[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 22706-22710]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  COMMUNITY DISASTER LOAN ACT OF 2005

  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1858) to provide for community 
disaster loans, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, under my 
reservation, I ask the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) to explain 
the substance of the bill.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, there is within the construction of FEMA a 
loan program called the Community Disaster Loan Program. Currently as 
constructed, there is a $5 million limit per loan per community under 
the rules that govern distributions of these loans. There is also a 
funding limitation of some considerable concern in light of the 
community needs pursuant to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  The purpose of this legislation is to designate $700 million of 
previously appropriated funds for the purpose of making them available 
under the provisions of the current Community Disaster Loan Program.
  Secondly, the bill would waive the $5 million arbitrary cap in light 
of the current need, but only as to the $700 million specified, and 
only as to the final disposition of the need for Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita.
  Pursuant to those modifications, the Senate has also adopted a 
provision which would not allow the waiver of repayment which has been 
historically the case over the course of the administration of the 
Community Disaster Loan Program. The bill as now constructed does not 
permit the waiver of repayment of these loan obligations. This will in 
effect create a $700 million loan program which must be repaid by the 
communities which have suffered the Katrina-Rita losses without a limit 
as to the $5 million cap on a per-loan consideration.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving the right to object, and I thank the 
gentleman for that explanation. Earlier this week, under the leadership 
of our chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan), 10 House Members traveled to the three principally affected 
Gulf States to see firsthand the effects of Hurricane Katrina.
  We met with officials in Baton Rouge at the Joint Operation Center 
for New Orleans and then on through Mississippi and Alabama, during 
which session the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) made, I thought, 
a superb, a superlative presentation of the history of the storm and 
the disastrous affects of Katrina and the consequences on the people 
and the businesses and the need for reconstruction.
  Citizens of the Gulf States are doing everything they can to pick up 
where the storm left off and rebuild their lives. As we saw, nearly a 
month after the storm, they are still hurting. After 5 weeks of debris 
removal, the debris remaining is overwhelming.

                              {time}  1500

  Local governments' tax base is gone. In our meeting with Mayor Nagin, 
the mayor of New Orleans, he pointed out that the city of New Orleans 
accounts for 35 percent of the total economy of the State of Louisiana.
  Of course, we also know very well that New Orleans is the world's 
most important grain export facility. Yet grain is backed up all along 
the Mississippi, the soybean crop coming in that will not be able to 
move until New Orleans is able to operate.
  In the course of our meeting, Mayor Nagin said, with a heavy heart, 
with candor, that he had to leave that meeting and go to another news 
conference to announce layoff of half of the municipal workforce of New 
Orleans because the city has no revenue coming in and no ability to pay 
its workforce.
  But it was not just New Orleans. We heard that in Bay St. Louis, we 
heard it in Biloxi, we heard it in Mobile. We saw the pain. This 
legislation is desperately needed. I support the transfer of $750 
million already appropriated in the emergency supplemental of September 
8, transferring that money to FEMA, to the community disaster loan 
program.
  I support waiver of the current $5 million cap, but I think it is 
hard to swallow the insistence by the Office of Management and Budget 
that the loan forgiveness provision is discontinued. I look back over 
the major hurricanes of the last decade and a half: 1889, Hurricane 
Hugo, Virgin Islands, $50 million forgiven; 1992, Hurricane Andrew, 
Homestead, Florida, $10 million forgiven; Kauai in Hawaii, 1992, $50 
million, Hurricane Iniki, forgiven; Virgin Islands, 1995, Hurricane 
Marilyn, $127 million, forgiven. Every penny, principal and interest, 
forgiven. They needed it. It was desperate for those communities. They 
needed the loan forgiveness.
  The damage from Katrina as we have seen is unprecedented. It is 
heart-breaking, it is devastating. It has affected the gentleman from 
Louisiana personally, his family, his constituents. It has affected my 
own family. My wife's brothers still live in New Orleans. One 
completely lost his home and a second home in Pass Christian.

[[Page 22707]]

  The situation in Slidell, Louisiana, they would be eligible for a 
loan of $5 million. But if they do not recover within 3 years, the loan 
and interest under current law must be forgiven. Under the bill 
pending, Slidell will have to repay. If they have not rebuilt their 
economy, if they have not reconstructed, how are they going to repay?
  Now, I am sure that colleagues in the committee will say, welcome 
back, we will fix this at a later time. Now is the time to fix it. I 
understand, we are not going to stand in the way of the 
administration's policy priority here. I think we all accept that with 
great reluctance and heavy heart. We need to resolve to come back and 
address this at a later time.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from 
Minnesota yielding and just wish to express appreciation for those 
concerns he has noted. Certainly, the repayment obligation should be 
met at some point. The arbitrary deadline, in fact, may be problematic 
going forward.
  I would suggest in consultation with the other members of the 
Louisiana delegation, we fully intend to examine this going forward and 
hope to have the opportunity to bring our concerns to the attention of 
this body and the Senate as well. The principal concern, as the 
gentleman has identified, is the Senate has passed this vehicle in its 
current construct. If we were to amend it as suggested, it would have 
to return to that body for their agreement.
  We are very concerned with potential layoffs occurring next week in 
various municipalities. So this loan package is very much an emergency 
issue; and albeit with the nonwaiver of repayment provision, we fully 
support it in its current form, given the constraints we face.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving the right to object, I appreciate the 
gentleman's predicament and position, but I am also quite certain that 
within our committee, we will revisit this issue. I certainly intend to 
take the first opportunity to do so to correct what I think is an 
imbalance.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Melancon) under my reservation.
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, I am new to the House, so maybe I should 
not be so shocked, so disappointed at what I have seen and heard this 
week. Maybe failing to address critical needs in a crisis is normal 
here. Maybe if I had been here a few terms, I would understand that is 
just part of the job to smile when you get nothing and then you say it 
is a good compromise.
  Maybe with a little seniority, I would understand what it means to be 
a Member of the House of Representatives, to shake a lot of hands, make 
speeches on the floor, and deeply hope that your district ends up okay.
  But I am new to this House. I do not understand. I do not understand 
why we cannot do what is so obviously the right thing. I do not 
understand how good people can have their hands so completely tied by 
leadership that refuses to let their Members voice their conscience. I 
have friends here and on the other side of the aisle. I do not 
understand why after asking me personally what they can do to help with 
this terrible tragedy, they are unable to explain to me why we have to 
compromise.
  I am new here, Mr. Speaker. I heard the President make promises in 
Jackson Square, and I believed them. I believed the White House when 
they told me Wednesday that they would help local governments survive 
so that we can lay the ground work to rebuild. I believed the Louisiana 
Senators when they said they were committed to the same simple request.
  Maybe it is because I am new, but what I am having trouble with 
today, Mr. Speaker, is the idea that this House would seek to put the 
people under south Louisiana under more debt and more pain. The loans 
that should be grants are about to become huge millstones around the 
necks of the people of south Louisiana when we act today.
  When we leave this afternoon, we will have sent its local government 
along the gulf coast to hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. Why? 
That is what I ask. Why?
  Senator Vitter tells us that it is the only way for this to pass the 
House. The only way he says that the leadership in this body will lift 
a finger to help the people in need in Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
Alabama is if we impose a crushing debt on them. All the signs point in 
the same direction, Mr. Speaker. The problem is here.
  Senator Vitter worked in this House for 6 years and knows this 
leadership. He has placed the blame squarely at their feet, and I think 
they owe the entire gulf coast a explanation. Who is this compromise 
supposed to help, and why is it being done on the backs of those who 
need the help the most? Why have 90 percent of previous loans been 
forgiven, and why will loans for future disasters be forgiven but not 
these?
  I will have to support this, Mr. Speaker. Then I am going to go back 
home, look my local leaders in the eye and tell them to take the money 
and run. Their Federal Government let them down again, just like we 
failed in the early days after this storm. They will be asked in 3 
years to pay back the money, and that should have been a gift.
  My advice to them, again, will be take the money and run. Spend it on 
your sheriffs' deputies, your firefighters, your public hospitals. 
Spend it and do not pay it back.
  Mr. Speaker, I was sent here to do a job, to work for people that I 
represent, every day without exception, as hard as I know how. After 
Katrina and Rita, that focus has only sharpened. I now represent more 
homeless, broken and suffering people than almost anybody in this body. 
They have been drowned by the water, whipped by the wind, and now, Mr. 
Speaker, failed by the House.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to object, even though this 
legislation is flawed in many ways, as my colleague pointed out, 
because we all understand the tremendous need for the people in the 
gulf region. I am not a Representative from the gulf coast, but I 
certainly understand the impact on tax revenues after a disaster. 
Repealing the $5 million cap on community disaster loans is something 
that I have been working on along with the New York delegation, ever 
since New York suffered at least $5 billion in lost tax revenues 
following 9/11 and the loss from the gulf region maybe more.
  The bill before us lifts the $5 million cap, but it adds a provision 
that has never, ever been seen before with these loans. It prohibits, 
literally prohibits, the Federal Government from forgiving any part of 
these loans. This is incredibly important because there has been a long 
history of canceling these loans after they are given.
  I have here with me, Mr. Speaker, a list of all the previous disaster 
loans that have been forgiven. So why are we now putting this terrible 
burden on the people in the gulf region?

                                                                      CDL PROGRAM HISTORY--PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST CANCELLED
                                                                    [As Sept. 30, 2001--* loan made under Credit Reform Act]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Inerest                          Principal       Interest
                Loan No.                      Local Government                Status            Approved amount       rate      Amount disbursed     canceled        canceled      P&L cancelled
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
505-1..................................  Madison Co., ID...........  Repaid..................            375,000       7\1/4\           $275,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
505-2..................................  Rexburd,ID................  Cancel..................            260,000       7\1/4\            260,000         260,000         260,000        $249,301
505-3..................................  Fremont Co., ID...........  Repaid..................            321,409       7\1/4\            300,000  ..............  ..............        $509,302
505-4..................................  Bingham Co., ID...........  W/draw..................            854,000       7\1/4\  .................  ..............  ..............  ..............
531-5..................................  Williamson, WV............  Repaid..................            127,000       7\1/8\            127,000  ..............          86,339          86,339

[[Page 22708]]

 
531-6..................................  Matewan, WV...............  Cancel..................             12,000       7\1/8\              7,000            7,00           3,859          10,659
547-7..................................  Hull, MA..................  Repaid..................          1,369,000       8\3/4\            765,108               0  ..............  ..............
537-9..................................  Johnstown, PA.............  Cancel..................          1,680,000       8\3/4\          1,680,000       1,880,000         699,782       2,379,782
537-10.................................  Franklin Boro, PA.........  Cancel..................             50,000       9\1/2\             50,000          50,000          30,965          80,965
537-11.................................  Dale Boro,PA..............  Cancel..................             47,000      11\5/8\             47,000          47,000          24,250          71,250
598-12A................................  Gulf Shores, AL...........  Repaid..................            239,000       9\5/8\            239,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
598-12E................................  Gulf Shoers (Sew Bd)......  Repaid..................             16,100      10\3/8\             16,100  ..............  ..............  ..............
598-13.................................  Prichard, AL..............  Debt Col................          1,540,000       9\5/8\          1,540,000       1,540,000       1,983,789       3,523,789
598-14.................................  Gulf Shores WWB, Al.......  Repaid..................             44,000      10\3/8\             44,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
638-15.................................  Hurtsboro, AL.............  Repaid..................             28,000      13\3/4\             29,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
691-16.................................  Clifton, AZ...............  Repaid..................            344,639           11            344,639         112,979          69,928         182,805
737-17.................................  Wheatland Boro, PA........  Cancel..................             65,768       9\1/4\             65,758          85,788          21,681          87,449
753-18.................................  Marlington, WV............  Repaid..................             84,438       7\1/2\             84,430  ..............  ..............  ..............
753-19.................................  Albright, WV..............  W/draw..................             16,232  ...........  .................  ..............  ..............  ..............
753-20.................................  Pendleton City, WV........  Repaid..................            113,581       7\1/2\            113,581  ..............  ..............  ..............
737-21A................................  Albion Boro, PA...........  Repaid..................             48,242       6\3/4\             48,242          19,146           4,146          23,292
737-21E................................  Albion (Muny Auth)........  W/draw..................             79,996  ...........  .................  ..............  ..............  ..............
774-22.................................  Vassar, MI................  Repaid..................            124,115       6\1/2\            124,115          55,528          21,304          76,832
841-23.................................  USVI (Mugo)...............  Repaymt.................         89,912,000       8\1/4\         50,100,000      21,013,658      12,154,386      33,168,044
853-24.................................  Port of Tillamook, OR.....  Repaymt.................            172,318       8\3/8\            172,318  ..............  ..............  ..............
955-25.................................  Homestead City, FL........  Cancel..................         10,325,000        6.73*         10,325,000      10,325,000       3,223,100      13,548,100
955-26.................................  Florida City, FL..........  Cancel..................          1,048,000        8.73*          1,046,000       1,046,000         377,823       1,423,823
955-27.................................  City of Miami, FL.........  Cancel..................          5,000,000        5.68*          5,000,000       5,000,000         915,350       5,815,350
955-27A................................  City of Miami, FL.........  Cancel..................          5,000,000        5.47*          5,000,000       5,000,000         707,733       5,707,733
955-28.................................  Key Biscayne, FL..........  Repaid..................          1,000,000        5.88*          1,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
961-29.................................  County of Kauai, HI.......  Cancel..................         15,000,000        5.47*         15,000,000      15,000,000       4,071,873      19,071,873
927-30.................................  American Samoa............  Open....................         10,680,000         5,47         10,179,083       8,638,009       3,332,779      11,955,788
997-31.................................  Quincy, IL................  Repaid..................             700,00        5.47*              1,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-32.................................  Brussels Comm Sch #4......  Suspend.................             11,600        5.47*  .................  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-33.................................  Calhoun Co., IL...........  Repaid..................            162,000        5.47*             71,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
977-34.................................  Calhoun Comm Sch #4.......  Suspend.................            543,000        5,47*  .................  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-35.................................  Bluffdale Twp, II.........  Repaid..................             10,000        5.47*              1,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-36.................................  Bluffdale Rd Dist.........  Repaid..................             10,700        5.47*              1,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-37.................................  Carrollton Sch Dist, IL...  Suspend.................            762,000        5.47*  .................  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-38.................................  Columbia Levee Dist, IL...  Cancel..................             10,000        5.47*             10,000          10,000           2,646          12,646
997-38.................................  Green Co., IL.............  Repaid..................             270,00        5.47*              1,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-40.................................  Hillview, IL..............  Repaymt.................             16,725        5.47*             13,500  ..............           4,844           4,844
997-41.................................  Patterson Twp, IL.........  Repaid..................             11,600        5.47*              6,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-42.................................  Patterson Fld Dist........  Repaid..................             15,500        5.47*              1,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-43.................................  Walkerville Twp, IL.......  Repaid..................              6,000        5.47*              6,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-44.................................  Walkerville Rd Dist.......  Repaid..................              8,300        5.47*              1,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-45.................................  Woodville, IL.............  Repaid..................              9,582        5.47*              1,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-46.................................  Woodville Rd Dist.........  Repaid..................             13,235        5.47*              1,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-47.................................  Grfton, IL................  Repaid..................             92,000        5.47*              1,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-48.................................  Chouteau Twp, IL..........  Repaid..................             24,867        5.47*                500  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-49.................................  Chouteau Rd Dist..........  Repaid..................             48,283        5.47*                500  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-50.................................  Maeystown Fire Dist.......  Repaid..................             10,957        5.47*              1,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-51.................................  Monroe Co. Rd #8..........  Repaid..................             10,053        5.47*              1,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-52.................................  Monroe Co. Rd #9..........  Open....................             13,109        5.47*             13,109  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-53.................................  Monroe Co. Rd #10.........  Open....................             18,776        5.47*             10,000           3,947           1,088           5,035
997-54.................................  Valmeyer, IL..............  Open....................             97,200        5.47*             97,200  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-55.................................  Valmeyer Sch #2...........  Suspend.................            652,295        5.47*  .................  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-56.................................  Valmeyer Fire Dist........  Open....................              7,500        5.47*              7,500  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-57.................................  Hull, IL..................  W/draw..................             15,694        5.47*  .................  ..............  ..............  ..............
997-58.................................  Harrisoinville Levee......  Repaid..................             67,308        5.47*             36,000          36,000           9,725          45,725
997-59.................................  North Coast Railroad......  Open....................            615,658        5.66*            615,538  ..............  ..............  ..............
1067-60................................  USVI (Marilyn)............  Open....................        127,224,000        8.35*        127,200,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
1175-64................................  Ada, MN...................  Open....................          1,423,448        4.90*          1,423,448  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................  ..........................  ........................       $278,657,228  ...........        233,523,891      69,910,035      27,991,491      97,901,526
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  When you think about it, communities that have been devastated are 
not going to be in the position to be able to afford to pay back these 
loans. They cannot even afford their operating expenses. They are 
laying people off. How in the world is a city like New Orleans going to 
be able to afford to pay this back when it will be absolutely years 
before their tax base returns to normal?
  Mr. Speaker, Congress is not requiring Iraq to pay back the money we 
are giving them. Why are we making the people of the gulf coast pay us 
back now? It is terribly unfair, and I would say unpatriotic. Why are 
we giving a priority to contractors in Iraq over the people in 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama? Again, we are not being required 
to pay back in Iraq, but now they are telling these devastated 
communities and people that they have to pay it back.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning, along with the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) and 
others, we have introduced H.R. 4012. This bill would remove the $5 
million cap, give assistance grants and allow for these loans to fully 
cover the expenses of the towns, counties, and parishes up and down the 
coast. We have already appropriated at least $84 billion in aid for 
Katrina. We have identified the need. Why in the world are we setting 
up in this legislation new restrictive qualifications for the people in 
the gulf coast?
  So I join my colleague in his efforts and other efforts on both sides 
of the aisle to remove this in the future. But it is wrong, in my 
opinion, to place this burden now on the people of the gulf coast.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) for her observations.
  I am happy to yield further to the gentleman should he wish.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy. I shall be brief. 
I wish to express appreciation to those Members who brought to the 
House's attention that the waiver of repayment has been stricken from 
the bill, but I would also indicate that in discussions with people and 
in the loan construction packages they have great latitude as to terms 
and conditions of repayment. They have been quite assuring that they 
will work with communities in a manner which is responsible to assure 
relief is provided, but that the taxpayers of the United States have 
some assurance that, when possible, communities will give back that 
which was extended during times of hardship.
  I would also want to point out that there literally have been 
billions of dollars made available to constituents in Louisiana of 
great scope and consequence from the FEMA checks to the provision of 
temporary housing. There has been a great deal of work conducted here.

                              {time}  1515

  I wish to express appreciation for the administration and all those 
who are engaged in this work and to the people of this great country, 
who have given

[[Page 22709]]

 voluntarily huge charitable contributions to various organizations to 
be of assistance to us. We are indeed appreciative, and we do not wish 
to leave the House floor today with the impression that Louisianans 
have been ignored. Far from it.
  We have a long way to go. There is much work to do. There is 
suffering still far too rampant in our communities. This act today will 
go another small step in helping those people get back to normality. 
But there is a lot happening as fast as can be conducted, I believe, in 
the State of Louisiana, and I am sure in other coastal States as well, 
and I would like the record to reflect some balance, that it is not as 
fast as everyone would like, but help is coming, and I appreciate the 
gentleman's allowing me to make that statement.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his observation. Again, I wish other Members had been present to 
hear his discussion and presentation of the State of affairs of the 
pre- and post-Katrina effects in Louisiana and throughout the gulf. The 
gentleman has certainly become a scholar of the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the record at this point a compilation of 
the expenditures by FEMA and insured losses for fiscal year 1980 
through 2000.

                           NATURAL DISASTERS IN THE UNITED STATES--FEMA EXPENDITURES AND INSURED LOSSES FISCAL YEARS 1980-2000
                                                                  [dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   FEMA Disaster
                    FY                      Major Disasters* (affected states, total FEMA cost      Relief Fund       Insured Losses         Total
                                                                 to date)                          Expenditures*                          Expenditures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980.....................................    ..................................................             849.10           1,177.00           2,026.10
1981.....................................    ..................................................             228.96             714.00             942.96
1982.....................................    ..................................................             115.11           1,528.00           1,643.11
1983.....................................    ..................................................             245.23           2,254.00           2,499.23
1984.....................................    ..................................................             296.42           1,548.00           1,844.42
1985.....................................    ..................................................             319.17           2,816.00           3,135.17
1986.....................................    ..................................................             497.73             871.00           1,368.73
1987.....................................    ..................................................             246.03             905.00           1,151.03
1988.....................................    ..................................................             189.61           1,409.00           1,598.61
1989.....................................  Hurricane Hugo (NC, SC, PR, VI): $1.31 billion; Loma             138.56           7,642.00           7,780.56
                                            Prieta Earthquake (CA): $868.12 million.
1990.....................................    ..................................................           2,026.26           2,825.00           4,851.26
1991.....................................    ..................................................             391.51           4,723.00           5,114.51
1992.....................................  Hurricane Andrew (FL, LA): $1.85 billion; Hurricane            1,725.57          22,907.00          24,632.57
                                            Iniki (HI): $257.5 million.
1993.....................................  Midwest Floods (IL, IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD, WI):           2,553.90           5,705.00           8,258.90
                                            $1.17 billion.
1994.....................................  Northridge Earthquake (CA): $6.94 billion; Tropical            4,357.35          17,010.00          21,367.35
                                            Storm Alberta (AL, FL, GA): $524.44 million.
1995.....................................  Hurricane Marilyn (PR, VI): $484.0 million;                    2,685.03           8,310.00          10,995.03
                                            Hurricane Opal (AL, FL, GA): $201.4 million.
1996.....................................  Hurricane Fran (MD, NC, PA, SC, VA, WV): $608.39               3,613.60           7,375.00          10,988.60
                                            million; Hurricane Hortense (PR): $291.6 million.
1997.....................................  Red River Valley Floods (MN, ND, SD): $730.43                  4,344.92           2,600.00           6,944.92
                                            million.
1998.....................................  Hurricane Georges (AL, FL, LA, MS, PR, VI): $2.48              4,067.09          10,070.00          14,137.09
                                            billion.
1999.....................................  Hurricane Floyd (CT, DE, FL, ME, MD, NH, NJ, NY, NC,           4,402.61           8,321.00          12,723.61
                                            PA, SC, VT, VA): $880.4 million; Hurricane Irene
                                            (FL): $134.9 million.
2000.....................................    ..................................................           2,375.01           4,300.00           6,675.01
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (1980-2000)....................    ..................................................         $35,668.77        $115,010.00        $150,678.77
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (1993-2000)....................    ..................................................         $28,399.51         $63,691.00         $92,090.51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The amount listed after each major disaster represents obligations for specific events that may have affected more than one state and whose related
  obligations fall over a number of fiscal years. The amount includes funds obligated from the Disaster Relief Fund for Federal Emergency Management
  Agency assistance programs, hazard mitigation grants, federal mission assignments, contractual services and administrative costs. Figures do not
  include funding provided by other participating federal agencies, e.g., Small Business Administration and Agriculture Department Farm Service disaster
  loan programs.
*FEMA Disaster Relief Fund expenditures represent obligations by fiscal year for all disasters declared to that date that are not officially closed.
Sources: FEMA; Insurance Services Offices, Inc. Fact Books. Insured losses include catastrophes resulting in insured losses of $5 million or more.

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gingrey). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object to the 
gentleman's request, it is my understanding that this bill allows $750 
million of the $50 billion in disaster relief funding that we provided 
to be used for loans to assist local governments in providing essential 
local services. It is also my understanding, as has been discussed 
here, that there is a ``fig leaf'' attached to this bill, at least it 
has been called that by some, which would create the impression that 
these communities are going to be provided loans, rather than grants, 
and that these loans must be repaid.
  I would simply make this observation: This country forgave debt to 
Eastern Europe, billions of dollars worth of debt. We forgave debt to 
the tune of billions of dollars for Third World debt. Yet we are being 
told today that somehow we are supposed to believe that the communities 
who are supposedly assisted by this legislation will in some way be 
able to pay back the debt which they would incur under this 
legislation.
  I think we are fooling the American people if we pretend that those 
communities are going to have the capacity any time soon to repay those 
debts, and I suspect that this provision is here more to deceive the 
American people about the true cost than to in fact reflect reality.
  I think that if we are going to be honest with the American people 
and if we are going to be fair to the recipient communities, we need to 
recognize that these communities are not likely to have any ability to 
repay that was any greater than the ability of Eastern Europe or the 
Third World to repay the debts that we forgave in those cases a long 
time ago. That is one concern I have with the bill.
  The second concern I have with the bill is a conservative concern, if 
you will, because while it is assumed that this bill will provide loans 
for functions such as police protection, fire fighting and everyday 
emergency work, in fact there is no guarantee that that is the only 
purpose for which these funds will be used. Because of that, I want to 
ask the gentleman whether or not he would be amenable and whether the 
majority leadership would be amenable to adding the following section 
to the legislation that the gentleman seeks to have considered. That 
would read as follows:
  ``Section 3, reporting requirements. The Committees on Appropriations 
of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Select Committee on 
Homeland Security and Government Affairs shall be notified no later 
than 15 days after a loan is made pursuant to this act. Such 
notification shall include the following: Number one, the amount of the 
loan; number two, an assessment of the borrower's financial position; 
number three, reasons for the necessity of the loan; and number four, a 
description of the essential services to be provided with the funding 
from the loan.''
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the reason for the 
gentleman's inquiry and the illustrative list gentleman presents is 
very reasonable. In other circumstances, we found ourselves with the 
luxury of a little time with which to consider the matter. If we were 
to agree to that modification, I understand the matter would be 
referred to the Senate for further consideration and may well put in 
jeopardy

[[Page 22710]]

the adoption ultimately of this loan program, which we are hoping to 
have in effect and available on Monday morning to affected communities.
  I have, however, conversed with the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman 
Young), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
and others on the committee who have jurisdiction over FEMA matters in 
which this loan program is domiciled, and have assurances from them 
that we will visit the gentleman's concerns and adopt a reporting 
regime, if not exactly, very similar to this.
  I would be supportive of and I am sure all members of the Louisiana 
delegation who are here on the floor would also support the gentleman's 
request, but would respectfully ask, given the concerns of time and the 
issues at hand, that the gentleman would withdraw his objection. We 
would be happy to note formally in the record our agreement to proceed 
with the gentleman on our return to work absent the Columbus Day recess 
to achieve the gentleman's interest.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I have been told by 
several people that they do not want me to pursue this because ``the 
Senate is going out of session and it will be hard to get an amended 
version considered by the Senate.''
  Heaven forbid that we should ask the Senate to come back and work on 
something of this urgency. This is the same Senate that did not 
hesitate to come back in order to tell one American family, the Schiavo 
family, how they should deal with an end-of-life issue for one of their 
family members, and yet we are told that we should not build in this 
protection for the taxpayer because it might inconvenience the other 
body.
  I am very reluctant to agree to proceeding with this legislation 
without this reporting requirement because, as we have just discovered 
under the previous $50 billion that we provided to FEMA, they have 
given us a miserable explanation of the money that they have spent so 
far. They have given us meaningless spreadsheets and money defined in 
very broad, meaningless categories that tells the Congress nothing that 
will enable us to exercise our responsibilities as watchdogs of the 
public purse.
  So, I guess my question is, if I withdraw my reservation, how soon 
can we expect to have this kind of reporting requirement brought to the 
House so that we know that in fact the money which is being provided 
will be used only for the purpose for which it is described today?
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank 
the gentleman for his question. I would point out, we would act 
forthwith, and perhaps there would be additional items that we would be 
interested in having reported to us on the matter of these loan 
dispositions. So we have some accountability to our constituencies and 
know what local governments are seeking in the way of assistance and 
how we may further provide aid.
  So the gentleman's point is important to us in the delegation as well 
as to the gentleman for his own satisfaction that the funds are being 
used appropriately.
  I would like to have the possibility of working with the gentleman's 
staff over the recess week we are about to enter into, in consultation 
with the staff from the offices of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), to try to 
perfect a reporting regime that the gentleman and I and the chairman 
would find acceptable to achieve his goals, and it would be obtained as 
soon as agreement can be obtained. I would commit our delegation to be 
fully supportive of that effort.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have not communicated with the 
gentleman from Minnesota, because I support what the gentleman wants to 
do, but I would suggest that if the gentleman from Minnesota and I can 
reach this agreement, and I am sure we can, we can come out with a 
resolution out of our committee immediately and bring it to the floor 
under unanimous consent, because what I think what the gentleman is 
asking is very legitimate.
  I will commit that to the gentleman as chairman of the committee, and 
I am sure the gentleman from Minnesota and I can work that out. So I 
give you that commitment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I thank both 
gentlemen for their responses. Let me say that while I intend to 
withdraw my reservation, given those assurances, I would hope that that 
would happen as soon as possible, and I would also hope that sometime, 
somewhere, someone will explain to me why we can forgive billions of 
dollars of debt to the Third World, billions of dollars of debt to 
Eastern Europe, but not recognize that American citizens may need that 
same privilege.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

                                S. 1858

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. DISASTER LOANS.

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

  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________