[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22586-22591]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  COMMUNITY DISASTER LOAN ACT OF 2005

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1858, the Vitter bill, which is at 
the desk, that the bill be read three times, passed, and that the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let the Record be spread with my admiration 
for the senior Senator from the State of Louisiana for her tireless 
work on behalf of the people of Louisiana. I think most all of us would 
agree that this bill is imperfect, and that is an understatement. But I 
so appreciate the enthusiasm, the diligence, the hard work of my friend 
from the State of Louisiana, Senator Landrieu.
  Also, once this bill passes--and it will pass--I think the focus then 
moves to the other side of the Capitol. I hope those people who are 
listening to this who have connections with the administration would 
assist us in getting the House to do the right thing: not only pass 
what we have done here, but hopefully take out this provision which I 
think is different than the people of the State of Louisiana thought 
they would get.
  I hope that by the time the House closes business today, we have a 
better product than what we have here. I also think it is important for 
me, having expressed my appreciation to the Senator from Louisiana--I 
acknowledged the senior Senator, but I acknowledge the work of the 
junior Senator from Louisiana. They have worked together. I understand 
that. It is a difficult situation in which we find ourselves based on 
that storm none of us anticipated, at least I did not.
  We are going to have to continue to work our way through this. Even 
though the devastation of the storm has left the mind's eye of most 
people momentarily--and it is only momentarily--it is so easy to 
conjure up in our minds the images we saw--we simply need to help those 
people who have been forced to leave their homes and take their 
children to other places.
  It is a terrible situation, and we need to help. This is a first step 
in helping, even though, as the Senator from New York so clearly 
opined, this is not the best solution. It is a solution.
  I again want the Record to be spread with the fact that I appreciate 
the work of the Senators from Louisiana, especially my friend, Ms. 
Landrieu.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to explain an amendment which I am going to ask the majority 
leader to accept as part of this unanimous consent request, and that I 
be allowed to proceed for 4 minutes to explain what this amendment 
does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have all gotten up on this floor and 
talked about the urgent necessity of helping the people of Louisiana, 
Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. We have all been on this floor talking 
about the uniqueness of the disaster which is called Katrina. Every one 
of us goes back home. We received into our homes, our churches, our 
synagogues people who have been displaced by Katrina. Our people have 
responded magnificently to this disaster, to this catastrophe back 
home.
  Now the question is whether we in the Congress are going to be 
helpful to the victims in a way which we have been helpful in so many 
other disasters of a smaller magnitude by providing a loan so that 
operations can continue, or whether we are going to incorporate a 
provision in this loan which has never been incorporated before in any 
loan ever made to a community that obtained a loan under this law.
  We have never imposed this restriction that is in this bill on any 
community in this country. We have lent money to Ricksburg, ID; we have 
lent money to Johnstown, PA; we have lent money to Clifton, AZ; we have 
lent money to Albian Borough, PA; we have lent money to Vassar, MI, in 
my home State.
  There are occasions when those loans have been forgiven, and in the 
ones I just listed--and I want the majority leader to understand the 
depth of the feeling on this issue because it can happen to any of us--
the loans I just listed, including one to my home State, have been 
forgiven when they met the conditions of the Stafford Act for forgiving 
loans.
  But now we are telling the victims of the worst disaster we have had 
in this country that the Stafford Act provisions, which, under certain 
circumstances, could permit the forgiveness of a loan, will not be 
available to them. My amendment does not turn this loan into a grant.
  If my amendment is accepted, it would provide that the same terms and 
conditions under which this loan is made will be the terms and 
conditions that have been applied to other loans.
  To discriminate against these people who have been so victimized, to 
me, is unthinkable--that we would single them out for discriminatory 
language. I don't believe we can operate this way, and I don't believe 
the House would reject our language if my amendment is accepted.
  The Senator from Delaware and I went over to the House last night. We 
talked with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and he 
indicated that the language which I am going to suggest would be 
acceptable to him. He didn't speak for the whole House, obviously, and 
if the Senator from Delaware chooses to comment on this, I think he 
will restate what I just stated as being accurate.
  My request, my plea, is that we adopt language which strikes the 
discriminatory provision which allows the Stafford Act forgiveness to 
be considered with these loans the way it has been considered with all 
other loans. That is my plea. And my plea is incorporated in an 
amendment.
  My amendment, which I ask the majority leader to consider, would 
strike the word ``not'' in the bill where it says:

        . . . that loans may not be canceled.

  Strike the word ``not'' and substitute the words ``may be canceled 
pursuant to the Stafford Act,'' and with an additional requirement, 
``with the approval of the Congress.''
  I suggest we add an additional safeguard, the safeguard of the 
Stafford

[[Page 22587]]

Act, which has been applied to all other loans, but in addition to 
that, add a requirement that if there is forgiveness, it could only 
happen with the approval of the Congress. That is a double safeguard. 
That still would single them out as no others have been singled out, 
but at least it would keep the possibility explicit in the bill that 
under the circumstances that are provided for every other loan, that 
these loans might be forgiven should Congress so choose.
  I have been told we can always do that; we always have that power, 
and we do. It is implicit. But I think we should make it explicit to 
give people the assurance that in addition--it is bad enough to be 
victims of this hurricane; it is doubly bad to be victims of 
discriminatory language. And we are not going to walk down that road. 
We are going to hold our hand out to you and not insult or offend at 
the same time.
  I ask the leader whether he would amend his unanimous consent 
proposal to strike the word ``not'' on page 2, line 10, and substitute 
the words ``only with the approval of the Congress''?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader so modify his 
request?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I object to the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's 
original consent request?
  Mr. CARPER. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order being called for, the Senator 
from Delaware must object or not object.
  Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator from Delaware or any other Senator not 
have the right to reserve the right to object?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not a right to reserve the right to 
object; it is an indulgence of the Chair.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request by the majority leader?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 1858) was read three times and passed, as follows:

                                S. 1858

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Community Disaster Loan Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DISASTER LOANS.

       (a) Essential Services.--Of the amounts provided in Public 
     Law 109-62 for ``Disaster Relief'', up to $750,000,000 may be 
     transferred to the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program 
     for the cost of direct loans as authorized under section 417 
     of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5184) to be used to assist local 
     governments in providing essential services: Provided, That 
     such transfer may be made to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed 
     $1,000,000,000 under section 417 of the Stafford Act: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding section 417(b) of the 
     Stafford Act, the amount of any such loan issued pursuant to 
     this section may exceed $5,000,000: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 417(c)(1) of the Stafford Act, such 
     loans may not be canceled: Provided further, That the cost of 
     modifying such loans shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a).
       (b) Administrative Expenses.--Of the amounts provided in 
     Public Law 109-62 for ``Disaster Relief'', up to $1,000,000 
     may be transferred to the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan 
     Program for administrative expenses to carry out the direct 
     loan program, as authorized by section 417 of the Stafford 
     Act.

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the last 24 hours, we have dealt with 
an issue that centers around the Vitter bill and the proposal to 
appropriately be able to modify, increase the amounts of loans and loan 
programs. We have struggled to come to the point we have today, which 
maximizes our likelihood, having just passed the Vitter bill, to get 
language to the House of Representatives before they leave today so 
that we can respond to the very real needs of the local communities in 
New Orleans.
  We have been working actually for about 10 days on the specific issue 
of being able to support local government, law enforcement, and 
hospitals. The step we just took in passing the Vitter bill maximizes 
our chance today of getting a bill to the House, which we will do, of 
having the House address it in the next few hours, and having this 
relief being made available to the people of New Orleans.
  There have been a lot of suggestions in terms of language and changes 
in words, all of which is fine, and some of the language is even very 
reasonable in terms of the language itself, but after discussions with 
Republican leadership, the administration having fully vetted the 
language that is in the Vitter bill, I strongly believe that this gives 
us the best chance to respond to the very real needs of the people of 
New Orleans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, the last 24 hours has been a frustrating 
and disappointing time for me, quite frankly--frustrating because as we 
face an unprecedented crisis along the gulf coast, some elements of the 
Senate have acted as they often do by giving speeches and 
filibustering.
  When I ran for the Senate last year, that is what I heard the most 
from real people in real life in real towns and cities across 
Louisiana. They did not get that disconnect. There were real issues on 
the ground they had dealt with every day in their lives, and yet so 
often the response of some in the Senate was to give speeches, to 
obstruct, and to filibuster. So I have to say particularly in these 
circumstances, when my State and the gulf coast face unprecedented 
obstacles and hurdles, it has been frustrating to get that response 
from the other side in the Senate. But we have moved through that, and 
I am glad.
  Just a few minutes ago, we sent over to the House a significant 
measure to try to get some immediate relief to local governmental 
entities so that they can sustain essential services, police and fire 
and hospitals and the like. That is vitally important.
  When others have been filibustering, making speeches, and delaying, 
particularly in the last 24 hours, I tried to do something 
constructive. What I did is what I have done for the last 10 days--
working on this vital issue, trying to get something meaningful, 
important, and positive done. When others gave speeches about what the 
perfect language would be, I actually talked to other folks who were 
clearly going to be involved in the process at the White House, at OMB, 
and in the House of Representatives to understand what the best 
language would be that we could hopefully pass this week. I continued 
that work last night, again as others were giving speeches and holding 
up action. I continued that work talking to dozens of people to try to 
get something important and significant done. Across the board, that 
included Members here, members of the administration, and Members of 
the House.
  Senator Levin, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, mentioned one 
conversation with the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. I 
followed up with the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. I 
talked to him after that conversation, and it was crystal clear to me 
from my conversation with him that significant elements of the House of 
Representatives needed to see that at least at the front end, this was 
a loan program. We can talk later about what we will do at the back 
end, how things proceed, what the financial picture looks like in the 
future, but at least in the front end, it is very clear that they want 
to frame it as a loan program. That is the only reason I accepted that 
language, because I actually want to do something. I actually want to 
get needed help today, not in 2 weeks when it will be too late for so 
many of those communities and local jurisdictions of government that 
need to preserve their police, fire, and hospital services. That is the 
only reason I have focused on this particular version of the bill and 
that particular language.

[[Page 22588]]

  Several speakers on the other side called it discriminatory. Let me 
explain a few other ways in which it is discriminatory because it is 
discriminatory in at least three other ways, and I am pretty darn proud 
of being able to negotiate those three other discriminatory provisions. 
No. 1, for the first time ever that I am aware of, ever in history, we 
are moving emergency Stafford Act funds that have already been 
appropriated by the Congress into this community disaster loan program 
under homeland security so it can be used for ongoing expenses, ongoing 
salaries, and other expenses of local government. That has never 
happened before. That is discriminatory, and I am proud of that 
discriminatory provision.
  Secondly, we are lifting the cap on this program that ordinarily 
limits these funds to $5 million per entity of local government. We are 
blowing well past that, and there are significant numbers of local 
government entities, such as the city of New Orleans, that will be able 
to get loans way in excess of that, perhaps 10, 11, 12 times in excess 
of that in the case of the city of New Orleans. That is discriminatory 
because it has never happened before. It is discriminatory in our favor 
because we needed it.
  So there are many provisions in this version of the bill that were 
discriminatory in our favor because these are unusual circumstances and 
call for absolutely dramatic action. So I am proud of being able to 
negotiate those. I accept this other provision because, again, what is 
important to real people in the real world in the real devastated area 
is that we get real help to them today--not give a speech, not 
filibuster, but get real help to them today and not simply pass it off 
for 2 weeks or a month. I am hopeful that is what this bill which we 
have just passed through the Senate will do.
  It has not yet cleared the House, and immediately from this floor, I 
will go to the House and continue my discussions which were begun over 
a week ago with House leaders, House Members, to try to ensure that 
this type of strong, effective action actually happens today.
  I thank the Chair for his indulgence. It certainly was not my plan or 
my actions which caused this 24 hours of obstruction, filibuster, and 
frustration. I share that frustration, and I thank everyone who has 
worked constructively on trying to get something done, everyone here, 
everyone in the U.S. House, everyone in the administration, and OMB, 
whose help put that together.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today first to pay tribute to the 
senior Senator from Louisiana for her courage, her strength, and her 
resolve. I have been so amazed and impressed at the way she has been 
willing to continue to be on this floor, regardless of how tired she 
became, in order to fight for the people of Louisiana. I hope everyone 
in Louisiana understands what she is doing on their behalf and on 
behalf of all of those in the entire gulf region.
  What is so disappointing for me is to see that this has not been a 
bipartisan effort. It seemed reasonable to me. I represent Michigan, 
and fortunately we have not been in a situation like my colleagues from 
New York or the gulf or California. So far--knock on wood--we have not 
had to face that kind of a catastrophe. But I found what the Senator 
from Louisiana was asking for very reasonable.
  On a bipartisan basis, we have appropriated $61 billion to be used 
through FEMA. We assumed it would be already being used for the things 
the Senator talked about. I was shocked to learn that those funds had 
not been released to help local communities, as we have been told, and 
that the process was not moving as it should when people are so 
desperately in need of support, whether it be the small businesses, the 
families, the seniors, the cities.
  When the Senator from Louisiana asked us for a very modest request of 
allowing $1 billion of $61 billion to be used directly and immediately 
to help those who have been so devastated, we do not have bipartisan 
support for that. I was very disappointed that both Senators from 
Louisiana were not standing together for that, very surprised that 
instead what we see is an alternative that comes back that is not only 
less than what is needed but has restrictions that have not been put on 
other States and other communities. The caps being talked about being 
raised in terms of loans have been done before, but it is my 
understanding that no community has been asked before to guarantee a 
repayment on those loans. I do not know why anyone would support that 
kind of an effort for their State or their communities to be treated 
differently than other States or other communities.
  If I were in that position, I would not want to say to my folks: I 
trust you less than I trust the folks in New York; I voted for a 
different set of rules for what happened in New York, what happened in 
relation to Washington, DC, and the Pentagon. I certainly would not 
want to be in a situation of saying that I would vote for rules that 
were penalizing my own people or saying we do not trust you as much as 
we trust people in other places. So I am surprised and disappointed, 
and I know the senior Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, is as 
concerned, surprised, and deeply disappointed, certainly, as I am and 
more than I am because she is working on this every single day.
  I just want to indicate that we could have done better, and I believe 
working together America can do better. I believe we can do better for 
the people of Louisiana and the gulf coast than what has been offered 
and passed here today. I know the senior Senator from Louisiana has 
worked very hard in order to put forward proposals that are better and 
that would do better than what has been achieved today.
  I commend her once again and thank her on behalf of all of us who at 
any moment could find ourselves in the same situation, could find 
ourselves fighting for our people because of a devastating attack or 
natural disaster. I hope I would have the courage of conviction, the 
compassion, and the strength that the Senator from Louisiana has shown 
and I know will continue to show.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, folks who might be watching this debate 
across the country may be wondering what this is all about. Let me try 
to simplify it as best I can.
  Over the last month or so, the Congress has appropriated some $61 
billion to be used to assist in the reconstruction, the aid, and the 
housing of a lot of people whose lives have been disrupted and in some 
cases destroyed. There are a number of cities, towns, and jurisdictions 
within that region where their revenue base--the ability to raise taxes 
and to provide essential services--is gone. Of that $61 billion, FEMA 
is not authorized to extend or lend that money to those cities or towns 
or jurisdictions without our authorization.
  The legislation that is before us today would authorize the movement 
of about $750 million from FEMA to be able to lend that money to some 
of these cities, towns, parishes, and jurisdictions so that hospitals 
can be helped and police, fire services, and other services can be 
extended even though the revenue base has dried up under all of this 
water.
  Historically, when FEMA has been given the authority to extend this 
money, to lend money to other communities, other cities, other States, 
the loans have in some cases been forgiven. It did not require an act 
of Congress to do that. It did not require any particular action by OMB 
or certification by OMB to do that. It occurred under the law. The 
loans were forgiven.
  Senator Levin mentioned earlier that a number of jurisdictions, a 
number of local government borrowers borrowed money extended through 
FEMA to help these communities in their most tough times, in Idaho, in 
West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Arizona, and others. They did not 
have to come and ask for an act of Congress to get that forgiveness. 
They didn't have to go to OMB and say please forgive this loan. The 
loans were forgiven.

[[Page 22589]]

  Senator Clinton spoke a bit earlier as well and talked about the 
generous assistance that the taxpayers of this country provided to New 
York City on the heels of 9/11. Mr. President, $20 billion was the 
amount of money, almost a direct infusion. I thought it was loan. For 
all these years I thought it was a loan that was forgiven. I was wrong. 
It was a grant--just a gift to the people of New York as they struggled 
to recover from their tragedy.
  The tragedy that has fallen on the folks along the gulf coast is 
every bit as bad for a lot of them as what happened in New York on 9/
11. Yet we are not prepared to provide a grant to those communities, 
those cities, so they can provide essential services. Frankly, none of 
us are calling for doing that.
  FEMA has all this money we provided them. Absent some legislation 
today, they are not able to extend any of that money to help these 
communities and cities. The legislation is designed to say we are going 
to allow FEMA to extend those loans.
  But unlike the way we treated New York, which got a grant, not a 
loan, and unlike the loans that were extended to all the communities 
listed on this sheet of paper whose loans were forgiven and did not 
even require our action or OMB's forgiveness, we say with respect to 
the folks on the gulf coast: We are not going to forgive your loan.
  Carl Levin--Senator Levin--and I spent a good deal of time last night 
trying to put together a compromise. I appreciate very much the 
cooperation of Senator Landrieu to help find that compromise and 
Senator Vitter and certainly Senator Frist. Senator Levin and I, at the 
midnight hour last night, were down in the House and found Congressman 
Lewis, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and said to him: 
What if we provide a change in language in this bill so, in order to 
forgive a loan that FEMA would make under the authorization of this 
bill, it would require an act of Congress? The Senate and House and 
President would have to concur in that forgiveness.
  He said he thought that was a reasonable idea and thought even the 
House might go along with that.
  I am disappointed to hear this morning that is not going to happen. 
Senator Frist, last night in conversation after midnight with Senator 
Levin and me, said he thought that was a reasonable idea. He couldn't 
commit himself to make it happen, but he thought that was a reasonable 
approach, and, frankly, I do, too. For the life of me, I do not see why 
that is not acceptable.
  If we were to include language--and we are not going to get the 
chance do this because Senator Levin's amendment is not going to be 
made in order, but if we were to include language that said an act of 
Congress was required in order to forgive loans made by FEMA to these 
jurisdictions in their hour of need, that is a very high standard. It 
is a standard we never set for these communities. It is a standard we 
never set for New York.
  The greatest irony to me is, going back, we didn't require an act of 
Congress or intervention of OMB to enable the forgiveness of these 
loans. Going forward, as I read the legislation--going forward, if you 
are from Delaware or from Michigan or if you are from Georgia and your 
communities seek a loan from FEMA in a similar situation, an emergency, 
moneys that have been authorized and appropriated, you don't have to 
get an act of Congress to have that loan forgiven. You don't have to 
get any special approval from OMB so the loan can be forgiven. It can 
be forgiven.
  Yet in this case, with respect to the Gulf Coast States, we do not 
allow that to happen. Going back in time and going forward in time it 
looks to me as if we protect the rest of us. We allow for the loans to 
be forgiven for the other 49 States or 48 States. But not in this case. 
That does not make sense. That does not make sense.
  As we move to pass the legislation, I echo what some of my other 
colleagues have said. We can do better. When we have an opportunity to 
return, in a week or so, my earnest hope is that we will do better.
  In closing, I say to my friend and colleague, Senator Landrieu, it 
has been an honor to stand by her side in this struggle. The people of 
Louisiana are fortunate to have Senators with that kind of passion and 
care for them. I hope, as we go forward working with Senator Vitter, we 
can get to an outcome that is fair to the people you represent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank, so much, the Senator from 
Delaware who, before he was a Senator--because he wasn't born one 
either--was a Governor of Delaware. Before he was Governor, he was a 
husband and a father, which he still is. I know he does a magnificent 
job at family and in the Senate because I have seen him here at late 
hours.
  Last night this Senator from Delaware, who does not, obviously, have 
a dog in this hunt, stood through the night and negotiated with myself 
and with my colleague from Louisiana, with Senator Frist, with Senator 
Reid, and we negotiated and offered one compromise after another in 
meetings, on the telephone, on the floor, when we could speak--because 
speech was limited last night. Despite the notion that is out there 
that Senators can speak any time they want, the rules of the Senate 
actually prevent Senators from speaking. So I was not able to speak as 
much as I would have liked through the night last night. When I was not 
able to speak on the floor, we were in meetings, in phone calls, 
speaking with the White House and the House leadership and Republican 
colleagues and Democratic colleagues, trying to work through this 
situation.
  We put our best efforts forward. We are now down to this time, which 
is basically the end of this debate, having passed a bill by Senator 
Vitter and Senator Frist that will basically allow us to have the loans 
we seek, loans that are so necessary, but a bill that forces us to take 
it in a discriminatory fashion.
  I believe this Senator has shown, on many occasions, a willingness to 
compromise and to work through difficult situations. I helped negotiate 
No Child Left Behind on this floor, one of the premier centerpieces of 
the current President's administration, of his agenda, even when half 
of my caucus was opposed--not sort of opposed but very opposed. But I 
knew what was best for Louisiana was to move forward because we had 
already gone down the road of accountability. It was showing some 
results. The children in my State were learning. The gap between the 
rich and the poor was closing, not because the rich were coming down 
but because the poor were coming up.
  White children and Black children, who had been by law separated for 
over 150 years in schools, were then thrust together in the 1960s and 
1970s. I believed that law, and I still believe this law, could help 
lift those who had limited opportunities. I have worked with Senators 
on both sides of the aisle, for the 8 years that I have been here, to 
try to craft and negotiate some of the toughest legislation the Senate 
has seen--compromise on missile defense, compromise on Corps of 
Engineers to move a WRDA bill. I worked for 10 years to compromise the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act where 4,500 organizations in this 
country, from the most liberal to the most conservative, came together 
one time on one bill to provide coastal money for all the communities 
in the Nation: 10 years of meetings, 10 years of phone calls, 10 years 
of speeches, 10 years of pleas, 10 years of press conferences, 10 years 
of alliance building, only to get down to the last minute some years 
ago to be told, with 72 signatures on that bill at the last minute, 5 
years ago: Senator, we cannot bring your bill up, there is an election 
around the corner and it may have repercussions for one or two people 
here. We can't do it.
  You could have taken a knife and stabbed it in my heart, but I stood 
there and took it, not because it was me but because the people I 
represent I knew were getting a bad deal. But in my heart I knew that I 
and our delegation had literally done everything we could possibly do. 
When it came to the end, the death was quick.

[[Page 22590]]

  When I got back in the next session, after my State had been stabbed 
in the heart and left for dead--which we have died, through this 
hurricane--I started putting yet another bill together because there is 
nothing wrong with me that I don't know how to work through difficult 
situations. My family has been doing it a very long time.
  I thank Senator Clinton for her remarks. She obviously understands 
what the people of New York went through. I also thank Senator Schumer. 
Although he was not here in person, he was here in spirit. He and 
Senator Clinton stood by the Republican mayor at the time, Rudy 
Giuliani, lifted him up and helped him. No second-guessing; they helped 
him and they lifted the city up.
  I thank Senator Jeffords, who has been a champion. He stood at the 
Leeville Bridge with me. I have been on so many trips down to Louisiana 
I lose count, but one of them I remember very well. Senator Jeffords 
came down with me, so far to the bottom of Louisiana if he had taken 
one more step he would have been in the Gulf of Mexico. There is not 
much down there--no big cities, no big money, no big press conferences. 
There is hardly a camera at the end of LA-1, at Port Fourchon, but 
Senator Jeffords went. He stood there, and while I was explaining to 
him the difficulty of getting people out in an evacuation for a 
hurricane on a highway that goes underwater when there is rain, let 
alone when a category 5 hurricane comes bearing down on you--he stood 
there on the bridge with me and at the moment--if I could have scripted 
it myself I could not have done it any better, and people who were not 
there are not going to believe what I am going to say but I have a lot 
of witnesses--at the very moment I was pointing to the Leeville Bridge, 
a shrimp trawler came in, lifted their nets up as they do--they look 
like butterflies out on the gulf--they lifted their nets up and ran 
into the bridge, with Senator Jeffords on it, and shook the bridge and 
shut it down like that.
  The words had just come out of my mouth: Senator Jeffords, not only 
is the road a problem but when the hurricane comes, if this bridge 
shuts down, there is no way out. And the shrimp trawler hit the bridge.
  He said to me, laughing with his good sense of humor: Senator, don't 
you think you went a little too far to make your point?
  And we had a big laugh about it, not that I laughed about the shrimp 
trawler, but we literally cannot believe that and have talked about it 
for 3 years.
  I know about meetings. I know about visits down to Louisiana. I know 
about briefings. I know about educating Senators and working with them. 
We have been doing it a long time.
  I thank Senator Levin from Michigan, Senator Stabenow from Michigan, 
and Senator Harry Reid. Before he was a Senator, he was a Lieutenant 
Governor. He was a Representative in the House from Nevada and is a 
Senator from Nevada. He came from a little town called Searchlight. 
Before he did that, he was a captain with the police, and he was a 
boxer. He wasn't born a Senator either. He wasn't even born in a place 
that knew much about what the Senate was doing. I imagine they were too 
busy mining coal out of the ground. But when he came to the Senate, he 
didn't need a lot of people--and he surely didn't need me--to tell him 
how much people need help when catastrophes happen. Maybe he has 
witnessed some collapsed coal mines in his life. Maybe when he was kid 
he used to think about his father going down in the mine and hoping the 
mine didn't collapse on top of him. I don't know. Maybe that is what he 
thought. So I don't have to spend a lot of time with Harry Reid 
explaining this situation to him.
  He wasn't born a millionaire. He wasn't born a Senator.
  I thank Senator Lincoln, who stood on this floor through the night 
trying to work situations out, who stood here through the week and 
through the months, and who was an original cosponsor of CARA.
  We have laughed with her over the course of the last couple of years. 
She told me once, Senator Landrieu, you need to be successful with your 
coastal erosion efforts because if you are not, it is going to be 
Arkansas's problem. I have enough on my plate. I can hardly manage my 
agriculture, my health care, and my education issues. Please stop 
coastal erosion because if not, Arkansas is going to be the coast. She 
is right.
  It is a little exaggerated. As a matter of fact, it is a beast out of 
control. This Congress has failed to respond adequately, and this 
disaster has occurred.
  I thank Senator Durbin from Illinois, who was not born a Senator 
either. Senator Durbin has spent more years in the House than most of 
us on the Senate floor. I didn't spend any time in the House of 
Representatives. And the way it operates over there now, I am glad I 
didn't. But Senator Durbin has been over there to the House.
  He understands about negotiations. He is the best negotiator, 
probably, on our side. He tried to negotiate this--not just last night, 
not during the speeches, for a week, for 2 weeks, asking for anything 
reasonable, anything with dignity, anything that would not be 
discriminatory, anything at all we would be have been willing to take.
  But, no, nothing we offered--not in the morning, not at noon, not on 
the phone, not in person--would work.
  I thank all the Senators who have helped and Senators on the 
Republican side who tried to intervene. But at a point it became clear 
that the House Republicans were not going to budge. There was just no 
budging. They were determined to only accept a bill that would only 
give help under discriminatory terms. They tried.
  I acknowledge Senator Vitter. He has made a mark here in the Senate. 
He continues in his way, which I respect. I don't always agree with 
him, but I respect him as an official as a human being. I respect the 
work he does. We stood together fighting this battle, meeting after 
meeting, phone call after phone call. I guess the only difference was 
when the House leadership finally said, no, I wasn't willing to sit 
down. I am not willing to sit down now.
  We sent the best we could over there, Senator Vitter and Senator 
Frist. But it is not the best we could have done.
  Let us hope the House passes this. Even before they do, let us hope 
they will consider doing it in the right way for the right reason. They 
know the gulf coast deserves the same help and the same support that 
every community in America has received since this act was initiated in 
1974, and that people will get the same help in the future.
  The House still has time. I think they are still in. They could 
consider some changes, or the President could say: this is not quite 
good enough. We need to do better. But saying and doing it are two 
different things.
  The people of my State have heard for 32 days: We will not abandon 
you, we will do better, we will send you help, help is on the way.
  Words are cheap. Actions are what people value. That is why it is 
important to get the language straight. That is why it is important for 
the process to work. That is why it is important for the House to maybe 
see the error of their ways and change course and say, We can do 
better. I hope they will. If they don't do that today or this weekend 
or tomorrow, I can promise you this Nation will force better action. 
Republicans, Democrats, and people from all over the country will force 
better action.
  The needs are substantial--not just in this region but around the 
country.
  Our strength is found at home in our neighborhoods, in our churches, 
on corners, in our workplaces, and in our places of worship. Right here 
is where our strength is found--not in anyplace overseas, right here at 
home.
  I am going to wrap up by showing you pictures of the homes to make my 
point. This is our home on the gulf coast. After the photographer took 
this picture, the commentary in the National Geographic magazine was 
something like: It looks like a weapon of mass destruction went off on 
the gulf coast. This is exactly what would happen if a weapon of mass 
destruction would go off, except you wouldn't have the trees and maybe 
the beach would be a little disheveled. That is what it

[[Page 22591]]

looks like. It was a storm of massive destruction.
  Our strength begins at home.
  The underlying bill is sending $415 billion overseas. We ask for a 
loan program of $1 billion already allocated under the same terms and 
conditions that everyone in America has received. And we are told no. 
It was too much to do.
  I am going to close with this.
  This is a picture of New Orleans. It doesn't look like this today 
because all the water has gone down. But when people say, Why can't you 
be a little bit more self-reliant, I am not sure any city in America 
could stand itself up by itself with no loans, no grants, with the 
police force being laid off, a fire department being laid off, city 
workers being laid off, an electric company taking bankruptcy, no water 
in the pipes. And when we come to ask for a loan, we are told: Sorry, 
there is no money in the Treasury. We have made other arrangements for 
the taxes that you have paid over the last 300 years.
  Let me submit for the Record a letter from the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors which they sent to this Senate. They said:

       We greatly appreciate Congress' attention to America's 
     cities devastated by Hurricane Katrina, and now Hurricane 
     Rita, and to those cities home to hundreds of thousands of 
     evacuees. The leadership of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
     convened in Long Beach on September 22-24, resolved that 
     Congress must pass legislation to provide direct fiscal 
     assistance to cities devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and 
     Rita--

  All cities, cities that are Republican cities and cities that are 
Democratic cities, communities that do not vote for Democrats and 
communities that do not vote for Republicans--all cities.

       Most importantly, we urge the Senate to reject language 
     that would for the first time in history remove the 
     possibility that communities' disaster loans be forgivable, 
     if needed, due to the dire situation many of the impacted 
     cities will continue to face in the months and years ahead.

  It goes on to say they are going to keep a vigil. I hope somebody 
keeps the candle burning.
  I ask unanimous that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 The United States


                                         Conference of Mayors,

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senate Leaders:


    fiscal aid needed now for hurricane cities, without new strings 
                                attached

       We greatly appreciate Congress's attention to America's 
     cities devastated by Hurricane Katrina, and now Hurricane 
     Rita, and to those cities home to hundred of thousands of 
     evacuees. The Leadership of The U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
     convened in Long Beach on September 22-24, resolved that 
     Congress must pass legislation to provide direct fiscal 
     assistance to cities devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and 
     Rita, as we stated to you in our letter of September 29.
       Most importantly, we urge the Senate to reject language 
     that would--for the first time in history--remove the 
     possibility that community disaster loans be forgivable, if 
     needed, due to the dire situation many of the impacted cities 
     will continue to face in the months and years ahead.
       As we learned during our recent fact-finding mission to 
     Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, the mayors of these 
     cities have lost most of their tax base and will soon be 
     without the funds needed to pay first responders, public 
     works employees, and other key local personnel that are 
     leading the recovery effort. These local personnel are truly 
     national assets in the recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and 
     Rita, and these cities must not be allowed to go bankrupt. 
     Without a functioning local government, the private sector 
     will be stymied in efforts to invest in the reconstruction 
     effort, and it will be impossible for volunteer relief 
     efforts to be coordinated and to function.
       If you would like to discuss this further, please contact 
     our Chief of Staff Ed Somers at (202) 861-6706 or 
     [email protected].
       We look forward to working with you in the coming days, as 
     together we strengthen the intergovernmental partnership 
     needed to make sure our cities are safe and our nation 
     prospers.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Beverly O'Neill,
                                   Mayor of Long Beach, President.
                                                      Tom Cochran,
                                               Executive Director.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have shown all the pictures I can show 
for the week. I have done all the talking I can do for today. But I can 
promise you this. This talking will continue and these meetings will 
continue and this debate will continue. It is not going away.
  The leadership of the House of Representatives needs to be put on 
notice that this debate is going to go on for a very long time, until 
we get relief, recovery, respect, and the dignity that we deserve as 
American citizens from Louisiana to Texas to Alabama to Mississippi and 
the people whom we represent, Black and White, rich and poor, young and 
old, small and large businesses alike, and our faith-based community, 
get the respect it deserves from the floor of this Senate and the 
Congress of the United States, and gets the help it needs to get 
through and rebuild.
  I assure you that we will rebuild this coast. We will rebuild the 
gulf coast. It was paid for by a great President, President Jefferson, 
at 3 cents an acre in 1803 where he borrowed money. He knew what he was 
borrowing money for. He had a good reason to borrow it, and he bought 
the Louisiana Purchase. Andrew Jackson came and defended it. His statue 
never went underwater.
  We will rebuild this region all through the gulf coast and into 
Louisiana--the ports, the energy infrastructure, turn our lights on 
again, and keep the lights on all over America, to try to keep people's 
bills as low as we can and keep their heat on this winter, which is 
approaching. Even if you do not give us one penny, even if you do not 
lend us money, we have been self-reliant for over 300 or more years. 
The people here are pretty tough and it takes a lot more than this to 
beat our spirit.
  The bill is gone. It is the best we could do. It is not the best we 
could have done, but it is what we have. We will live with it, but we 
will not stop this debate.
  I 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________