Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to Durbin amendment No. 4715, as modified; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Durbin amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' amendment at the desk be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to inform my colleagues we are open for business. I know there are amendments that Members have they would like to be considered. I am more than happy, with my colleague, the ranking member, Senator Shelby, to try to consider those amendments and deal with them expeditiously. Last evening, we entered a unanimous consent agreement which requires that all amendments be offered, debated, and voted on by the close of business today. The close of business today can occur any time between now and midnight. I suspect most Members, knowing there may not be any votes tomorrow--I forget exactly what the leader said about that. I think there is a possibility of no votes tomorrow depending on the schedule and agenda. If that is the case, if we deal with these amendments between now and the early part of the afternoon, we can complete the business of this bill until next week when we will have votes on energy issues before final passage of the flood insurance bill. Again, I am willing and anxious to consider the amendments. I know several people have amendments. They offered some of them last evening and debated them to some degree. So we are prepared to enter into a little more debate and get to some votes. My idea is, to satisfy the convenience of Members, to try to consider three or four of these amendments and then hold a period of 45 minutes or so to vote on three or four items at a time rather than bring Members over every half hour for a 15-minute vote. We will try to deal with several amendments and then have a period of voting before considering the second tranche of issues. I know Senator Shelby is in the vicinity. We are here to entertain these proposals. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in response to Senator Coburn's earlier comments, I thank him for his courtesy in withdrawing the amendment. He is raising a very legitimate issue about how we get greater compliance, as Senator Shelby pointed out, and achieve greater actuarial soundness in a program that is in desperate need of that. The bill does something else. In fact, we voted on it last evening. I believe Senator Landrieu and Senator Dorgan offered an amendment that would have stripped out the mandatory requirements of people being required to pay premiums if they live in these high-risk areas. That amendment was defeated pretty soundly here. It is less than a dollar a day, about $316, I think, to a maximum of $350 a year under our bill for about 350,000 dollars' worth of coverage: $250,000 for the property, $100,000 for contents. The House bill actually goes out a bit higher. Senator Vitter wanted to raise that number. Senator Shelby and I opposed that amendment. I am not unsympathetic to Senator Vitter's suggestion in certain high-cost areas that $250,000 ought to be a bit higher. But the point Senator Coburn is making is that we want to get people here to contribute. We have 25 percent of the claims that are coming from these risky areas where only 1 percent of policies are actually being paid. So one out of every four dollars that is going out for coverage under the flood insurance program is in these areas, and yet less than 1 percent of the premiums are being paid out of those areas. So, clearly, if you are going to be actuarially sound, you get that many claims out of that area, you have to get more compliance. How do you do that? Our bill does not go as far as Senator Coburn's does, but in our bill we require, as we do under a lot of similar areas, that the banks be required to collect these premiums, in fact, even hold them in escrow so we have a better assurance that we are going to get a lot more compliance with that approach. But I am certainly sympathetic to the goals of ensuring that we get as much compliance as possible, and how you do that is a legitimate debate. I appreciate his raising the issue.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Let me underscore the point that, some 23 years ago, I was a new Member of this institution sitting in that last chair over in the corner, and I offered a pay-as- you-go budget. I think I got 24 votes in 1983 or 1984. I have strong feelings about whether we will be accountable and whether we pay for what we want to do. My colleague from Oklahoma certainly raises a point I have raised for as long as I have been here and tried legislatively to insist upon some accountability in how we do things. With this program, obviously the problem we are in is by attaching these additional costs onto the premium cost today, we make it prohibitive for a lot of people. So we were faced with a choice which was not one I would have preferred. But we have ourselves in a position in this country today where we are spending almost that amount of money every month on the conflict in Iraq, and we are not paying for it, something Harry Truman would not have tolerated. In the war in Korea, he said we would go to Korea provided the American taxpayer was willing to pay for it. Every 8 weeks we are accumulating a debt and passing it on to my 3- year-old. The Senator knows I have young children. Every 8 weeks we are asking my daughter to assume the financial responsibility of this conflict. In addition to this program, we are trying to make a difference in people's lives, where they may lose their homes and their life's possessions. That is certainly one I would like to see us account for, but we are facing a situation today where I have to try and move this along. But I would hope that on a whole host of these issues, where we are talking about deficit financing or financing things without paying for them, that we would apply the same standards so we have this kind of uniformity to our concerns. And certainly, the $2 billion every week, the $12 billion every month, the $24 to $30 billion every 2 months is another example of what happens when we ask the American taxpayer in the future to assume a responsibility. It is a legitimate point the Senator raises. I identify with it. In my tenure, I have tried to do something about it. Hopefully, we have done that, Senator Shelby and I. I appreciate his kind comments about our effort in this bill to put this program on the kind of footing that never causes us to come back here again under similar circumstances and make a similar request for excusing a responsibility that FEMA had to borrow from the Federal Government to meet that $17 billion worth of obligations after the storms of 2005, which devastated a good part of the country. At the appropriate time, we will have a vote on the Senator's motion. In the meantime, we have some other amendments that I think are coming. I know Senator Nelson and Senator DeMint and others have some amendments. I am happy to consider those as soon as they come over.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I made this point about an hour ago. We all are familiar with what happens toward the end of the week here. I know Members are asking me what time we will be adjourning. That is a leadership decision, obviously. But we are required now, under the unanimous consent agreement of last evening, that all amendments will be considered by the close of business today. As I pointed out earlier, that close of business could occur at any point between now and midnight. But I suspect most Members are making plans to probably head back to their respective States for Mother's Day weekend sometime late this afternoon or early evening. If you have amendments on this bill, I urge you to come to the floor and offer them. Coming over at 3 o'clock, there is no guarantee that you are going to have the opportunity to make the case on behalf of the proposal, to the extent you would like. I urge Members on both sides to come to the floor. I appreciate the fact that last evening several did make their case, and we are scheduling votes for early this afternoon on those matters. In the meantime, I would like to line up other votes on these matters so we could conclude work on this bill at a reasonable hour this afternoon that would allow Members to meet their travel obligations. In the absence of that, we may be here until very late this evening, which I know will throw a monkey wrench into people's plans. We are here. We have been here. We will be here. But we have been in a quorum call waiting for Members to come over with their ideas. Coming around 4 or 5 this afternoon and wondering whether we are going to leave 15 minutes later is not going to happen. I urge Members now to be here and make their case or let us know that you don't intend to offer the amendment, in which case we can clear the decks and get to the few votes we have remaining and move on. One way or the other, we are happy to accept. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I should begin.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me first of all say on this motion by our colleague from Oklahoma that Senator Shelby and I, and I believe most of us here, don't have a philosophical disagreement. I think we all appreciate the fact that we have ourselves in a situation where we have massive deficits that are growing by the hour. We have seen it in a number of areas. This is one in which we are actually forgiving a debt. Obviously, to do so, it is going to require at some point for us to pay for this debt and obligation. Senator Coburn says we ought to be doing that under the pay-go rules. As someone who has over the years authored, in fact, legislation requiring pay-as-you-go proposals, I am very sympathetic to this idea. I would like to see us apply it more uniformly in many ways. Senator Shelby and I are doing our best to take this program, which is absolutely critical, and to put it on a sound actuarial footing and, by doing so, move us forward. We can't do that if we don't have an excuse, if you will, on this debt that is out there today. We have raised the cost of premiums to a prohibitive level. So I am moving to waive this point of order the Senator from Oklahoma is making, with the full understanding that it is a legitimate point he is making. But if we are going to succeed with this program and get it done, we can't do otherwise. We will be stuck with a program that will be far too costly. With that, I urge my colleagues to support us on the motion to waive.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have a window here. I see Senator Thune and he has the possibility of offering his amendment. I think Senator Boxer wants to express herself on that. She may be on her way over. If my colleague from South Dakota is prepared to offer his amendment, or talk about it, that would be helpful. Anybody else who has amendments who would like to offer them--I see the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DODD. I am glad the Senator clarified that. We have about five or six, based on what I know. There will be five or six votes at the most, as of now.

Mr. DODD. That is the Senator's problem.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. I am familiar with the community. As my colleague will recall, at his invitation, I gave the commencement address at the University of North Dakota a few years ago and arrived a day or so early. I had an opportunity to visit the mayor and actually see the city that went through that remarkable devastation of flood and fire, simultaneously, in fact, and the rather remarkable recovery and great spirit that exists in that community. Here is what we are doing. There are those who believe if you have any kind of a dike, dam or levee, that you should not have to pay for flood insurance. We cannot tolerate that in a sense. We have 130 dams, levees, and dikes that are at great risk of one kind or another in these residual risk areas. About 25 percent all the claims against the flood insurance program come out of these residual risk areas, not the coastline. Clearly, having dikes, levees, and dams help. The fact is, the reason there is a dike, levee or dam is because it is in a residual risk area. Anything made by man or nature, there is no guarantee in perpetuity it is going to survive, even the 250 years about which we talked. What better example than Louisiana. We spent millions of dollars on a system down there that didn't work, ultimately. The idea of having someone pay a maximum of $350,000 worth of insurance--actually, the average cost is $316 a year. Less than a dollar a day for this kind of coverage is something we feel is dispersing that risk, bringing the cost in for the program. Let me say to my colleague from North Dakota, he makes an interesting point. We are, in fact, in discussions with the other members of the committee on this very point, where you might be able to prorate, it seems to me, some of these costs based on the quality of that dam, dike or levee. I cannot subscribe to the notion of eliminating it altogether, but certainly when you have a state-of-the-art facility, then as a result of that, there is less of a risk. There still is risk. So you may bring down the cost of that risk. We are negotiating about doing that as a way to recognize those kinds of contributions. So there would be some prorating.

Mr. DODD. I think it is a very good idea and suggestion and one about which I have not had a chance to get into a long conversation with Senator Shelby. I like the concept, the idea. Remember this. The insurance program, putting aside whether you think the cost is high or low, without the insurance program, and if things don't work and you lose your home, there is no program of Federal disaster relief that rebuilds your home. What the insurance program does for $316 a year is it gives you a chance to rebuild your home and the contents you lose. There is no disaster relief program the Senator from North Dakota and I have been a part of that provides that kind of assistance to homeowners affected by natural disaster. This insurance program has great value to these people who live in these areas. It is a cost but actually has a value. I think the numbers ought to be higher than $350,000. I live in a higher cost area. So a $250,000 home in my State is less than the median cost of a home. I would like to see those values go up again. I presume in North Dakota $250,000 may be more a median cost of a home. The idea that you are going to get for that $316 a year $350,000 back to rebuild that home of yours has value. I think prorating, based on the condition of dikes and levees, makes good sense. We will try to work on it.

Mr. DODD. I think we are on the same page.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century'' on Thursday, May 8, 2008. The hearing will commence at 9 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 8, 2008, to conduct a hearing.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, May 8, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 8, 2008, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``From Candidates to Change Makers: Recruiting and Hiring the Next Generation of Federal Employees.'' THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is an honor to come to the floor today to celebrate Yom HaAtzmaut, Israel's 60th Independence Day. Today, on its 60th birthday, we recognize that Israel remains an island of openness. Its success belongs to all the Israeli people and is more lasting than anything that ever happened on a battlefield. With politics that are open and vibrant, markets that are free and fair, and laws that hold for weak and strong alike, for six decades, America has been a good friend to Israel. Indeed, it only took us but 11 minutes to recognize this new state, this new ally, in May 1948. This is a matter imbued with great personal meaning to me, Mr. President. As my colleagues are aware, my father, Tom Dodd, spent over a year as executive trial counsel in one of the most remarkable court cases the world has ever seen--the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals. He stood face-to-face with men who committed the most terrible atrocities imaginable. Indeed, they were so horrible many were convinced they had could not have taken place--that is, until my father set out meticulously proving that they had. It would have been impossible to be unchanged through that confrontation with evil, and my father was no different. I know how often he spoke of it to me. And I think it was impossible for anyone to go through the Nuremberg Trials without wondering, at some point or another: What if those 6 million had someplace to go; what if there had been a country to take them in--no questions asked; what if there had been a nation willing to stand up for them when no one else did? Only 2 years after my father came back from Nuremberg, 60 years ago today, that nation was born. So in a small way, I share some of my past with Israel, because my father had his part in the events that proved-- at the price of tremendous pain--the necessity of a Jewish state. My father learned that necessity, and I learned it through him. In the years since, nothing has dampened the force of that lesson. How could I forget? For nearly 60 years America and Israel have been two nations that can look across the gulf of history and space and language, and still see, in each other, themselves. That enduring bond is what we celebrate today, Mr. President.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire what is the business before the Senate?