[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5858-5860]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007--Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there will be no more votes tonight. We are 
working to try to come up with a schedule tomorrow. As soon as we have 
one, everyone will be notified.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of speaking about 
two amendments. I wish to say that I really appreciate the efforts of 
the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine, who have 
literally been on this floor all day. As you can tell, the Senator from 
Maine has been struggling with a cold through the week. She has been as 
brave as she can, trying to get this important bill passed even though 
she doesn't feel at her best. The Senator from Connecticut has been 
working hard.
  For some reason, we just can't seem to get a vote on two amendments 
that are very important to Louisiana. These amendments have been 
cosponsored by Senator Vitter, of course, from the State of Louisiana, 
and myself. Both of these amendments have been cleared on the 
Democratic side now for some time. We continue to have opposition, and 
we are not even sure where the opposition is coming from because the 
person who is holding it or the reasons cannot be made clear publicly, 
so I am not exactly sure what the opposition is to these two 
amendments.
  I thought, while we were pondering about what to do, I would just 
talk again about what these amendments do and why they are so 
important.


                           Amendment No. 295

  The first amendment is amendment No. 295, which has been pending for 
2 weeks. I understand some colleagues may want to vote no. That most 
certainly is their prerogative. I bring this amendment to the floor 
with many cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans, but it is being held 
up on the Republican side tonight. It has been cleared on the 
Democratic side.
  This amendment is to allow a waiver of the 10-percent match that has 
been required of Katrina and Rita recovery efforts. The reason we are 
asking that, as this board very dramatically shows, is the scale of 
this disaster is so far above any disaster, natural or otherwise, that 
we have experienced in this country that without this relief, the 
recovery is in jeopardy. That is not just because of the amount of 
money that has to be put up by local governments that are struggling to 
literally barely keep the lights on but also because of the redtape 
involved in this required match.
  I understand the principle of a match. In principle, I agree that 
when you have a disaster, the local area and the State should put up 
some money and the Federal Government should pick up the bulk of it. 
That is normally what is done. But as you can see here, for Hurricane 
Andrew, which was the most expensive storm prior to Katrina and Rita, 
the per capita impact was $139. The per capita impact was $139 for 
Hurricane Andrew. In the World Trade Center attacks, which, of course, 
were not a natural disaster but a terrorist attack, it was $390 per 
capita. But for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the first and third most 
costly storms in the history of the Nation, the per capita hit to 
Louisiana is $6,700. That is to say that, literally, this storm is off 
the chart. We have never attempted to recover from a disaster such as 
this, and the tools we have are insufficient. They were insufficient 
the day before the storms hit. They were insufficient the day after the 
storm hit. Eighteen months later, they are still insufficient.
  We have made some progress but not nearly enough progress. It is not 
just the amount of money, which is a staggering amount--$110 billion--
but most of that money, because it was sent through poorly designed 
bureaucracies, never reached the end. Part of it was siphoned off by 
contractors who made huge profits at the expense of the victims of the 
storm. I can go on and on. There have been well-documented failures.
  The bottom line is the recovery is still underway, and it is being 
hampered tonight--today--because this 10 percent match is being 
required. It is our State's No. 1 request of this Congress, and it is 
justified. It has been done in the past. It was done for Hurricane 
Andrew. It was done for the World Trade Center attacks. Why would 
anyone on the Republican side of this Senate tonight hold up an 
amendment that would give us the same coverage or same treatment? Not 
any more. We are not asking for anything more than what has been done--
for Louisiana and for Mississippi and for Florida, which were extremely 
hard hit in the last hurricane seasons.
  We have over 23,000 project work orders pending. Every one of those 
project work orders in all of the parishes and counties that were hard 
hit--23,000 is a lot of requests--every single one needs to have a 10-
percent match, which requires certain reviews. Sometimes they are done 
by one Federal agency. Sometimes they are done by another Federal 
agency. It is slowing down the recovery. Every day this recovery is 
slowed down, every day this redtape persists--it is normally a 
nuisance. Normally, redtape is a nuisance in normal, regular life in 
America. In the gulf, it is a noose. It is strangling people. It is 
sucking the life out of them.
  We cannot rebuild under these conditions. The storm was too great. 
The disaster was too big. The damage was too broad. We are not saying 
we can't rebuild and are not willing to use some of our own money, but 
we cannot come up with this 10 percent match, particularly under the 
conditions which the current law requires. It must be changed. As I 
said, the tools that were given to us are insufficient. I promise, as 
sure as I am standing here, when this 10 percent is waived and these 
projects go forward and the gulf coast rebuilds, the taxes generated 
from this region will more than pay back the money that has come to us 
over time.
  This storm, hopefully, will not hit again for another hundred years 
or 50 years. There are 50 years of good work and a hundred years of 
good work. By that time, we will have a lot of our wetlands and levees 
rebuilt. So it is in some ways like a temporary loan, if you will, to 
over 30 million people who live in the gulf coast, to say: We believe 
in you, we know you can rebuild, we know you can create these jobs, so 
get about the business of doing it, and the country will benefit in the 
long run.
  That is what one of the amendments does. For some reason--I want to 
make it perfectly clear tonight, this amendment has been cleared on the 
Democratic side--It is being held up. I don't know why or by whom.
  I thank Senator Coburn publicly because he had some concerns about 
this amendment but, with a very appropriate modification to the 
amendment which says that this loan forgiveness will sunset 2 years 
after it goes into effect--he had some objection to it going

[[Page 5859]]

on indefinitely. Senator Vitter and I accepted that amendment to this 
amendment. So his objections have been met.
  Senator Sessions had some concerns. His objections have been met.
  There is some other hold on it. I just wanted to speak publicly, 
again, about the importance of getting this 10 percent waived. Again, 
it was done for Hurricane Andrew and it was done for the World Trade 
Center towers. You can see the scope of this disaster for the people of 
the gulf coast.


                           Amendment No. 296

  The second amendment, briefly, which is an amendment I offered with 
Senator Vitter and others--and we have Republican and Democratic 
colleagues on this amendment--is a loan forgiveness amendment. This is 
a very touchy point for us on the gulf coast. I wish I had this list 
blown up. I do not. Of course no one can read it because it is too 
small to be seen, but we will get it blown up as soon as we can.
  What I am holding here is a list of loans that have been taken out. 
This is just for Louisiana, but there is a Mississippi list just like 
this. There are community disaster loans that are taken out, like for 
the city of Harahan, the city of New Orleans, St. Bernard Parish, St. 
Bernard Parish School, Cameron Parish, which was almost totally 
destroyed. Of course, when these parishes are almost totally destroyed, 
they cannot go to banks to borrow money. No bank will lend it to them. 
The only people they can borrow from is themselves--the Federal 
Government. We lend money to communities all the time, and we lend 
money to them under longstanding practices. This has been going on way 
before I got to the Senate--for decades. Sometimes those loans are 
forgiven, and sometimes they are not forgiven. It is up to the 
administration, the agency, to evaluate. If you can repay the loans, 
then you repay them. If you can't, you do not.
  Last year, or 18 months ago, when we had this tragedy happen to us, 
under the last Congress we had many Republicans who supported our 
effort but not quite enough because there was a group in the House, led 
by sort of a conservative caucus over there, that said this: We will 
lend you money, but we are taking away your right to have repayment 
waived even if you deserve to have it waived. Even if your situation is 
worse than that of anybody else we have ever seen, we are removing that 
right.
  I objected then; I did not think it was right. But we were voted 
down. So we have lived under this new rule, which was made only for 
Mississippi and Louisiana, because when the act was passed 18 months 
ago, over my strenuous objection, everything in the future could be 
forgiven, everything in the past had the option to be forgiven, but for 
the good people of Mississippi and Louisiana, for some reason we were 
carved out, to say: We will lend you the money, but you will pay it 
back no matter what. I objected to it then, and I object to it tonight.
  The amendment Senator Vitter and I have submitted is to just put us 
back where everybody else is--not any more, not any less. Just give us 
the option to have these loans forgiven. Many of these loans will be 
paid back. They are substantial loans. Some of them are $120 million, 
some of them are $2 million, some of them are $22 million. Some are 
just $100,000 loans, depending on what a sheriff or school board 
needed. But, again, this disaster was unprecedented in American 
history. Many of these loans will be paid back, but that is for the 
administration to decide. If they believe these entities in Mississippi 
and Louisiana cannot repay these loans, then they will waive them. But 
under the current laws, as passed in the last Congress--particularly 
driven by a group on the House side--that forgiveness option was 
removed.
  The two amendments are to waive the 10 percent, which we think is 
justified--more than justified--by this chart and many other facts that 
have been submitted to the record--and to go back to the regular 
routine law that says: If you borrow money you, of course, must pay it 
back. But if you cannot, we retain the option to forgive you. That is 
all we are asking for Gulfport, for Biloxi, for Pascagoula, for New 
Orleans, for Cameron, for Creole, for little cities--Thibodaux and 
Houma and cities that have borrowed money that might be able to pay it 
back, but then again they might not.
  For the millions of people who live on the gulf coast, we may not be 
a fancy coast like the east coast or the west coast, but we are a 
working coast, and we are proud of it. We are fighting hard to come 
back, and we are contributing as much money as we can to the effort. 
People are working hard--wealthy, middle-income, and poor people, Black 
and White, Hispanic and Asian are working hard to come back.
  We cannot come back if the rules keep changing for us. If the hurdles 
get higher, we cannot jump them. Leave them the same as everyone else, 
and we will be happy to rebuild our communities. We are building them 
stronger and smarter than ever before.
  But when you have had most of your schools destroyed, most of your 
libraries destroyed, most of your universities damaged, it is an 
unbelievable situation to have to come back from. I know we have some 
work to do on many items. But at least the Federal Government can keep 
the rule book the same for everybody. We are happy to play by those 
rules.
  On behalf of the people I represent, I strongly object to these new 
rules that are placed on us, for taking away options that others have 
enjoyed and used for their benefit. I am reminded of the disaster in 
North Dakota, Grand Forks. I did not visit North Dakota, but I have 
heard a lot about it. I have read about it.
  That town of 50,000 was just about destroyed by the water that came 
through. Because there was a little different attitude in Washington, 
Grand Forks has been rebuilt. It is bigger than it was. It is stronger 
than it was. The people have their jobs back. That is what the Federal 
Government is about. The Federal Government should have the same 
attitude with the people in Louisiana and Mississippi in our time of 
need.
  We most certainly can afford this after spending $400 billion helping 
23 million people who live in Iraq achieve democracy. We most certainly 
can support 30 million people to keep the democracy they have and have 
had for 226 years.
  I hope tomorrow morning, when I come back to this floor, these 
amendments have been cleared on the Republican side of the aisle. If 
not, at least the person who is holding it up will have the guts to 
come to the floor and debate me on it and let us have a vote. I am 
happy to have a vote. I am happy to debate. If my colleagues, after 
hearing this, say: Senator, you are just wrong, the facts are not on 
your side, then I am fine. I would lose the vote.
  But please let the people of Louisiana and Mississippi have a chance. 
That is why I guess we are stopped, because we cannot get a vote on 
these two amendments. They are not that complicated. I think people 
understand them. I hope we can get these two amendments passed. If 
someone has strong objections, I am happy to stay here tonight to 
debate. I will come early in the morning. I will stay all weekend. I do 
not have to go anywhere this weekend. I am happy to stay and talk about 
it for as long as I need to.
  I tried to speak about it privately with my colleagues. Now I am 
doing it rather publicly. I wanted to express that and let people know 
all the facts as I know them. I hope we can get these amendments voted 
on sometime tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Iraq Reconstruction

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today because a daunting task lies 
before us in Iraq. That task is the reconstruction of a war-torn and 
bruised nation. Let's put the battle over a troop surge or increased 
funding aside and join together in a strategy to one day leave Iraq, a 
free Iraq, in a place better than we found it. And not better by our 
standards, but better for the people and future of Iraq.

[[Page 5860]]

  Last week, a group of airmen from Nellis Air Force Base in my 
hometown were recognized with Bronze Stars for their courageous efforts 
in Iraq. As part of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal team they have done 
remarkable work saving lives. CAPT Brian Castner was awarded the Bronze 
Star after a 6-month tour--his third tour in Iraq. His wife, Jessica, 
said of his mission:

       My grandparents fought in World War II and, because of 
     that, Japan is our friend. And we just hope and pray at night 
     that 30, 50 years from now that for our children and our 
     grandchildren that Iraq will be our friend, and if his 
     efforts today keeping people safe does that, it makes every 
     sleepless night worth it.

  If we are going to succeed at making a future friend and ally out of 
Iraq, then we need a new direction forward. Our new military strategy 
must be paired with a new reconstruction strategy in order to cool off 
the vitriolic hatred and violence that has consumed Iraq, and this new 
direction must be based on realistic goals.
  When we first liberated Iraq from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam 
Hussein, we were disgusted by the ruler's palaces and extreme wealth in 
contrast with the deplorable conditions of those he ruled. We were 
anxious to give the Iraqi people all that they had lacked. While our 
intentions were good, our expectations were unrealistic and our 
performance failed to deliver.
  We looked to build a self-sufficient democratic nation in the Middle 
East with an accompanying civil society, responsible and just court 
system, representative government, responsive police units, a 
respected, and a protected border. We wanted to create a model to which 
people of other states in the region could aspire.
  In hindsight, we should not have imagined that building a democracy 
would be so simple. It never has been. We simply did not have the 
strategy and tactics properly prioritized, maybe building the roof 
before the foundation. It is no wonder why our efforts were 
unsuccessful. But it is not too late to regroup. A great deal depends 
on our new direction being successful.
  Our policy needs to change from lofty aspirations to a focus on 
providing, as a minimum, the basic services that were available during 
the Saddam Hussein era. At the same time, we need to communicate that 
we are laying the groundwork for future opportunities that were 
unimaginable under that barbaric regime. We need to redirect our 
efforts to vital services such as water and waste water systems, 
irrigation canals, and a reliable electricity supply. Concentrating our 
resources on improving everything simultaneously is foolish and ends up 
being far less efficient. The laundry list of what we initially tried 
to accomplish in Iraq is what scholar Amitai Etzioni calls a 
``scattergun approach.'' We tried to do too many things at once, and 
did none of them really well. Instead, Mr. Etzioni suggests, we need a 
``triage'' approach. We need to make services such as water, sewers, 
and electricity a priority. We work on them until they are successfully 
completed, and then we turn to the next project. While the building of 
banks and schools are important, if Iraqi families can't get running 
water in their homes or more than a few hours of electricity a night, 
why should they trust us? The less tangible gifts of a free democratic 
system are meaningless to a mother caring for her sick child in the 
darkness.
  While our priorities have been part of the problem, our attitude may 
have also been a source for our difficulties. A Marine reservist from 
Nevada, Jon Carpenter, who served two tours in Iraq and whose brother 
is there now, told me about the approach taken by those around him to 
the Iraqis. ``Sir, this is your country. What problems do you see that 
need to be addressed and what can I do to assist you in these 
problems,'' they would ask. ``I may have some monetary resources 
coming, some people with skill sets to help you, and my time and energy 
to make the solutions happen. Where would you like to begin?''
  If it had been the policy of all our military leaders on the ground 
to give that kind of deference to the local Iraqis, we may have been 
able to build a greater deal of good will and success. And don't get me 
wrong, our men and women in uniform have made tremendous progress in 
Iraq. They have worked tirelessly and have been committed to the cause, 
but we need to understand the importance of successfully delivering the 
most basic services to the Iraqi people as part of their path to self 
sufficiency. It will also create a situation where there is no 
tolerance for insurgents or their efforts to destroy what belongs to 
the Iraqi people.
  In order for the Iraqi Government to become self-sufficient, Iraq's 
potential for producing oil also must be realized. Currently the Iraqis 
are producing roughly 2.1 million barrels of oil a day. This is down 
from the 2.5 million barrels of oil a day produced during the previous 
regime. We need a plan that will reliably deliver 3 million barrels a 
day. At $60 per barrel, the incremental 900,000 barrels per day 
generates nearly $20 billion per year. This would go a very long way 
toward funding many of the improvements that are mandatory to stabilize 
the situation in Iraq.
  As report after report indicates, one of the challenges to building 
Iraq's oil revenues has been insurgent attacks against oil 
infrastructure. As Senator Clinton and I wrote in the Wall Street 
Journal, we believe a distribution of revenues to all Iraqis through an 
Iraq Oil Trust would mean they would have a greater incentive to keep 
the oil flowing, help the economy grow, reject the insurgency, inhibit 
corruption and commit to the future of their nation. An Iraq Oil Trust, 
modeled on the Alaskan Permanent Fund, would guarantee that every 
individual Iraqi would share in the country's oil wealth. Oil revenues 
would accrue to the national government and a significant percentage of 
oil revenues would be divided equally among ordinary Iraqis, giving 
every citizen a stake in the nation's recovery and political 
reconciliation and instilling a sense of hope for the promise of 
democratic values.
  I know there are plans that distribute the oil revenues to the 
different provinces, but I firmly believe that each Iraqi citizen must 
receive a share--it means a path to opportunity for these people. With 
that share, an Iraqi citizen can make money, invest in a business, use 
it for collateral for a home, or build savings. With that share in an 
Iraq oil trust comes hope for the future.
  There is still reason to hope for success in Iraq. Our new military 
strategy is showing progress on the ground, but we must continue to 
give our men and women in uniform the tools they need for the 
monumental task at hand. A focused plan for ``triage'' in the 
reconstruction of Iraq, coupled with a strong military strategy, will 
boost our credibility and secure Iraq for their future and for ours. If 
we don't succeed on the battleground and in the reconstruction efforts, 
we risk creating an enemy state that will be a safe haven for 
terrorists and a grave threat to generations of Americans.
  Instead, let us work together to ensure that 50 years from now, our 
friendship with the people of Iraq will be thriving. We owe it to our 
brave men and women, like Captain Castner, to make that vision a 
reality.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________