workers in developing nations will earn 
more and be able to buy more from us--the whole point of trade. That 
means, obviously, increased exports for U.S. businesses.
  Fair trade means trade--and more of it--but with a very different set 
of rules, not this kind of protectionism to protect the drug companies 
and the oil industry and the insurance industry and the financial 
services, but trade agreements with a different set of rules that help 
lift up people, both in the developing world and in this country.
  Proponents of the same failed trade policies of the last 15 years 
need to stop selling the trade deal with Colombia, for example, as a 
path to a stronger economy.
  NAFTA sent 19 million more Mexicans below the poverty line. Today, 
there are 19 million more Mexicans living below the poverty line than 
in 1993, since NAFTA. CAFTA has failed--the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement--to create the thriving middle class in Central America that 
proponents promised.
  The Colombia Free Trade Agreement, as written, will produce the same 
results: more poverty abroad, more lost U.S. jobs, more small 
businesses in this country closing up shop.
  The first President Bush said each billion dollars--listen to this--
each billion dollars of our trade surplus or deficit translates into 
13,000 jobs. A billion-dollar trade surplus creates 13,000 jobs. A 
billion-dollar trade deficit costs 13,000 jobs. That is what the first 
President Bush said. That was back when the trade deficit was $20 
billion, $30 billion, $40 billion. Again, think about that: 13,000 jobs 
for a billion-dollar trade deficit or surplus.
  Today, the trade deficit exceeds $800 billion. Just do the math. The 
cost in jobs of this enormous increase in our trade deficit is 
staggering.
  It is not surprising that voters in my State see bad trade deals as a 
major factor in the destruction of our manufacturing base. They know 
our economy and they know their interests are undermined by that 
exploding trade deficit. They know Ohio's problems are Colorado's 
problems and Montana's problems and Massachusetts' problems. They know 
for the past three decades the historical link between rising 
productivity and rising wages has been severed.
  For most of my life--well, half of my life; the first 25 or 30 years 
of my life--in this country, when workers were more productive, their 
wages went up. If I had a chart, you could see that. We could map 
productivity, and we could map wages. In this country, for decades and 
decades and decades, this created the middle class. This is what made 
us a successful economy and a successful democratic capitalist 
country--that productivity and wages would almost be parallel.
  Today, particularly in the last decade, that connection has 
absolutely been severed. That has been the problem in many ways with 
our economy. Wages have been flat, profits have been up, executive 
salaries have exploded, and the middle class has struggled mightily.
  Our country has entered a period where income inequality is at the 
highest level in 70 years. Now is the time to be asking the right 
questions. It is time to end the name calling and have a real debate 
about trade. We are at a critical juncture in our Nation's history. It 
serves both sides of the trade debate to remember that U.S. trade 
policy is a tool. It is not a fairy godmother. It should not be used to 
temporarily pump up well-connected industries--as trade policy often 
is; hence, all the protections--nor should it be used to tamp down 
competitive forces.
  Our trade policy must promote competition, build on the progress our 
Nation has made, and promote our Nation's economic and strategic 
objectives rather than flouting them.
  Ultimately, it will be ingenuity and sweat equity--we know that--that 
enables our country to thrive in the global marketplace. Like every 
country, we will have to work harder and smarter to win every contract 
and every sale. But it is the role of governments to ensure the rules 
for that contest are fair and that the interests of everyone--not just 
those we protect in our trade agreements--to ensure that everyone has a 
stake and everyone is served by our trade policy.
  Our Government has not done that. Our trade deficit has ballooned, 
our manufacturing sector is faltering, and real wages are falling. The 
last thing we need is more business as usual. No more NAFTAs, no more 
CAFTAs, no more Colombia trade agreements. Business as usual has not 
worked. The status quo is not working. Again, 15\1/2\ years ago, the 
trade deficit was $38 billion; today, it is $800 billion.
  We need to decide what our economic goals will be and how we achieve 
them. If we do not, we will wake up to find we have left a sorry legacy 
to our Nation, to our communities, and to our children.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Supplemental Appropriations

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly--not about the bill 
that is pending but about a bill that is somewhere in one of the 
hallways around here, which is the supplemental that is necessary in 
order to fund our troops in the field. That bill was supposed to be 
marked up today in the Appropriations Committee, but, regrettably, for 
reasons which are not totally clear to me but which are reasonably 
apparent--which is that the House has not yet gotten its procedures in 
order--the bill was not marked up, the markup was canceled. It was 
supposed to start at 2 o'clock.
  I certainly hope we will mark up this bill. It is very important this 
bill be subject to regular order. It is a very significant bill, 
obviously, because it involves funding for our troops in the field. It 
is significant also because a lot of other matters which are extraneous 
to the issue of fighting the war and giving our troops the resources 
they need have been added to it on the House side, and even more, as it 
appears, maybe even being added on the Senate side. Thus, the Senate 
ought to have the right to work its will on the bill in the regular 
order, which includes a committee hearing where the various issues are 
aired and amendments can be made. Then when it gets to the floor, it 
should also be subject to amendments so the minority, especially, can 
have some input on the bill. Otherwise, the minority gets written out 
of the process, which is not constructive to the institution, and it 
certainly means we would have to defend our rights and probably oppose 
the bill on those procedural grounds that we have an obligation--that 
we as a minority basically have the sacred right of making a decision 
as to when amendments are to be offered or at least what amendments 
should be voted on.
  Relative to a major piece of legislation such as this, we as the 
minority should have the right to amend it. If we decide not to amend 
it, that is our choice, obviously. But parts of this bill clearly need 
to be subject to amendment, and the minority has a right to be heard on 
that in the Senate, especially because that is the essence of the 
institution. The minority has the ability to participate in the process 
through the amendment process and through the filibuster process.

[[Page S3958]]

  So I wish to speak to some of the amendments I would have offered had 
we met today which I happen to think are very appropriate to this bill 
and which are in the area of jurisdiction for which I have primary 
responsibility. I am the ranking member on the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee which is the committee that deals with foreign relations, 
with the State Department, and with funding foreign activities. There 
are some very important issues which need to be addressed in this bill 
that are not addressed. This bill has a significant amount of money in 
it that will flow through the State Department which deals specifically 
with Iraq, with Afghanistan, and to some extent with other issues such 
as Mexico.
  The first amendment I would have offered would have been language to 
correct what is an inconceivable bureaucratic snafu, in my opinion. 
That is the fact that Nelson Mandela--certainly one of the greatest 
leaders of the 20th century, who epitomized the movement for freedom 
and for equality in Africa but really for the world generally--is not 
allowed in the United States unless he gets a special waiver from the 
Secretary of State which allows him to come into the United States 
because of the fact that he was a member of the African National 
Congress and is a member of the African National Congress, having been 
the head of South Africa as that party rules there; and that party, due 
to the history of that party, has been caught in the bureaucratic 
framework of our laws and is designated as a potential terrorist 
organization, which is really ridiculous on its face.
  The fact that Nelson Mandela cannot come into the United States 
because the organization he led, which delivered freedom and equality 
in South Africa, has gotten this designation due to its prior activity, 
it would be like saying the head of the Likud Party, which a number of 
Prime Ministers of Israel come from, because it at one time was an 
activist organization confronting British rule in Palestine at the 
time, the head of the Likud Party would not be allowed in the United 
States but would have to receive special exemption. It makes no sense.
  So this language, which the Secretary of State totally supports and 
the Secretary of State is equally outraged by, would have to be 
changed. So working with the State Department, we have this language 
together, and we will go over it.
  I understand at 2 o'clock we go into debate on the DeMint amendment, 
and I will be happy to yield the floor as soon as somebody arrives and 
wishes to debate. But I ask unanimous consent to be able to continue 
until such individual arrives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. The second amendment I would have offered would address 
the issue of the war on terror and our involvement with Iraq relative 
to the State of Jordan, which unfortunately has found itself incurring 
dramatic costs as a result of the overflow of the events in Iraq. 
Massive amounts of refugees are coming into Jordan. It has put an 
extraordinary burden on that country, a tremendous ally and friend of 
the United States.
  So I believe we have an obligation as a nation--since we created this 
problem for Jordan in many ways by the activity in Iraq--to support 
Jordan as it tries to address the issues of the refugees. We cannot 
help them with the physical activity of the refugees there, but we can 
give them resources. I was going to increase funding to Jordan to 
accomplish that. I know Senator Inouye is also very interested in this 
issue.
  In addition, money being spent by the State Department in Iraq on 
behalf of reconstruction should be significantly limited; but more 
important than that, any new money we spend for reconstruction through 
State Department accounts should be matched one-to-one by the 
Government of Iraq. I find it inconceivable for a government that runs 
a $30 billion or $40 billion surplus, on the issue of oil revenues, not 
be asked to pony up or at least match what the American taxpayers are 
spending there relative to resources to promote reconstruction in Iraq. 
So I was going to offer that amendment.
  I see the Senator from South Carolina is here. I understand this time 
is correctly his. At this point, I will yield the floor. First, I also 
intended to offer an amendment in markup today which would have put a 
consular office in Tibet. I think it is critical to have a consular 
office there as the Tibetan people deal with the situation occurring 
there relative to the Chinese Government crackdown.
  At this point, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 4710

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 20 
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 4170, 
offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to talk about my amendment that 
will be voted on in about 15 or 20 minutes. It is amendment No. 4710. 
It is an amendment to the National Flood Insurance Program bill we are 
considering today.
  The whole purpose of the flood insurance bill is to improve the 
program, make it more actuarially sound, make it more financially 
sustainable over many years. Obviously, we have had huge problems with 
the program. Yet it is very important to people all around the country, 
particularly those in coastal areas.
  One of the goals of this reform bill is to make the rates fairer and 
to phase out a number of the subsidies that we have allowed under the 
current program.
  The current program allows up to a 65-percent subsidy on properties 
that were purchased before we developed these flood maps. In other 
words, there were many properties purchased years ago when people did 
not know they were purchasing a home in a flood area. For that reason, 
we basically grandfathered these homes in and allowed them lower rates 
in the flood insurance program than those who bought homes after we had 
designated those flood areas.
  The bill addresses some of those properties by phasing out the 
subsidies of nonprimary residences--those that are rental properties, 
second homes, and even those with severe repetitive losses. We take 
about 475,000 properties that were pre-FIRM, as we call it, or preflood 
map, and phase those out. There are 700,000 permanent residences we do 
not address in the bill.
  The purpose of my amendment is to bring all the properties, 
basically, into the same plan, and not to force some to pay higher 
premiums so we can give subsidies to these 700,000 homes. My bill 
doesn't affect the rates or the subsidies of any current property 
owner. My amendment does address new owners, if those properties are 
sold after this bill passes. In other words, we continue the subsidies 
of current property owners, except for those already addressed in the 
bill. But if those properties are sold, clearly, the new owner would 
know they are buying in a flood zone, so the rationale to continue 
subsidies up to 65 percent does not exist.
  I remind my colleagues that if we allow inequities to continue, where 
some are getting subsidies and some are not, then some residents--and 
one might be sitting next to another--are going to have a higher 
property value because it will get lower flood insurance rates 
indefinitely, no matter how many times it is sold.
  My amendment, again, I think would improve the sustainability of the 
program. I encourage the ranking member to consider this. I know there 
have been agreements not to add or support any amendments. But I think 
this captures a lot of the intent of the whole bill to make the program 
sustainable and fairer, and actually my amendment would return about 
$550 million in additional premium revenues to the plan over the next 
10 years. So this is, again, designed to make the program fairer.
  I encourage my colleagues to look at this amendment. It is not a 
partisan amendment in any way. It will make the program better and 
fairer and it will bring everybody into the same status once properties 
are sold.
  With that, I will reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.
  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. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3959]]

  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in a moment I will ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw my amendment, but I wish to have a little discussion on the 
floor with the chairman and ranking member because for the most part, 
we agree on a lot of the principles in the bill, and they would like 
the latitude to work some of this out in conference.
  My goal is to have a more sustainable, fairer program. The idea is 
not to raise the price of current premium payers or to raise the price 
of real estate. I want to ask my colleagues if they would consider some 
of the principles of bringing all policies eventually into some 
actuarial equity.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, he raises a very 
good point. In fact, I had a discussion with Senator Dorgan on a 
similar issue, but the same point of an equity interest involving the 
cost of premiums where you have a very well-built levee and should the 
premium be the same as one with a 50-year-old levee--that is a 
legitimate point, it seems to me.
  We talked earlier with Senator Vitter about costs and values. We 
disagree with him on that issue, but he makes a case, as the Senator 
from South Carolina does, that we need to strike this balance well so 
we are not locking in permanent costs, and not also falsely 
contributing to a rise in the cost of real estate in a time when we are 
dealing with oversupply and trying to move properties.
  I am sympathetic with what my colleague is trying to achieve. There 
is an equity interest he has identified that I think has legitimacy. 
The question is, How do we satisfy that in a actuarially sound program?
  I commend him for the idea. I am grateful to him for withdrawing the 
amendment. It gives us a chance to work on it and examine it in a way 
that will hopefully satisfy him. I cannot promise him this, obviously, 
because the Senator from Alabama and I have to deal with the House. I 
come with an open mind to the equity issue he raises with his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from South Carolina 
for bringing up his amendment. I think it is something we should 
consider in conference. Senator Dodd had a colloquy about it on the 
side on the floor a few minutes ago.
  At the end of the day, what we are interested in is a more 
actuarially sound flood insurance program, one that will make more 
sense after a lot of mapping goes on around the country that will 
broaden the program and not perpetuate subsidy over and over for four 
or five sales or four or five generations where property is sold.
  The Senator from South Carolina is on the right track. I assure him I 
want to pursue this in conference.


                      Amendment No. 4710 Withdrawn

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member. I trust their judgment to work this issue out in conference. I 
think the bill has made a lot of progress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Darfur

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the anniversary of 
one global tragedy and to call attention to another, a tragedy that is 
occurring even at this moment.
  Fourteen years ago this week, the world stood by as 800,000 Rwandans 
were brutally murdered, largely along ethnic lines, in only 100 days. 
Despite early warning signs and pleas for greater international 
attention, we did little more as a nation than watch as this act of 
genocide was allowed to continue.
  Canadian GEN Romeo Dallaire at the time was commander of a small U.N. 
peacekeeping force in Rwanda when the genocide began. He desperately 
tried to get the United Nations to approve a more robust force to end 
the killings. Despite his efforts, the Security Council voted instead 
to cut back the United Nations' force. Nearly 2,500 troops were 
replaced with 450 poorly trained and poorly equipped soldiers. We all 
know the tragic result. Today the world looks back in shame at the 
inaction in Rwanda. We all failed.
  In 1998, President Clinton visited Rwanda and spoke to those who lost 
loved ones in those horrible times. President Clinton said:

       We in the United States and the world community did not do 
     as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit 
     what occurred in Rwanda in 1994.

  President Clinton's decision to visit Rwanda was an honorable one. It 
was the right choice. His words were inspiring in their honesty and 
accuracy, but his words were also an important reminder that the world 
cannot allow such a tragedy to occur again.
  President Bush visited Rwanda in January and toured the Kigali 
Memorial Center, which I have also visited, where 250,000 Rwandans are 
buried in mass graves. President Bush said he hoped the world would 
``once and for all'' work to halt the genocide in Darfur.
  President Bush will soon be leaving office--less than a year from 
now. I fear that unless his administration acts, and acts quickly, we 
will once again fail to stop a genocide in its tragic march. If we want 
to send a message to the world that the United States will not turn a 
blind eye to genocide, now is the time to act in Darfur.
  Violence began in Darfur 5 years ago. Since that time, I have come to 
the floor many times to talk about it.
  In 2004, the House of Representatives unanimously adopted a 
resolution calling on President Bush to call the atrocities in Darfur 
by their rightful name: a genocide. The resolution also urged the 
President to consider multilateral--even unilateral--intervention. That 
resolution passed nearly 4 years ago, in July 2004--4 years ago.
  A few months later, Secretary of State Colin Powell said:

       [G]enocide has been committed in Darfur and that the 
     government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility and 
     the genocide may still be occurring.

  In June 2005, President Bush said he agreed with Secretary of State 
Powell's determination that what was happening in Darfur was in fact a 
genocide.
  Two years later, President Bush spoke at the Holocaust Museum here in 
Washington and said that ``genocide is the only word for what is 
happening in Darfur.'' He went on to say `` . . . we have a moral 
obligation to stop it.''
  Many things have been said by many influential people over the years, 
but little action has taken place. Five years after this declaration of 
genocide, where do we stand? What have we done? As many as 400,000 
residents of Darfur have been killed, others brutally raped and 
tortured, entire villages torched, creating a refugee crisis that has 
forced more than 2 million Darfuris to flee their homes.
  This photo is almost surreal. As often described, people who have 
flown over the Darfur region say it looks as if people have put 
cigarettes out--the types of burns that you see. The burns, of course, 
represent huts in villages that have been destroyed. This is a part of 
Sudan after the Sudanese Government and allied militia forces recently 
burned a village.
  Hundreds of thousands of women and children live in refugee camps in 
Darfur and Chad. I don't think this photo does justice to the camp, but 
what appear to be tiny white dots are, in fact, small tents, a sea of 
small tents. There are 90,000 people who live in the Kalma refugee camp 
in Darfur--no grass, no trees, 10 reported rapes every single day. The 
people in camps like this one in Kalma are dependent on us, the entire 
international community, for the basics--food, water, and shelter. It 
is nothing short of a humanitarian catastrophe.
  The U.N. Security Council voted last summer in favor of a historic 
26,000-member U.N.-African Union joint peacekeeping force. Last summer, 
they voted for it. That brought a glimmer of hope across the world that 
finally

[[Page S3960]]

there was going to be a global response to this terrible situation.
  Today, almost a year later, only a third of those peacekeepers have 
been deployed--a third. Only a third of this peacekeeping force is on 
the ground while the Sudanese Government continues to thumb its nose at 
the international community and its forces continue to attack villages 
in Darfur. Humanitarian and U.N. relief workers face ongoing violence 
and harassment.
  This photo is of a grieving mother whose children were killed in 
Darfur. Hers is one of the thousands--hundreds of thousands of tragic 
stories. She said her three children had been burned alive in this 
region's violence. Just the other day, Sudanese forces were reported to 
have bombed a primary school in the north Darfur village of Shegeg 
Karo, killing at least seven little children.
  After so many years, after so much violence and human suffering, 
after so many calls for action, what is holding up the deployment of 
peacekeepers?
  It may be hard to believe, but one significant problem is a shortage 
of helicopters--hard to imagine, a shortage of helicopters, as the 
killing, looting, pillaging, raping, and displacement continues. This 
tragic genocide has been raging for 5 years while we have just stood by 
and watched. Yet the world's most powerful nations cannot manage to dig 
up a handful of helicopters. How can that be? Are all our helicopters 
tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are they all in the shop? Is there 
truly not one NATO ally that will spare a few helicopters? How about 
asking the Russians? They are already helping in south Sudan and Chad. 
The Russian Ambassador visited my office recently and told me he is 
open to exploring helping Darfur. It is hard to imagine that the United 
States would be asking other countries to be supplying helicopters, but 
at the risk of allowing this genocide to continue, we ought to do that.
  This tragedy is of historic proportion, and it is our chance to step 
in and show the world we really care. But what it takes is Presidential 
leadership--not in 6 months, not in a year, but now.
  I know some of my colleagues in the Senate, ones on the floor here--
Senator Biden has raised this issue personally with President Bush. 
Quite simply, I want to put this in the most simple terms because I 
said it directly to the President himself and to Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice: If you are not going to do anything before you leave 
office to stop the genocide in Darfur, then spend a few minutes writing 
your speech so that a year or two from now, when you visit that 
terrible place, you can say: We could have done more; I wish we would 
have.
  That is what it has come down to. This administration and Congress 
will either act soon or, sadly, this genocide will have occurred on our 
watch.
  A few years ago, President Clinton faced the reality of his failure 
to act in Rwanda. He called it ``my great, great regret in 
international affairs.'' President Bush, this is your chance. Either do 
something or face a similar script and a similar speech in years to 
come, expressing your regret that you, on your watch, did not stop the 
genocide in Darfur.
  We cannot allow ourselves to have to look back years from now to say 
that happened. We have a moral responsibility as a leader in the world 
to speak out and act to save these people.
  I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Amendment No. 4734 Withdrawn

  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ensign 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before my friend leaves the floor, I 
express my appreciation to my colleague Senator Ensign. This is an 
issue that needs more work. We have spoken to the two managers of the 
bill. They are going to try to help us. This is an issue important to 
Nevada and we think other places. But I wanted to express my 
appreciation to Senator Ensign, who did most of the work on this issue.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me also ask unanimous consent that I 
be allowed to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank the chairman because of the 
activity we are involved in on the floor with the legislation that he 
is shepherding at this moment.


                             NUCLEAR ENERGY

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the reason I am speaking at this moment 
on the floor is that an event happened this week in Bonneville County, 
ID, in southeastern Idaho, that I think is significant not only to this 
Nation but ultimately to the world. A global nuclear service company 
selected that area of our country in my State to site a $2 billion 
uranium enrichment facility on a 400-acre farm west of Idaho Falls on 
Highway 20, a location that is very near the birthplace of global 
nuclear power and the nuclear industry. In 1951, the first light bulb 
was lit by nuclear power in Arco, ID. Of course, while that is a little 
known historical fact, the actual reactor itself is now a national 
historic location, so designated by the late President Lyndon Johnson a 
good number of years ago. Since that time forward, over 50 prototypes 
of nuclear reactors have been designed at the Idaho Nuclear Laboratory 
and our first nuclear plant for a submarine. In fact, I often 
laughingly say that out in a big bathtub in the middle of the high 
deserts of Idaho is a nuclear sub and that many who train to operate 
our nuclear Navy trained in Idaho. It was because of that significance 
and the relationship that Areva, this global company, could have with 
our national laboratory facilities that they sited this nuclear service 
company there and their enrichment plant.
  Areva, the company, will employ, at a peak during construction, 
nearly 1,000 workers over an 8-year period. When operational, the plant 
will employ some 250 full-time workers, with a total annual salary of 
approximately $15 million. The plant will provide over $5 billion to 
the local economy of southeastern Idaho over the next 30 years.
  The enrichment plant could be the first of many nuclear partnerships 
that Areva will have in the United States and with Idaho. The next 
generation nuclear plant being designed at the Idaho lab right now 
allows and puts Areva into an alliance relationship. UniStar, which 
some who track the nuclear industry know about, is looking at an 
opportunity in Idaho, and Areva and Constellation and other major 
energy companies of the world are involved in that. My colleagues have 
heard us talk about NGNP which, of course, is a nuclear global energy 
partnership. Once again, Areva is a part of that.
  Over the last year, I, my staff, and the Idaho congressional 
delegation have worked with Areva. Because they showed interest in 
siting in Idaho or Washington or Ohio or New Mexico or Texas, we began 
to work with them to show them what Idaho had to offer, not only in a 
relationship with our national lab but a phenomenally talented 
workforce that is capable of doing the kind of work they need done. We 
worked very closely with the office of Gov. Butch Otter. As a result of 
those relationships, we began to work with the Idaho legislature to 
provide an economic incentives package for this kind of development. We 
also worked with

[[Page S3961]]

the Idaho Department of Commerce and Industry, with the city of Idaho 
Falls, ID, which has always had a very positive working relationship 
with the National Nuclear Laboratory that is located just miles from 
that city. Those are the kinds of partnerships the State of Idaho, the 
City of Idaho Falls, the Governor, the Idaho legislature, and the Idaho 
congressional delegation were able to put together that finally brought 
Areva to recognize the tremendous opportunity that rests in siting a 
world-class facility such as this in our State.
  I mentioned a moment ago and got unanimous consent that Colin Jones 
be allowed on the floor if he chose. Colin is a fellow from the Idaho 
National Lab and he worked in a very close relationship with this 
company to make sure they had all the answers when they needed them to 
make this happen.
  Now, why is all this significant? Right now, we are talking about 
climate change. We are talking about trying to rebuild an industry in 
our country and for the world that we nearly lost, and that is the 
nuclear industry. For 20 years, this country, for some reason, grew 
very fearful of the idea that we might advance generation of 
electricity by new nuclear plants, and we literally stopped. In so 
stopping it, we nearly lost the industry itself and the ability of the 
industry to build new nuclear reactors, tied with generating facilities 
for electrical purposes. Along came the growing concern of climate 
change and the emission of greenhouse gases and other environmental 
concerns that caused us, in many instances, to stop producing energy in 
the traditional ways we had produced it.
  Nearly 60 percent of the energy in this country is produced by coal-
fired generation facilities. Many of those today are emitters of 
CO2, and there are some who believe it is the concentration 
of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere that may be causing an 
increased or an accelerated rate of warming of our globe.
  While we are trying to make those changes, the rest of the world 
rushes headlong. In fact, China is a perfect example of bringing at 
least one new coal-fired plant on line per week to supply its growing 
energy and economic needs. We had always been criticized for being the 
larger emitter of greenhouse gas because we were 25 percent of the 
world economy. Now, China, a country that we didn't think would become 
the larger emitter for several years, this last June measured as the 
largest greenhouse gas-polluting Nation in the world.
  My point is quite simple. The need for new environmental and clean 
energy technology today is absolutely critical, and building the 
infrastructure that can supply us with abundant energy is even more 
important.
  If our country is going to continue to grow, it has to have an 
abundant supply of all sources of energy. We have seen what happened 
just in the last several months as we have watched prices of gas at the 
pump go up to the level they are today, the shudder that has gone out 
from the consuming public, and the political reaction in Washington as 
we chase ourselves in circles trying to find an excuse to blame 
somebody for the inaction of the Congress over the last 20 years in the 
area of production and refinement and the overall development of energy 
itself.
  The reason Areva's decision to site a facility not just in Idaho but 
in this country--a uranium enrichment plant--is a process that is key 
toward building the fuel to supply a nuclear reactor because that one 
technology that is available today beyond wind, beyond solar, to supply 
clean energy to the market is nuclear. While Sun is intermittent and 
solar is intermittent, nuclear reactors supply a strong base load of 
electricity to the American grid.
  While we struggle with the technologies for clean coal, while we look 
to build other technologies, the one we can build today in a very 
demanding energy market is nuclear. Yet in a nuclear conference in 
Chicago just this week Excelon and other companies that are major 
utilities said because of this whole new demand the price of building a 
nuclear reactor has doubled from maybe $4 billion per single plant to 
now $8 billion or $9 billion.
  This is the bottom line: The cost of energy is going to continue to 
go up until we bring online the technologies and the infrastructure to 
supply those technologies to continue to build an abundant energy 
supply for our country. So that is why I came to the floor today to 
talk about what got announced in Idaho this Tuesday, and that was a 
world-class, $2 billion uranium enrichment plant by the Areva company 
and International Utilities.
  I am proud of my State and all of the people in my State for the work 
they have done to accomplish this. I compliment them all and wanted 
them to be a part of the Congressional Record.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to Durbin amendment No. 
4715, as modified; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the 
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Durbin amendment, with no 
amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Amendments (Nos. 4724; 4725; 4727; 4728, as modified; 4730; 4733, as 
modified; 4735; 4736; 4711; and 4706, as modified further, to amendment 
                               No. 4707)

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' 
amendment at the desk be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 4724

 (Purpose: To study alternative approaches to ensure the future of the 
 National Flood Insurance Program by requiring greater efficiency and 
                       financial accountability)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. FEASIBILITY STUDY ON PRIVATE REINSURANCE.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct and submit a report to Congress on--
       (1) the feasibility of requiring the Director, as part of 
     carrying out the responsibilities of the Director under the 
     National Flood Insurance Program, to purchase private 
     reinsurance or retrocessional coverage, in addition to any 
     such reinsurance coverage required under section 1335 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4055), to 
     underlying primary private insurers for losses arising due to 
     flood insurance coverage provided by such insurers;
       (2) the feasibility of repealing the reinsurance 
     requirement under such section 1335, and requiring the 
     Director, as part of carrying out the responsibilities of the 
     Director under the National Flood Insurance Program, to 
     purchase private reinsurance or retrocessional coverage to 
     underlying primary private insurers for losses arising due to 
     flood insurance coverage provided by such insurer; and
       (3) the estimated total savings to the taxpayer of taking 
     each such action described in paragraph (1) or (2).


                           amendment no. 4725

(Purpose: To deny premium subsidies to homeowners who refuse to accept 
 an offer of Federal assistance to alter or relocate their property in 
         an effort to minimize future flood damages and costs)

       On page 8, line 13, strike ``and''.
       On page 8, line 16, strike ``policy.''.'' and insert the 
     following: ``policy; and
       ``(3) any prospective insured who refuses to accept any 
     offer for mitigation assistance by the Administrator 
     (including an offer to relocate), including an offer of 
     mitigation assistance--
       ``(A) following a major disaster, as defined in section 102 
     of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122); or
       ``(B) in connection with--
       ``(i) a repetitive loss property; or
       ``(ii) a severe repetitive loss property, as that term is 
     defined under section 1361A.''.


                           amendment no. 4727

  (Purpose: To impose a civil penalty for noncompliance with certain 
                        reporting requirements)

       On page 50, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       (4) Failure to comply.--A property and casualty insurance 
     company that is authorized by the Director to participate in 
     the Write Your Own program which fails to comply with the 
     reporting requirement under this subsection or the 
     requirement under section 62.23(j)(1) of title 44, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (relating to biennial audit of the flood 
     insurance financial statements) shall be subject to a civil 
     penalty in an amount equal to $1,000 per day for each day 
     that the company remains in noncompliance with either such 
     requirement.

[[Page S3962]]

                    amendment no. 4728, as modified

(Purpose: To require clear and comprehensible disclosure of conditions, 
    exclusions, and other limitations pertaining to flood insurance 
                               coverage)

       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 133. POLICY DISCLOSURES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, in addition to any other disclosures that may be 
     required, each policy under the National Flood Insurance 
     Program shall state all conditions, exclusions, and other 
     limitations pertaining to coverage under the subject policy, 
     regardless of the underlying insurance product, in plain 
     English, in boldface type, and in a font size that is twice 
     the size of the text of the body of the policy.
       (b) Violations.--Any person that violates the requirements 
     of this section shall be subject to a fine of not more than 
     $50K at the discretion of Director.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4730

  (Purpose: To provide 2 additional members to the Technical Mapping 
                           Advisory Council)

       On page 25, line 11, strike ``; and'' and insert a 
     semicolon.
       On page 25, line 14, strike the period and insert a 
     semicolon.
       On page 25, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       (M) a representative of a State agency that has entered 
     into a cooperating technical partnership with the Director 
     and has demonstrated the capability to produce flood 
     insurance rate maps; and
       (N) a representative of a local government agency that has 
     entered into a cooperating technical partnership with the 
     Director and has demonstrated the capability to produce flood 
     insurance rate maps.


                    amendment no. 4733, as modified

       On page 34, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       (d) Communication and Outreach.--
       (1) In general.--The Director shall--
       (A) work to enhance communication and outreach to States, 
     local communities, and property owners about the effects of--
       (i) any potential changes to National Flood Insurance 
     Program rate maps that may result from the mapping program 
     required under this section; and
       (ii) that any such changes may have on flood insurance 
     purchase requirements; and
       (B) engage with local communities to enhance communication 
     and outreach to the residents of such communities on the 
     matters described under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Required activities.--The communication and outreach 
     activities required under paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) notifying property owners when their properties become 
     included in, or when they are excluded from, an area having 
     special flood hazards and the effect of such inclusion or 
     exclusion on the applicability of the mandatory flood 
     insurance purchase requirement under section 102 of the Flood 
     Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a) to such 
     properties;
       (B) educating property owners regarding the flood risk and 
     reduction of this risk in their community, including the 
     continued flood risks to areas that are no longer subject to 
     the flood insurance mandatory purchase requirement;
       (C) educating property owners regarding the benefits and 
     costs of maintaining or acquiring flood insurance, including, 
     where applicable, lower-cost preferred risk policies under 
     the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4011 et 
     seq.) for such properties and the contents of such 
     properties;
       (D) educating property owners about flood map revisions and 
     the process available such owners to appeal proposed changes 
     in flood elevations through their community; and
       (E) encouraging property owners to maintain or acquire 
     flood insurance coverage.


                           amendment no. 4735

(Purpose: To modify the project for flood control, Big Sioux River and 
                Skunk Creek, Sioux Falls, South Dakota)

       At the end, add the following:

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 301. BIG SIOUX RIVER AND SKUNK CREEK, SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH 
                   DAKOTA.

       The project for flood control, Big Sioux River and Skunk 
     Creek, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, authorized by section 
     101(a)(28) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3666), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     reimburse the non-Federal interest for funds advanced by the 
     non-Federal interest for the Federal share of the project, 
     only if additional Federal funds are appropriated for that 
     purpose.


                           amendment no. 4736

(Purpose: To ensure that the purchase price of flood insurance polices 
required to be purchased in areas of residual risk accurately reflects 
the level of flood protection provided by any levee, dam, or other man-
                      made structure in such area)

       On page 10, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       (3) Accurate pricing.--In carrying out the mandatory 
     purchase requirement under paragraph (1), the Director shall 
     ensure that the price of flood insurance policies in areas of 
     residual risk accurately reflects the level of flood 
     protection provided by any levee, dam, or other the man-made 
     structure in such area.
       On page 31, after line 14 add:
       ``(v) The level of protection provided by man-made 
     structures.''
       On page 10, after line 16 insert:
       (d)--upon decertification of any levee, dam, or man-made 
     structure under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of 
     Engineers, the Corps shall immediately provide notice to the 
     Director of the National Flood Insurance program.

  (Amendment 4711 is printed in the Record of Wednesday, May 7, 2008.)


                AMENDMENT NO. 4706, AS FURTHER MODIFIED

       Strike section 131 and insert the following:

     SEC. 131. FLOOD INSURANCE ADVOCATE.

       Chapter II of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is 
     amended by inserting after section 1330 (42 U.S.C. 4041) the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1330A. OFFICE OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE ADVOCATE.

       ``(a) Establishment of Position.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be in the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency an Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate 
     which shall be headed by the National Flood Insurance 
     Advocate. The National Flood Insurance Advocate shall--
       ``(A) to the extent amounts are provided pursuant to 
     subsection (n), be compensated at the same rate as the 
     highest rate of basic pay established for the Senior 
     Executive Service under section 5382 of title 5, United 
     States Code, or, if the Director so determines, at a rate 
     fixed under section 9503 of such title;
       ``(B) be appointed by the Director without regard to 
     political affiliation;
       ``(C) report to and be under the general supervision of the 
     Director, but shall not report to, or be subject to 
     supervision by, any other officer of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency; and
       ``(D) consult with the Assistant Administrator for 
     Mitigation or any successor thereto, but shall not report to, 
     or be subject to the general supervision by, the Assistant 
     Administrator for Mitigation or any successor thereto.
       ``(2) Qualifications.--An individual appointed under 
     paragraph (1)(B) shall have a background in customer service, 
     or experience representing insureds, as well as experience in 
     investigations or audits.
       ``(3) Restriction on employment.--An individual may be 
     appointed as the National Flood Insurance Advocate only if 
     such individual was not an officer or employee of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency with duties relating to the 
     national flood insurance program during the 2-year period 
     ending with such appointment and such individual agrees not 
     to accept any employment with the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency for at least 2 years after ceasing to be 
     the National Flood Insurance Advocate. Service as an employee 
     of the National Flood Insurance Advocate shall not be taken 
     into account in applying this paragraph.
       ``(4) Staff.--To the extent amounts are provided pursuant 
     to subsection (n), the National Flood Insurance Advocate may 
     employ such personnel as may be necessary to carry out the 
     duties of the Office.
       ``(5) Independence.--The Director shall not prevent or 
     prohibit the National Flood Insurance Advocate from 
     initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or 
     investigation, or from issuing any subpoena or summons during 
     the course of any audit or investigation.
       ``(6) Removal.--The President and the Director shall have 
     the power to remove, discharge, or dismiss the National Flood 
     Insurance Advocate. Not later than 15 days after the removal, 
     discharge, or dismissal of the Advocate, the President or the 
     Director shall report to the Committee on Banking of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House 
     of Representatives on the basis for such removal, discharge, 
     or dismissal.
       ``(b) Functions of Office.--It shall be the function of the 
     Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate to--
       ``(1) assist insureds under the national flood insurance 
     program in resolving problems with the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency relating to such program;
       ``(2) identify areas in which such insureds have problems 
     in dealings with the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     relating to such program;
       ``(3) propose changes in the administrative practices of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency to mitigate problems 
     identified under paragraph (2);
       ``(4) identify potential legislative, administrative, or 
     regulatory changes which may be appropriate to mitigate such 
     problems;
       ``(5) conduct, supervise, and coordinate--
       ``(A) systematic and random audits and investigations of 
     insurance companies and associated entities that sell or 
     offer policies under the National Flood Insurance Program, to 
     determine whether such insurance companies or associated 
     entities are allocating only flood losses under such 
     insurance policies to the National Flood Insurance Program;
       ``(B) audits and investigations to determine if an 
     insurance company or associated entity described under 
     subparagraph (A) is negotiating on behalf of the National 
     Flood Insurance Program with third parties in good faith;
       ``(6) conduct, supervise, and coordinate investigations 
     into the operations of the national flood insurance program 
     for the purpose of--
       ``(A) promoting economy and efficiency in the 
     administration of such program;
       ``(B) preventing and detecting fraud and abuse in the 
     program; and

[[Page S3963]]

       ``(C) identifying, and referring to the Attorney General 
     for prosecution, any participant in such fraud or abuse;
       ``(7) identify and investigate conflicts of interest that 
     undermine the economy and efficiency of the national flood 
     insurance program; and
       ``(c) Authority of the National Flood Insurance Advocate.--
     The National Flood Insurance Advocate may--
       ``(1) have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, 
     documents, papers, recommendations, or other material 
     available to the Director which relate to administration or 
     operation of the national flood insurance program with 
     respect to which the National Flood Insurance Advocate has 
     responsibilities under this section; including information 
     submitted pursuant to Section 128 of this Act;
       ``(2) undertake such investigations and reports relating to 
     the administration or operation of the national flood 
     insurance program as are, in the judgment of the National 
     Flood Insurance Advocate, necessary or desirable;
       ``(3) request such information or assistance as may be 
     necessary for carrying out the duties and responsibilities 
     provided by this section from any Federal, State, or local 
     governmental agency or unit thereof;
       ``(4) request the production of information, documents, 
     reports, answers, records (including phone records), 
     accounts, papers, emails, hard drives, backup tapes, 
     software, audio or visual aides, and any other data and 
     documentary evidence necessary in the performance of the 
     functions assigned to the National Flood Insurance Advocate 
     by this section;
       ``(5) request the testimony of any person in the employ of 
     any insurance company or associated entity participating in 
     the National Flood Insurance Program, described under 
     subsection (b)(5)(A), or any successor to such company or 
     entity, including any member of the board of such company or 
     entity, any trustee of such company or entity, any partner in 
     such company or entity, or any agent or representative of 
     such company or entity;
       ``(6) select, appoint, and employ such officers and 
     employees as may be necessary for carrying out the functions, 
     powers, and duties of the Office subject to the provisions of 
     title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service, and the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates;
       ``(7) obtain services as authorized by section 3109 of 
     title 5, United States Code, at daily rates not to exceed the 
     equivalent rate prescribed for the rate of basic pay for a 
     position at level IV of the Executive Schedule; and
       ``(8) to the extent and in such amounts as may be provided 
     in advance by appropriations Acts, enter into contracts and 
     other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and other 
     services with public agencies and with private persons, and 
     to make such payments as may be necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(d) Additional Duties of the NFIA.--The National Flood 
     Insurance Advocate shall--
       ``(1) monitor the coverage and geographic allocation of 
     regional offices of flood insurance advocates;
       ``(2) develop guidance to be distributed to all Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency officers and employees having 
     duties with respect to the national flood insurance program, 
     outlining the criteria for referral of inquiries by insureds 
     under such program to regional offices of flood insurance 
     advocates;
       ``(3) ensure that the local telephone number for each 
     regional office of the flood insurance advocate is published 
     and available to such insureds served by the office; and
       ``(4) establish temporary State or local offices where 
     necessary to meet the needs of qualified insureds following a 
     flood event.
       ``(e) Other Responsibilities.--
       ``(1) Additional requirements relating to certain audits.--
     Prior to conducting any audit or investigation relating to 
     the allocation of flood losses under subsection (b)(5)(A), 
     the National Flood Insurance Advocate may--
       ``(A) consult with appropriate subject-matter experts to 
     identify the data necessary to determine whether flood claims 
     paid by insurance companies or associated entities on behalf 
     the national flood insurance program reflect damages caused 
     by flooding;
       ``(B) collect or compile the data identified in 
     subparagraph (A), utilizing existing data sources to the 
     maximum extent practicable; and
       ``(C) establish policies, procedures, and guidelines for 
     application of such data in all audits and investigations 
     authorized under this section.
       ``(2) Annual reports.--
       ``(A) Activities.--Not later than December 31 of each 
     calendar year, the National Flood Insurance Advocate shall 
     report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services 
     of the House of Representatives on the activities of the 
     Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate during the fiscal year 
     ending during such calendar year. Any such report shall 
     contain a full and substantive analysis of such activities, 
     in addition to statistical information, and shall--
       ``(i) identify the initiatives the Office of the Flood 
     Insurance Advocate has taken on improving services for 
     insureds under the national flood insurance program and 
     responsiveness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     with respect to such initiatives;
       ``(ii) describe the nature of recommendations made to the 
     Director under subsection (i);
       ``(iii) contain a summary of the most serious problems 
     encountered by such insureds, including a description of the 
     nature of such problems;
       ``(iv) contain an inventory of any items described in 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) for which action has been taken 
     and the result of such action;
       ``(v) contain an inventory of any items described in 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) for which action remains to be 
     completed and the period during which each item has remained 
     on such inventory;
       ``(vi) contain an inventory of any items described in 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) for which no action has been 
     taken, the period during which each item has remained on such 
     inventory and the reasons for the inaction;
       ``(vii) identify any Flood Insurance Assistance 
     Recommendation which was not responded to by the Director in 
     a timely manner or was not followed, as specified under 
     subsection (i);
       ``(viii) contain recommendations for such administrative 
     and legislative action as may be appropriate to resolve 
     problems encountered by such insureds;
       ``(ix) identify areas of the law or regulations relating to 
     the national flood insurance program that impose significant 
     compliance burdens on such insureds or the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, including specific recommendations for 
     remedying these problems;
       ``(x) identify the most litigated issues for each category 
     of such insureds, including recommendations for mitigating 
     such disputes;
       ``(xi) identify ways to promote the economy, efficiency, 
     and effectiveness in the administration of the national flood 
     insurance program;
       ``(xii) identify fraud and abuse in the national flood 
     insurance program; and
       ``(xiii) include such other information as the National 
     Flood Insurance Advocate may deem advisable.
       ``(B) Direct submission of report.--Each report required 
     under this paragraph shall be provided directly to the 
     committees identified in subparagraph (A) without any prior 
     review or comment from the Director, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, or any other officer or employee of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Department of 
     Homeland Security, or the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(3) Information and assistance from other agencies.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon request of the National Flood 
     Insurance Advocate for information or assistance under this 
     section, the head of any Federal agency shall, insofar as is 
     practicable and not in contravention of any statutory 
     restriction or regulation of the Federal agency from which 
     the information is requested, furnish to the National Flood 
     Insurance Advocate, or to an authorized designee of the 
     National Flood Insurance Advocate, such information or 
     assistance.
       ``(B) Refusal to comply.--Whenever information or 
     assistance requested under this subsection is, in the 
     judgment of the National Flood Insurance Advocate, 
     unreasonably refused or not provided, the National Flood 
     Insurance Advocate shall report the circumstances to the 
     Director without delay.
       ``(f) Compliance With GAO Standards.--In carrying out the 
     responsibilities established under this section, the National 
     Flood Insurance Advocate shall--
       ``(1) comply with standards established by the Comptroller 
     General of the United States for audits of Federal 
     establishments, organizations, programs, activities, and 
     functions;
       ``(2) establish guidelines for determining when it shall be 
     appropriate to use non-Federal auditors;
       ``(3) take appropriate steps to assure that any work 
     performed by non-Federal auditors complies with the standards 
     established by the Comptroller General as described in 
     paragraph (1); and
       ``(4) take the necessary steps to minimize the publication 
     of proprietary and trade secrets information.
       ``(g) Personnel Actions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The National Flood Insurance Advocate 
     shall have the responsibility and authority to--
       ``(A) appoint regional flood insurance advocates in a 
     manner that will provide appropriate coverage based upon 
     regional flood insurance program participation; and
       ``(B) hire, evaluate, and take personnel actions (including 
     dismissal) with respect to any employee of any regional 
     office of a flood insurance advocate described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Consultation.--The National Flood Insurance Advocate 
     may consult with the appropriate supervisory personnel of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency in carrying out the 
     National Flood Insurance Advocate's responsibilities under 
     this subsection.
       ``(h) Operation of Regional Offices.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each regional flood insurance advocate 
     appointed pursuant to subsection (d)--
       ``(A) shall report to the National Flood Insurance Advocate 
     or delegate thereof;
       ``(B) may consult with the appropriate supervisory 
     personnel of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     regarding the

[[Page S3964]]

     daily operation of the regional office of the flood insurance 
     advocate;
       ``(C) shall, at the initial meeting with any insured under 
     the national flood insurance program seeking the assistance 
     of a regional office of the flood insurance advocate, notify 
     such insured that the flood insurance advocate offices 
     operate independently of any other Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency office and report directly to Congress 
     through the National Flood Insurance Advocate; and
       ``(D) may, at the flood insurance advocate's discretion, 
     not disclose to the Director contact with, or information 
     provided by, such insured.
       ``(2) Maintenance of independent communications.--Each 
     regional office of the flood insurance advocate shall 
     maintain a separate phone, facsimile, and other electronic 
     communication access.
       ``(i) Flood Insurance Assistance Recommendations.--
       ``(1) Authority to issue.--Upon application filed by a 
     qualified insured with the Office of the Flood Insurance 
     Advocate (in such form, manner, and at such time as the 
     Director shall by regulation prescribe), the National Flood 
     Insurance Advocate may issue a Flood Insurance Assistance 
     Recommendation, if the Advocate finds that the qualified 
     insured is suffering a significant hardship, such as a 
     significant delay in resolving claims where the insured is 
     incurring significant costs as a result of such delay, or 
     where the insured is at risk of adverse action, including the 
     loss of property, as a result of the manner in which the 
     flood insurance laws are being administered by the Director.
       ``(2) Terms of a flood insurance assistance 
     recommendation.--The terms of a Flood Insurance Assistance 
     Recommendation may recommend to the Director that the 
     Director, within a specified time period, cease any action, 
     take any action as permitted by law, or refrain from taking 
     any action, including the payment of claims, with respect to 
     the qualified insured under any other provision of law which 
     is specifically described by the National Flood Insurance 
     Advocate in such recommendation.
       ``(3) Director response.--Not later than 15 days after the 
     receipt of any Flood Insurance Assistance Recommendation 
     under this subsection, the Director shall respond in writing 
     as to--
       ``(A) whether such recommendation was followed;
       ``(B) why such recommendation was or was not followed; and
       ``(C) what, if any, additional actions were taken by the 
     Director to prevent the hardship indicated in such 
     recommendation.
       ``(4) Responsibilities of director.--The Director shall 
     establish procedures requiring a formal response consistent 
     with the requirements of paragraph (3) to all recommendations 
     submitted to the Director by the National Flood Insurance 
     Advocate under this subsection.
       ``(j) Reporting of Potential Criminal Violations.--In 
     carrying out the duties and responsibilities established 
     under this section, the National Flood Insurance Advocate 
     shall report expeditiously to the Attorney General whenever 
     the National Flood Insurance Advocate has reasonable grounds 
     to believe there has been a violation of Federal criminal 
     law.
       ``(k) Coordination.--
       ``(1) With other federal agencies.--In carrying out the 
     duties and responsibilities established under this section, 
     the National Flood Insurance Advocate--
       ``(A) shall give particular regard to the activities of the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security with 
     a view toward avoiding duplication and insuring effective 
     coordination and cooperation; and
       ``(B) may participate, upon request of the Inspector 
     General of the Department of Homeland Security, in any audit 
     or investigation conducted by the Inspector General.
       ``(2) With state regulators.--In carrying out any 
     investigation or audit under this section, the National Flood 
     Insurance Advocate shall coordinate its activities and 
     efforts with any State insurance authority that is 
     concurrently undertaking a similar or related investigation 
     or audit.
       ``(3) Avoidance of redundancies in the resolution of 
     problems.--In providing any assistance to a policyholder 
     pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), the 
     National Flood Insurance Advocate shall consult with the 
     Director to eliminate, avoid, or reduce any redundancies in 
     actions that may arise as a result of the actions of the 
     National Flood Insurance Advocate and the claims appeals 
     process described under section 62.20 of title 44, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       ``(l) Authority of the Director to Levy Penalties.--The 
     Director and the Advocate shall establish procedures to take 
     appropriate action against an insurance company, including 
     monetary penalties and removal or suspension from the 
     program, when a company refuses to cooperate with an 
     investigation or audit under this section or where a finding 
     has been made of improper conduct.
       ``(m) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(1) Associated entity.--The term `associated entity' 
     means any person, corporation, or other legal entity that 
     contracts with the Director or an insurance company to 
     provide adjustment services, benefits calculation services, 
     claims services, processing services, or record keeping 
     services in connection with standard flood insurance policies 
     made available under the national flood insurance program.
       ``(2) Insurance company.--The term `insurance company' 
     refers to any property and casualty insurance company that is 
     authorized by the Director to participate in the Write Your 
     Own program under the national flood insurance program.
       ``(3) National flood insurance advocate.--The term 
     `National Flood Insurance Advocate' includes any designee of 
     the National Flood Insurance Advocate.
       ``(4) Qualified insured.--The term `qualified insured' 
     means an insured under coverage provided under the national 
     flood insurance program under this title.
       ``(n) Funding.--Pursuant to section 1310(a)(8), the 
     Director may use amounts from the National Flood Insurance 
     Fund to fund the activities of the Office of the Flood 
     Advocate in each of fiscal years 2009 through 2014, except 
     that the amount so used in each such fiscal year may not 
     exceed $5,000,000 and shall remain available until expended. 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, amounts 
     made available pursuant to this subsection shall not be 
     subject to offsetting collections through premium rates for 
     flood insurance coverage under this title.''.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no further 
amendments be in order except as provided in the previous agreement 
with respect to the McConnell and Reid amendments; that the previous 
order with respect to rollcall votes on Monday, May 12, be modified to 
reflect that the previously ordered votes occur on Tuesday, May 13, 
after the Senate convenes and following the opening sequence of events, 
there be 60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between 
the leaders, or their designees, prior to the commencement of the votes 
ordered under a previous order; that prior to each vote there be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; 
that after the first vote in the sequence, each succeeding vote be 
limited to 10 minutes in duration; that other provisions of the 
previous order remain in effect; provided further that if cloture is 
invoked on the motion to proceed to H.R. 980, then all postcloture time 
be yielded back, the motion to proceed be agreed to, and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, after the vote on the Durbin amendment, 
there will be no further votes today, no session on Friday, and no 
votes on Monday. Let me turn to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4715

  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding that amendment No. 4715 is now 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. And I have 2 minutes to speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, if I could say briefly, if you are in 
the process of remapping, for flooding purposes, a watershed area, this 
amendment says that until you have completed both sides of the river--
and in my case both Illinois and Missouri--you don't increase flood 
insurance rates for one side of the river. So the entire watershed has 
to be mapped and completed before any new rates apply. This will not 
disadvantage either side of the river. It says they will all be 
announced at the same time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I think we are prepared to vote on the 
Durbin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified, of the 
Senator from Illinois.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Obama), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator 
from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.
   Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from

[[Page S3965]]

Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Reed
     Roberts
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Boxer
     Clinton
     Ensign
     McCain
     Murray
     Obama
     Reid
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 4715), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise to speak today in favor of S. 
2284, legislation that would reform and modernize the National Flood 
Insurance Program, NFIP. Congress created NFIP in 1968 in the wake of a 
series of terrible hurricanes, the worst of which was Hurricane Betsy, 
a storm that devastated New Orleans in 1965. After observing the ad hoc 
nature of disaster relief efforts, all of which came at taxpayer 
expense, Congress saw an urgent need for a better way to handle the 
risks and losses associated with flood damage.
  NFIP, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, FEMA, provided insurance to individuals living in flood-prone 
areas who weren't able to get private insurance. But it did much more. 
It required mapping to identify areas at risk for flooding and 
community floodplain mitigation and management measures to help prevent 
flood damage in the future.
  The program has been important in my State of Maryland. According to 
the 2005 report of the Maryland Emergency Management Agency, Maryland 
is the third most vulnerable State in the Nation to flooding. More than 
12 percent of land is designated under NFIP as a special flood hazard 
area. An estimated 68,000 Maryland homes and buildings are located 
within the flood plain, representing nearly $8 billion in assessed 
value. Nearly 64,000 Marylanders held NFIP policies as of February 
2007, and in the hurricane seasons from 2002 to 2006, a span that 
included Hurricane Isabel, insured flood losses in Maryland totaled 
approximately $177 million.
  The program appeared to work well for many years. The revenues 
brought in through insurance premiums covered payments made to 
individuals in the wake of flooding disasters. Today, the NFIP has been 
reported to save taxpayers over $1 billion annually in flood losses 
that, without the program, would be paid by the taxpayers in the form 
of emergency disaster relief. But the 2005 hurricane season, which 
brought Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, created a need on an 
entirely new scale, a scale that not only overwhelmed the program but 
exposed serious flaws in its design.
  To pay out the estimated $19 billion in NFIP claims, the program had 
to borrow almost $18 billion from the U.S. Treasury. Government-
subsidized premiums for certain policyholders, outdated flood insurance 
rate maps, and other program weaknesses undermined NFIP's ability to 
meet the demands created in the 2005 season. Those flaws have also 
created false incentives over the years, encouraging developers and 
homeowners to build and then rebuild in flood-prone and environmentally 
sensitive areas.
  With the 2008 hurricane season less than a month away, we have to fix 
the program's flaws and put it back on sound financial footing. S. 2284 
does just that, and I want to applaud Senators Dodd and Shelby and my 
other colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee for their excellent 
work.
  First and foremost, S. 2284 restores the program's solvency by 
forgiving FEMA's debt to the Treasury. FEMA isn't able to repay it; the 
interest alone is approximately $900 million annually, equal to almost 
40 percent of annual premium income. In order to keep rates affordable, 
we have to accept that loss and turn our attention to improving the 
program so it is better able to pay claims in the future.
  S. 2284 takes several steps to make sure that the program's revenues 
will be sufficient to meet those future needs. The legislation moves 
several types of homeowners, who previously received subsidized rates, 
toward premiums that match their actual risk of flooding. It expands 
the categories of people who need to buy flood insurance to better 
reflect the categories of people actually at high risk. It includes 
provisions to encourage more homeowners, even those outside the highest 
risk areas, to buy insurance.
  S. 2284 takes steps to ensure we know who is at high risk. It 
authorizes more money for FEMA to update and digitize the Nation's 
flood hazard maps. Most FEMA maps contain 30-year old data. Think of 
that. How many of us live in houses or even neighborhoods that were 
built in the last 30 years? Homeowners and officials can't make good 
decisions about risk and development based on such woefully outdated 
information.
  At present, FEMA's map modernization program updates old maps by 
putting them in digital form without changing any of the information. 
So if you live in a house or on a street that only came into existence 
in the past 30 years or so, you wouldn't be on the old map or the new 
``updated'' map. Maryland officials, to their credit, were among a 
handful of State and local officials nationwide who realized that mere 
digitization alone isn't enough, and they contributed their own time 
and data to update the content, as well. Those maps will all be 
completed over the next 5 years. I am proud of my State's emergency 
management officials for showing that initiative, and I am glad that 
this bill makes substantive improvement to flood plain maps the norm 
rather than the exception.
  One of the biggest lessons we Marylanders learned in the wake of 
Hurricane Isabel in 2003 was that people didn't have good information 
about flood insurance. Some people who should have had insurance 
didn't. Some who had it didn't understand it, had too little coverage, 
or too much coverage.
  S. 2284 will improve consumer education. It takes steps to ensure 
that all homeowners at high risk of flood damage participate in the 
program and that more homeowners know about the flood risks to their 
property and about the insurance options available to them. It requires 
every person who buys a home in an area of elevated flood risk to learn 
about that risk at their settlement and be given an opportunity to 
purchase insurance. It places the burden on lenders to make sure all 
people who need to have insurance actually get it. It would provide 
grant money to communities to conduct educational and outreach 
activities to encourage people to purchase flood insurance and learn 
what steps they can take to mitigate against flood damage. Last but not 
least, S. 2284 creates an Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate to 
assist policyholders with any problems they have with their NFIP 
claims.
  Rates that reflect risk, better flood plain maps, more expansive 
participation, and better information: these changes will make the 
program self-sufficient once again. But even more important, by 
providing homeowners, communities, developers, and emergency management 
and planning officials with accurate information about flood risk and 
its associated costs, S. 2284 reverses some of the program's false 
incentives to build and live in disaster-prone areas.

[[Page S3966]]

  When hurricane season starts this year, it will bring greater risk to 
many States, Maryland included. An April 2007 Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change report found that global warming will result in more 
flooding through more intense hurricanes, reduced snow pack, and sea 
level rise. We are experiencing those changes today in Maryland.
  We have over 4,000 miles of coastline, more than the State of 
California, and historic tide-gauge records show sea levels have risen 
one foot within Maryland's coastal waters over the last century. Due in 
part to naturally occurring regional land subsidence, Maryland is 
currently experiencing sea level rise at a rate nearly double the 
worldwide average. Thirteen charted islands and large expanses of those 
critical tidal wetlands in the Chesapeake Bay have already disappeared.
  These changes make us more vulnerable to storm surges. Allstate 
Insurance, one of our largest insurers, announced this past year that 
it would stop writing new homeowners' policies in coastal areas of my 
State. The reason they won't give insurance to homeowners in coastal 
areas is because they say a warmer Atlantic Ocean will lead to more and 
stronger hurricanes hitting the Northeast.
  It is critical that we shore up the National Insurance Flood Program 
so that it is ready to support Marylanders and all Americans in times 
of need. S. 2284 does that without increasing incentives to build in 
disaster-prone areas or destroy environmentally sensitive areas. That 
is a tough line to navigate, but this bill does it well. I am proud to 
offer my support.

                          ____________________