Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, again, we would like to have Members come over and offer amendments so we can move along. The leader has indicated he wants to complete this bill over the next day or so. We would like to do it and do it under the normal procedures where amendments are offered and debate and votes occur thereafter. The Senator from Alabama and I are prepared to entertain amendments. There are some 20 of which we are aware. The sooner Senators come over and offer their amendments, the quicker we will be able to dispose of them. Again, I thank Senator Shelby and the members of the committee. This is a matter that deserves our attention. We are only a few weeks away from hurricane season. We are literally having to pay on a debt of $17 billion. That is causing the rise in the cost of insurance to a point where people have a hard time paying, if the program exists at all. This bill forgives that debt, which we have to do, and then reestablishes a program that people will pay into so they can have that kind of coverage. In the alternative, if we don't do that and we end up with the kind of devastation we see happen all too often--you only had to look at the morning newspaper and what happened in Myanmar, where literally thousands lost their lives, but certainly we saw it here in 2005 with the sweeping hurricanes that poured across coastal States and the damage we are still wrestling with in many areas--if we end up not adopting this legislation and getting this work done, those costs could fall on the backs of every taxpayer in the country. That is why this insurance program exists. That is why it was created some 45 years ago. It has worked tremendously well. We need to once again put it in place. That is our goal and our purpose. The sooner we deal with the amendments, the greater the opportunity to reestablish this critical program for the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. We are ready to proceed.

Mr. DODD. The vote was 90 to 1, a rare occasion.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to make note before the Senator steps aside that last year Senator Carper of Delaware held a very good hearing on the subject matter, and as chair of the full committee I am very grateful to him, one, for doing that but also for bringing his sense of knowledge and understanding to this issue. It is reflected once again in his comments this morning. So I did not want the Record to not include his contribution to this effort. I am very grateful to him for that.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my colleague from Louisiana for offering these amendments and handling them as efficiently as he said he would. I appreciate that very much. We are trying to move legislation here, so I am grateful to him. As to this idea, this last point that was made--like the first amendment he offered--there is value and merit in what he is suggesting. But, as Senator Shelby has pointed out, we are trying to strike balances. We have an obligation, one, to get this program up and running again. There is $17 billion on which we owe a debt, which is going to raise the cost of premiums if we do not forgive that debt, which is the major thrust of this legislation, as well as trying to deal with some other related issues--but to try to keep this within prudent fiscal conditions. What we do in this bill--and the point the Senator from Louisiana raises is a valid one. Certainly, we do not want this to occur in 1 year. So what Senator Shelby and I did with our committee members is to do a 2-year phase-in of this program. It is not 5 but it is 2 years, to try to exactly accommodate the legitimate concerns raised by the Senator from Louisiana. Obviously, it all occurring at once would probably be more than some people could tolerate. If the property is newly mapped in a flood plain, the rates are phased in over a 2-year period to ensure that a home or business can plan for flood insurance costs, obviously. It is not as long as 5 but we think 2 helps. The bill and this provision are part of our overall effort to balance the need to reform and strengthen the flood program with the need to ensure people can afford to purchase needed flood insurance. Striking that balance is what we are trying to achieve. It is hard not to make a case--we could make it 6 years, 7 years. That would be easier. But the problem is, at the same time we would not be getting the revenue coming in to accommodate covering the additional properties we want to cover with the new mapping. So how do we do that? We thought 2 years would be an adequate amount of time to give people a chance to phase that in and simultaneously meet our obligation of seeing to it that this program would be there to cover the 5.5 million homes we are talking about. I think we struck that right balance. As to the other members of the Banking Committee, again, we unanimously adopted these provisions, and not without debate and consideration of the very point being raised by the Senator from Louisiana. I wish to remind my colleagues, again, this bill results in significant savings in the flood program. The bill forgives $17 billion in debt. We are paying interest payments on that $17 billion. That is part of that premium cost. That is a huge cost. Without this debt forgiveness, which is a part of this legislation, policyholders would see rates increase many times over. In fact, rates would have to almost double just to pay the interest on the debt FEMA owes. So that is a major thrust of what we are trying to achieve. So we are saving all policyholders and all homeowners at risk from being priced out of this program with the debt-relief provision. In exchange, however, the bill contains provisions to move the program to actuarially sound rates to ensure the long-term viability of the flood program, which is also our responsibility with this legislation--to make sure that actuarially this program will have the revenues coming in to support and sustain the risks it tries to cover against. These reforms stabilize the flood program to make sure that when the next flood hits, homeowners will have flood insurance to be able to rebuild their homes and their lives. I am concerned that further subsidies in the program undermine our efforts to put this program on sound financial footing. Those are the reasons I would oppose the second Vitter amendment as well. I say that with respect. Again, these are a lot of ideas that neither Senator Shelby nor I would say lack merit. It is a question of what we can afford to do, where the balance is, where the actuarial soundness is. That is more the thrust of our argument than whether we agree or disagree with the goals stated by the proponents of these amendments. I make the same point I made earlier as to the amendment offered by Senator Wicker from Mississippi. I would be hard pressed to make a case that we should not try to do something about wind damage. It is a legitimate issue. I will point out in this morning's papers, if you read about that incredible devastation created in Myanmar: 25,000 people lost, 120-mile-an-hour winds ripping through that country, clearly flood damage, clearly water damage, clearly wind damage. The problem Senator Shelby and I have is, I could not answer the question. My friend from New Mexico asked me: How much is that going to cost, Senator? I cannot answer you. You have a right to know the answer to that question, so we are trying to find that out. We have asked for a study to look at the wind issue. The Acting President pro tempore comes from a coastal State as well. He knows what can happen with these issues. I think wind is a legitimate issue for us to sort out. But I cannot honestly answer the question actuarially. We are told it is five times the cost. If you take in the four hurricanes in 2005, the $17 billion in flood damage, wind damage would have been five times that cost. Of course, we have a flood insurance program here that puts $2.5 billion into that account on an annual basis. So we are talking about something we are really not capable of managing under the present circumstances--a legitimate issue. The Senator from Mississippi is absolutely correct in raising it. I pointed out earlier that Senator Schumer of New York talked about this passionately. Senator Martinez from Florida talked about this as well. Anybody from a coastal State will tell you what this can mean. But I have to be able to answer--as Senator Shelby and I do--the question of whether you can actuarially account for this, whether we can have a program that is sustainable, and we cannot answer those questions. In the absence of doing that, we reluctantly oppose these amendments, and because of the importance of getting this program accomplished, in place. In 3 weeks, or less than 3 weeks, the hurricane season starts. Any of us who live in these eastern coastal areas, the Gulf State areas, Florida, coming up that coast all the way up to New England, know that at any given point over that period of time, we could be hit. We need to have this program in place to begin to take care of these costs. That is why we are here today to try to get this done. I am going to respectfully say and urge colleagues to come over with their amendments so we can get this work done--to listen to what they have to offer and say, to consider where we can, but we need to complete this bill, and we are going to be most reluctant to be supportive of ideas that violate the actuarial soundness of what Senator Shelby and I and the other 18 members of our committee endorsed last year when we adopted this bill. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Alabama on the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I am trying to arrange--we now have three amendments. There may be some people who want to be heard on them, the Wicker amendment and the two Vitter amendments. My hope was to have a vote at around 3:15 on those three amendments. I am trying to move a bill--Senator Shelby and I. We are running out of time here. There are about maybe as many as 17 amendments we are going to have to consider. We could be in here late tonight. If that is the case, I would like to do that in order to get this done. I am going to let staff know here--and I am not going to make the motion at this time--just to let them know I would like to make a unanimous consent request that, say, at 3:15 we vote on the Wicker and the two Vitter amendments and to notify the leadership of that so they can consider whether they want to agree to that. But that way, we could move along, if Members want to be heard on these amendments. The concern, I say to my good friend from New Mexico--and he is one of my best friends here--I am trying to get this done.

Mr. DODD. If you have 15 or 20 minutes, it will blow me back from 3:15.

Mr. DODD. Here is my problem. If I don't have a vote at 3:15, it will be a lot later than that, and I will be notified by staff and the leader. That is my problem. I know my colleague wants to be heard on the bill and he has every right to be heard. I would like to vote at 3:15, stacking three votes at 3:15.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to do that.

Mr. DODD. We have a request to see whether we can have the three stacked votes at 3:15.

Mr. DODD. Objection.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I do not have a question for my colleague. I wish to thank him. For those who want to understand this, I think he is rather eloquent and knowledgeable. As a former insurance commissioner of the State of Florida, he has more than a passing familiarity with these issues. He has described it, made the case more eloquently than I did about the difficulty we have with the wind amendment; not on the substance of whether we ought to do something about it but whether we can and what the effects of this amendment could be. I commend him as someone who understands that, for laying it out and the problems inherent with it. As he and my colleagues know, the ability to then alter that kind of amendment then becomes almost impossible in this process. As I said earlier in the presence of my friend from Mississippi, we, Senator Shelby and I, are deeply involved in the foreclosure issues, as we have been over the last number of months. As our colleagues are aware, this subject matter of catastrophic insurance would have been the major subject matter of the Banking Committee. I regret we were caught up in the foreclosure situation, for obvious reasons. But that does not minimize at all the situation my colleague from Florida faces--or that other States do. It is not only a Florida issue, this is an issue that affects all of us in this country, and we need to have a far better plan in place on how we deal with it. I mentioned earlier: Pick up this morning's newspaper. You read the headline in the local newspaper and every newspaper, I presume, across not only this country but around the world on what happened in Myanmar; 120 mile-an-hour winds, devastation, loss of life. These problems are occurring around the globe. We would be naive at best to think it cannot happen here. In fact, it has happened and could happen even worse in this country. So we need to get to those points. I thank him very much for his eloquence and his understanding of these issues.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, now we have had five amendments that will be pending at some point. At an appropriate time, after my colleague from Alabama arrives, in consultation with others and with the leadership, we will work out a time when we may have consideration of these amendments and have votes. Many Members are curious about votes this evening. We would like to give a clear indication of when the votes are likely to occur. Let me take a few minutes and respond. First of all, all of us in this Chamber, including myself, have expressed ourselves over the years in terms of what has happened when people have been devastated by natural disasters, including those in the gulf area. I have traveled down there reviewing the area and seeing what happened. We all care deeply about what happened to people in the Gulf State areas, in terms of the devastation that occurred. Let me point out quickly that is not the debate, in the sense whether we understand it. It is what we can do about it. The bulk of this legislation, as presently written--it is a given that most of the 5.5 million properties that are going to be covered are in the Gulf State areas. FEMA borrowed money from the Federal Government to pay the $17 billion in claims. The flood insurance program generates about $2.5 billion each year as a result of premiums as part of the fund, and about $1 billion of that goes to administrative costs. There might be a legitimate amendment as to why there is so much administration in that program. That is how it breaks down. You are left with $1.5 billion to cover this. As a result of natural disasters and floods, here we are left with a debt of $17 billion, which FEMA owes to the Federal Government. In the process of paying that debt, they are increasing the premium costs, unless we take action. So you can have a choice. We can drop the bill, basically-- defeat it, as some suggested, who may vote against it--in which case the very people we are concerned about are going to end up with a larger cost because somebody has to pay that debt. That is a bailout otherwise, if we don't do something about it. So the idea is, how do you do that? The major thrust of the bill is to forgive that debt, take it off the books, so the people who pay these premiums will not have a surcharge added to their costs to meet that obligation. That is the fundamental purpose of the bill, to forgive that $17 billion, which otherwise becomes a cost to the very people paying the premiums. So I began the discussion by saying the thrust of this bill was to do that. The second part--Senator Nelson has it exactly right, the author of the second part. He came to the committee a number of months ago and asked to include a commission to deal with catastrophic natural disasters. There is a significant debate as to how to handle this. A significant percentage of our population lives within 100 miles of the coast of the United States. Obviously, there are natural disasters that occur inland as well. But how we deal with catastrophic costs, how we set up the mechanism to deal with it is a significant debate, with hardly unanimity around it. Rather than trying to pretend that one committee can solve all that, Senator Nelson suggested a commission made up of people who would bring knowledge about all this and report back to us in 9 months their recommendations as to how we might deal with catastrophic disasters that occur in our country. That is the second part of this bill. There are a lot of other ideas. I addressed some of them earlier--wind issues and the like. I don't argue about the legitimacy of the issue. The question is, we have a responsibility to be actuarially sound. I know that is not something we have a great reputation on, but we try to do that occasionally, to insist upon having a system that will allow us to collect revenue, pay for a program, keep the costs down, and cover the kind of catastrophe people face. Our bill does a number of things that are more than just vague terminology in dealing with the insurance industry. I, for one, believe we ought to do more in this area to try to get greater accountability. That is not an issue for debating here. Let me mention some things we have included in the bill before we accept the notion that nothing is here at all. No. 1, in the program we require the insurance companies to participate in State-sponsored mediation. We require the insurance industry to submit all data on costs to operate this program and require FEMA to conduct rulemaking so the insurance companies are only paid for actual costs. We created a flood advocate to help consumers who have problems with the flood program so they can have direct access to it. That was one of the major problems a few years ago. We also direct FEMA to collect information from the insurance industry on claims where there is both wind and flood damage. I might add, this gets exactly at the problems raised by our colleagues from Louisiana and the other gulf State areas. FEMA will now be required to look at how insurance companies are dividing damages to ensure that companies are not improperly shifting costs to the Federal flood program. I know others may want to add other things. But to suggest we did nothing to require greater accountability is not to be terribly honest about what is in this bill. Obviously, there are those who would like to get rid of the industry altogether and maybe just have a Federal program where FEMA becomes an insurance company. That is an option, if people want to do it. I don't know there is a will here to do it, but that is one option. There is no requirement in law that an industry provide this kind of coverage. You have to be somewhat careful that if you become so onerous in your requirements or your indictment of them that getting these very companies to write the policies becomes harder. If they don't write the policies, who does? Does the Federal Government then become an insurance company? I don't think there is a will to do that. Maybe there are some who would like to. Before you decide to beat this horse into oblivion, be careful about how far you go. If you do it to such a degree there is no one there to write the programs to begin with, we may find ourselves in deeper trouble. But to say they ought to be able to do exactly as they want to do, and not be mindful of some of the egregious examples my colleague from Louisiana referred to, would also be wrong. In this bill we tried to identify some specific areas that were the subject of hearings that informed us where there were matters clearly the industry and those responsible for overseeing them could demand more and get more out of them. I believe we have done a good job in this bill on those issues. Could you add some more things? I am not going to argue that. We did try to do our best. Again, we had a unanimous vote in our committee after significant debate on this bill. But the idea of having an ombudsman going in and basically drawing a conclusion about things before actually determining it--be careful what you wish for. If in fact we don't end up with people coming in to provide the coverage, we could find ourselves in even worse shape than we are in today. I invite my colleagues to look at the legislation and the specific provisions I just mentioned that we have included in the legislation to require greater accountability out of the industry. Now let me address the second point, and that is the mandatory requirement that people within certain high-risk areas be required to pay some premiums. I ask my colleagues to think about the consequences of this amendment should we strike the portion of the bill that requires people who live in areas behind levees or downstream of dams to purchase flood insurance. Currently, home and business owners in these residual risk areas, as they are called, are at great risk of flooding. There are over 122 levees and dams that have already been categorized as weak, failing. With all due respect to my colleague from North Dakota--and I have been to his community where these problems exist--these manmade projects do not always work. So the fact that taxpayers in Connecticut and elsewhere have paid to build them is a good thing. Maybe we ought to be talking about how those costs of premiums ought to reflect the quality of the levee or the dam that has been built in those areas. But to suggest somehow that since we built the levee anybody living in that residual risk area should not assume any responsibility if it breaks down is maybe going to far. Let me tell you what we are talking about. Most cost less than $1 a day to cover this. What you get for that is roughly $250,000 to cover structures and $100,000 to cover the contents. That is $350,000 in most cases for less than a dollar a day, for living in a residually high- risk area where a levee or dam exists. This idea somehow that we all can get our levees built and dams built and we bear no other responsibility for trying to cover against those risks and the costs, when they occur, if that levee or dam breaks and it gets flooded out and there is no insurance requirement in those areas--who pays for that damage? Again, we are right back here draining the Treasury instead of requiring an insurance program. A dollar a day for roughly 350,000 dollars' worth of coverage, I do not think that is overly burdensome. I know people don't like any additional cost. But if you are asking me to craft a program that is actuarially sound, that allows us to build up that fund so we do not have to drain the Treasury or forgive a debt that is now owed by FEMA to the National Government, then requiring some responsibility--I have it in my own State of Connecticut. The Connecticut River in Hartford, we have a huge levee, a dam there. I certainly think my constituents who live along that have to pay something. They made the choice to be there. Some don't make the choice. They live there. But asking for less than $1 a day for over $350,000 in coverage for structure and contents in order to bear some responsibility--Lord forbid it breaks down--I don't see that as being overly burdensome, as some would suggest. What percentage of problems occur in this area? We are told here-- again, I am relying on data that has been given to us--we all know that dams fail, levees fail. What better evidence than what happened to our colleagues from Louisiana, the failure of the levees and the problems that ensued from it. I will provide the lists and put them in the record of the 122 levees we know are failing today. One percent of all flood policies are outside the 100-year floodplain, many of these in residual risk areas. This 1 percent of policies accounts for 25 percent of flood claims. Let me repeat that. One percent of the policies accounts for 25 percent of the flood claims. So 1 percent of policies not currently in mandatory purchase areas are responsible for 25 percent of all the claims that come in--one-quarter of them. You could just persist in this and say we are not going to have anybody pay anything at all. Yet 25 percent of the entire fund is going off to provide coverage in areas where, again--it is only 1 percent of the policies that are being written. Clearly, the risks outside the 100-year floodplain are significant--25 percent of all claims are coming from them, despite the dams and the levees we have here. We should ensure that adequate insurance coverage for all homes and businesses in these risky areas are covered. That is what we are trying to do. Flood insurance should not be viewed as punitive. It is a cost to insure against a known risk. Flood insurance premiums for homeowners in these residual risk areas are not prohibitively expensive. The maximum amount of coverage--$250,000 for structures and $100,000 for contents-- will cost less than $1 a day. That is the maximum insurance. For a majority of people, the cost will be much less, less than $1 a day to ensure a family can rebuild from a flood. I ask my colleagues to look at recent experiences in New Orleans, as well as the recent flooding in Missouri along the Black River, in Nevada near Reno, and in Lake County, IN. These are just a few examples, but each caused devastation when levees did not provide the needed protection. I also ask my colleagues to look at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review of levees last year. That review identified 122 levees at risk of failure in the country. Surely, people who believe they are protected should know of their risks and should carry affordable insurance to hedge against those kinds of devastating events that occur even when significant efforts have been made to protect people in those areas. No one likes to vote for something where you have to have a fee charged. We bear the responsibility of having a program that works, that is actuarially sound, that makes a difference, that doesn't put us in a position of having to constantly bail out--in this case FEMA--as a result of these claims coming in. If there were a way of doing this where I could wave a magic wand and no one would have to pay a nickel and somehow this would all be done by someone else, I would love to achieve that. But miracles do not exist when it comes to costs. We tried to minimize those costs and have a good program that doesn't drain the Treasury and doesn't expose all taxpayers to these costs and asks people to contribute in some degree to get the kind of protection we are looking for. That is what we have designed. If this bill fails--and there are those recommending by their vote it ought to fail--then those premiums are going to go up, and the very people we are talking about bear a tremendous financial burden. In the absence of this bill, they will pay a tremendous amount to pay off that debt to FEMA. It is not a free charge unless we take action to excuse that obligation. Then, second, that commission to examine these other very important issues, and then the provisions in this bill itself to achieve greater accountability within the insurance industry--that is why this bill passed unanimously out of the committee, Democrats and Republicans, people from coastal States and noncoastal States working together to craft the legislation that Senator Shelby and I put together. I realize we are not going to write something that everybody agrees with every dotted i and crossed t. That is beyond my capabilities. What you have asked me to do as chairman of the committee, with Senator Shelby, is craft a bill that will allow people to have reasonable costs, get some real help and relief, protect against these kinds of problems that are obviously going to occur again, but this time we will have done something about it ahead of time instead of waiting for it to happen and be back here again trying to come up with some supplemental appropriation where billions of dollars are being asked for out of the Federal Treasury to pay for the damages that might have otherwise been paid for under an intelligent insurance program, balanced and sound. I apologize if I can't make everybody happy with this bill, but we did our very best to craft legislation that I think accommodates the fundamental points. If you want me to craft legislation that allows money to be spent and no one has to pay a nickel for it, you are going to have to find someone else. I can't do that for you. I have a proposal of less than $1 a day for 350,000 dollars' worth of coverage. I do not believe that is unreasonable for people living in residual risk areas, particularly where 25 percent of the claims are coming out of those areas where only 1 percent of the policies are being provided for. With that, at the appropriate time we would like to have some votes on these amendments. I will be urging my colleague to reject these amendments. I appreciate the intentions behind those who offer them, but in good conscience we need to pass a bill that can make some sense, become the law of the land, and provide some protection we are seeking with this legislation. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the list of levees of maintenance concern be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am about to make a unanimous consent request dealing with a series of amendments we are going to vote on. Then following my unanimous consent request, I know the Senator from Alabama would like to be recognized. I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized at the conclusion of my request.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have great respect for our colleague from Mississippi. The point we wish to make on this amendment is not that we disagree. The simple question, as pointed out by Senator Nelson from Florida, is that this amendment, as presently crafted, could end up costing billions more than we anticipated. There were $17 billion in claims in excess of the $1.5 billion in funds. Some predict this could be as much as $60 billion to $100 billion. We have a commission we are working on as part of the bill. We have to grapple with wind. We have to have an actuarially sound program. The last thing we want to do is destroy a flood program, which we could do by overwhelming it as a result of claims under wind, without standards under which we judge those conditions and concerns. Based on what happened in 2005, the claims under wind might have been five times $17 billion. I am determined as a member of the committee to spend more time on this. In fact, we would have spent more time but for the foreclosure crisis to try to come up with answers. At this juncture, to adopt this amendment would cause the program to be put in great jeopardy.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to reconsider the previous vote as well.

Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me take 30 seconds to say to Members, if they have any amendments on this bill, I will stay around this evening. Anyone who has an amendment, we will consider them this evening. There will be no votes until tomorrow, but I will stay around tonight to engage in debate on amendments. Let me express my opposition to the Landrieu amendment. This is less than $1 a day; at the most it is $350 a year for 350,000 dollars' worth of insurance. Twenty-five percent of all the claims against the flood insurance program come out of residual risk areas. One percent of the policies are coming out of that area. If we are going to have an actuarially sound program, you have to ask people to contribute. Here is a list of dikes and dams that are failing right now. There is no guarantee these are going to last forever. We learned that painfully in Louisiana. When they don't, just like homeowner policies, you want to have something in place that will allow people to get back on their feet again other than coming to raid the Treasury to do so. Again, $350,000 for the maximum of less than $1 a day is very little to ask for a program that is actuarially sound. That is what we are trying to do with this bill so we don't end up raiding the Treasury in the long run. I urge defeat of the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. 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, pending some language to be drafted on a UC request, let me respond to the comments of Senators Nelson and Martinez of Florida. First, I commend Bill Nelson and the two House Members who crafted this legislative proposal to deal with the national catastrophe events. I commend them because they thought about this in a constructive way as to how they can possibly get resources to come into the States to deal with national catastrophes. Every one of us is confronted with this problem, whether you are in Florida with hurricane season, or in the Midwest with cyclones and tornadoes and floods, or whatever else may occur. We have all been confronted with how to deal with devastating natural disasters. It has been a long-time interest of mine. Some years ago, going back almost 20 years, Senators Stevens, Inouye, others, and I tried to craft exactly something like this. We didn't get very far back in those days. The idea was to try to come up with a national plan that would allow us to be able to deal with these issues. I begin my comments about the Nelson amendment as a complimentary one. We tried to accommodate it to some degree, because there are a lot of different ideas on how to do this. The authors of the original idea in the other body have a very creative idea. I welcome that. And there are others; it is not the only one. Rather than trying to adopt this in the middle of a flood insurance bill, as you heard Senator Nelson talk about earlier, we adopted a commission study for 9 months to examine these various ideas, and to come back to us with recommendations within that 9-month period. So we will look clearly at this idea, but there are others as well. That is the intention. We also included in the legislation several other ideas to try and deal with some of these problems. Two initiatives particularly, I admit, don't address the overall problem. They assist homeowners in communities faced with these problems. One is to provide a tax credit to homeowners who live in coastal areas--and it is not in the bill; it is a separate piece of legislation--who have seen property insurance rates substantially increase. That is certainly the case in Florida, where they have seen significant increases in those rates. The bill I have introduced would give homeowners an immediate relief to offset part of the rise in premiums as we grapple with the long-term solutions. Again, it is not an answer, but it is some financial relief before we sort out this issue. I hope it will be on an appropriate vehicle, and I hope we will have an opportunity to offer that idea in the next several weeks. I have also introduced a bill to provide grants and loans to home and business owners to undertake mitigation efforts. The best we can do for people in harm's way is to help them lessen the risk in the first place, with things such as storm shutters, hurricane clips, elevating essential utilities, and even elevating an entire house, in some cases. That will not only reduce insurance costs but save lives. Mitigation costs are not inexpensive. We thought it might be a great help to assist in this so when problems arise, there is an effort to reduce the amount of damage that would occur. First, I admit these are not solutions to the issue raised by our colleague from Florida. I urge my colleagues at this juncture to add a specific idea such as this. But this is going a little beyond where we are prepared to go. That is my note of caution. There is a vote on this tomorrow. I will be voting against the amendment offered by Senator Nelson, but not because I am opposed to the idea. In fact, I would make a case that I believe there may be legal authority that exists today to do some things already that he is talking about in his amendment. Some may be redundant based on what existing law would allow States to do to assist with funds in these areas. Some would clearly require new authority. I urge colleagues, when considering this, not to give up. We will get to it. We have to. I think the best way to approach it is in a more comprehensive fashion. I thank them for their ideas, and I commend the two House Members of the Florida delegation, the principal authors of this idea. I commend Senator Martinez, as well, for addressing these issues. I met with both of the House Members in my office several weeks ago and, ironically, at the time they came to my office, the chief executive officer of the Travelers Insurance Company, Jay Fishman, a very good friend of mine, a good fellow, was in the office, and he has authored his own idea that has attracted broad-based interest. Despite the fact that somebody would say it has come from the CEO of an insurance company, he is an original thinker; he thinks outside of the box. In fact, both of the members of the Florida delegation were quite taken with his idea and thought it was very creative as a national model. That is one other idea that is out there that we happened to discuss that day in the lengthy conversation we had on this issue. There are many ideas, a lot of which have very sound merit, but they need to be thought out. I am a little uneasy about taking an idea and adopting it as an amendment as part of a flood insurance bill without understanding the full implications of what is involved in it. For those reasons, I will be objecting, or at least asking my colleagues to turn down this particular approach--not because it is a bad idea or it may not work but because we are not quite ready to accept that at this juncture.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague would yield, I appreciate his recognition of that. Again, our hope is something can be worked out. The objection is not based on the substance of the amendment as much as it is a question of whether the committee of jurisdiction which this matter is being considered under has raised some concerns with our colleague from South Dakota, and my hope is they can be resolved. So I would have to object if he brought up the amendment, but certainly I welcome his opportunity to talk about this amendment, and my hope is that between now and tomorrow sometime, whatever the differences are can be worked out, and we will be able to consider his amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wonder if consent would be granted to proceed to H.R. 980 at a time to be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the Republican leader.