Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. OK, Mr. President, then I will go ahead and take the floor, then. Thank you for recognizing me.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would be more than happy to wait. I was given some other information, and I apologize to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. High Gas Prices Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to speak, actually, on a different subject, and I am very sorry that the wires got crossed about the debate that is on the floor because I know it is very important to try to pass this bill we are speaking about before we leave this week. But there is another issue that is very important to our constituents as well. That is the issue of high gas prices in America. I know there are many people who are concerned on this Senate floor about our foreign policy and about contributions to foreign countries. I most certainly put myself in that category. But, in my view, there is nothing more important than energy policy right now in the United States--the prices people are paying at the pump--and the debate that is going on on this floor, in committees, and behind the scenes on energy. I most certainly had a great deal of conversation with my constituents when I was home over this past weekend. In fact, in the time I have been back, I have spoken with Democrats and Republicans who have expressed very similar concerns, that the question most asked, the topic of most interest, is not about foreign aid, it is not even about the war in Iraq, although that is a very important point. The American people are interested and focused on energy prices: our consumers, our small businesses, our manufacturers, as well as our major industries, such as airlines and domestic manufacturing. So I think it would be important for us to spend as much time as we can on the floor debating the issues that are most important. I hope we can resolve the previous issue. Again, I apologize if I came to the floor too prematurely. But I do want to share a few thoughts about responding to some of the things that have been said by the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Washington State who spoke earlier this morning, and the Senator from New Mexico who was here an hour ago talking about the Republican proposals for energy. I think while we fumble--and I do not think that is an inappropriate word at all because that is what is happening--as we fumble with not getting our energy price right in this country, the people are paying a premium at the pump. We have to stop fumbling this ball and try to make some strategic passes to move this ball down the field. This is election-year politics at its worst. Our energy policy has fallen victim to a partisan stalemate. I hope we can, in the next couple of weeks, move forward together to a place that can immediately start reducing the price of gasoline. I think there are steps that can be taken to get quick results, and then most certainly steps that can be taken to reduce that price over time. I believe also there are people of good will on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, who realize we are in a place we have not been before in quite some time. That place is an economy that is in a very fragile circumstance right now based on extraordinarily historic high energy prices. This economy was not built, this model was not built, to sustain these high prices. There is a European model--although the pain is significant in Europe--that can sustain it because they have some pressure point relief. They have mass transit. They have more sophisticated nuclear power. They have some other technologies that we have not. They can sustain something longer than we can. But we have to act. I have been proud to be part, in the last few weeks, of a specific discussion that has five Democratic Members and five Republican Members--the Gang of 10. I have been part of these gangs before. I guess sometimes it is not good to be part of a gang, but in this case I think these are good gangs to belong to because these are gangs of 14 and gangs of 10 who are trying to help the Senate find its way. I do not profess to have every answer. I do not even have every question. But I do know something about energy policy as a member of the Energy Committee for 10 years. And I do know a lot about our domestic production and what we are doing and what we are not doing and what we should be doing more of because I happen to represent a State that does a tremendous amount of production. It is time for action, not for studies; for action, not for talk. On the floor of the Senate, as we continue to debate energy policy, I hope we can do more production and more conservation. I want to put up a chart that I think is very illustrative of our situation. I want to say unequivocally as a Democrat that I think in many instances the Democratic Party has been wrong on the issue of production. I also want to say that I think the Republican Party has been in many instances wrong in their lack of aggressiveness on conservation. Again, I am not saying I have been right on every one of these issues. There are votes I would like to take differently. No one is perfect in this policy. But fundamentally Democrats have not supported enough domestic production, and fundamentally Republicans have not supported enough conservation and new fuels. It has gotten us into more than a jam; it has gotten us into a lot of pain and a lot of unnecessary suffering. There is much that can be done to move us forward, which is why our group has come together--five Democrats and five Republicans--to try to move both parties to the center for some sensible center solutions. But I want for a few minutes to start with the facts about where we are drilling offshore and where we are not because there are so many charts that are brought to this floor and they are little pieces of the country or they are one little section to try to sway people one way or another. So I thought I would bring the whole enchilada--the whole enchilada. As shown on this map, this is it. This is Canada--all of it--and the United States of America--all 50 States. There is no fudging here. I hope the camera can get a big look at this entire map of Canada and the United States--all 50 States. If you notice, the area in blue is all of the area of the congressionally mandated and--up until 1 o'clock yesterday-- Presidentially mandated moratoria. The entire coast of the United States of America: off limits to drilling, off limits to exploration, of what might actually be there. So if anyone comes to this floor and says they know what is underneath these blue sections, I am going to stand here until they have to admit they don't, because they do not. No one can know. I don't know; the Energy Department doesn't know because there has never been an inventory conducted on one inch of this blue space, except for the purple right here. Even though some of us have been trying literally for decades to get an inventory, which has been put in the energy bills--as my colleagues know, every 10 years or so we manage to get one; it takes a lot of pain and suffering on the Senate floor to get any kind of energy bill, but every 10 years we are lucky enough to get one--there is an inventory provision in the bill, but it gets taken out, by Democrats primarily and some Republicans, who don't want to have an inventory because they don't even want to think about domestic drilling off their shores. Then in the last energy bill we kept the inventory provision. However, I wish to announce on this Senate floor right now--and I am sorry I don't have the language, that the inventory was conducted--the inventory was conducted, but we would not allow the use of seismic equipment. I will be finished in a minute. I see the leader here. I am going to wrap up in 30 seconds because I know he has an important announcement to make. It would be like saying to a doctor: Go find the cancer, but you can't do a biopsy and you can't have a microscope. You cannot search for oil and gas without using seismic methods. So the fact is-- and I am going to conclude, because I know the leader is here and I am going to wait until he finishes what he has to say for me to finish-- but no one in America would know what is here because we have never looked. I have other chapters to this speech, but I see the leader is here so I am going to stop. I thank the Chair. Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 6331

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have a question. I have a question, if the Senator from New Hampshire would yield. I understand I was put in order to speak after Senator Lugar. Could someone clarify the order we are speaking, please, because I most certainly do not mind waiting.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes, and then I will be happy to yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. So, Mr. President, to continue, the case is and the facts are--and anybody here who wants to actually know the facts, let me repeat again: There is no one who can tell us--not an oil executive, not a bureaucrat--excuse me, not even a government official under a Republican or Democratic administration--who could say with certainty what might be here because there has simply not been enough exploration. There have been scattered seismics taken back in the 1960s and 1970s, but as a general rule. Now, this is going to be hard for the American people to understand or believe is true, but I am saying it is true and I can give them the information. You see these yellow and red sections right here off of our coast? This is Canada here, this is Cuba right here, and this is Canadian. This is where Canada is drilling offshore, which is actually closer to the Maine coast than we will allow drilling off of the Maine coast. This is offshore Canadian production and exploration. That is underway now off the shore, because Canada knows what the United States doesn't know, which is that offshore oil and gas drilling can be done in a responsible way that protects the pristine coastlines, that protects the environment, because our technology has so greatly improved since the 1940s. It is sort of like being stuck in the space program and saying we couldn't possibly go to space because we don't have the technology. We have developed the technology. We can go into deep areas and do it safely. I know the Presiding Officer has not generally been a supporter of drilling off of his coast, and I am very respectful of that position, as well as many other Senators. The good news is we don't have to drill off of every coast. We have a big coastline here. We don't have to drill off of every part, but the secret or the smart approach is to try to identify maybe 10--not 100; maybe 10, maybe 5, but something more than zero--to begin looking for places to drill for oil and gas. Cuba is going to be leasing land closer to Florida for China to drill on very shortly; closer than America is going to be allowing us to drill off the coast of Florida. When Americans are paying $5 at the pump, that is going to be very hard to explain to them, how China is coming to waters closer to Florida to get oil for its people and our Congress will not allow us to get some of this oil to replenish the supply. If anyone wants to come to the floor and debate with me that production doesn't matter, that supply and demand have no place here, then I am looking forward to that debate. I don't hold myself out to be an expert on markets, but trying to convince people that supply and demand is not operative here is like trying to explain to our voters that gravity doesn't exist. They don't buy it. They are not going to buy it. You could tell it to them 100 years long and they are not going to buy it because it is not true and they gut-check know it. It absolutely has an impact, supply and demand, and we don't have enough supply. Now, can we absolutely drill our way out of this? The answer is no. We cannot drill our way out, but we can drill more, we can drill more safely, and we can in some places drill rather quickly--not in all places. I am going to show my colleagues where we can drill more quickly to have an impact. We must also, as we gear up to do that, put our foot on the accelerator on conservation, because we have been slow in that area. We have done a lot of studies. It is like going to the tip of the water and before you dive in, we have been dabbling our toe in the water. We have to jump in on conservation, and I think we can do it. I see the Senator from Indiana. Let me wrap up in 1 minute. I wish to show in Louisiana where a lot of our gas and oil is coming from. We know a lot about this because we have been drilling there for 40, 50 years. When my colleagues come to the floor--this is what I am showing, which is pretty dramatic. This is the infrastructure necessary to produce oil and gas. Each of these pink dots is an oil well; the blue represents pipelines. Quickly, in Louisiana and Texas we permit for the drilling of oil and gas. We permit for these pipelines and we do it very quickly. All day long we lay these pipelines and we drill for oil. In other States when you try to go do this, States that aren't used to this, it takes them so long because the infrastructure is not there. I understand that. So as a result, this is the only place we are basically getting our gas--from Louisiana. Lucky for us, because a lot of it goes to the Northeast. We send a lot of our oil and gas to the Northeast. We know the prices are high there, but we are sending about as much as we can. We can send more, but it takes infrastructure. So when people say to me--and I will wrap up with this--it doesn't matter if you open drilling, you can't get the oil in 30 days or 60 days, that is true, because it takes wells, it takes pipelines, it takes trucks, it takes concrete. The oil does not jump out and into people's automobiles, but you can lay this infrastructure, you can lay these pipelines, and you can do it safely. We made a lot of mistakes doing this, and so did Texas, but the good news is we are learning from our mistakes and we know how to do it better and we know how to do it more safely, and we can. I am not going to take up any more of my colleagues' time because everybody has other issues to discuss as well, but I am going to come back every day as this debate goes forward and talk about the truth about production and what is actually being produced in this country and how much more can be produced, as well as pushing the conservation side, which most certainly has to be done to get our supply up and our demand down. I think this is a crucial issue, not only in this reelection, but for the future of the country. Mr. President, I thank you for your courtesy.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his comments on the pending nominations. But I wanted to take a moment to speak about the housing bill that passed. It was a very significant piece of legislation. On behalf of the people of Louisiana, I wanted to come to the floor to specifically thank Senator Dodd for his extraordinary leadership and tenacity in getting this bill through the floor of the Senate. It has been stuck for weeks. He got it unstuck this morning and passed it, and it has significant relief for homeowners throughout America, to help us stem the foreclosure rate, to stem the tide of economic downturn in many counties throughout our country. But for Louisiana, it has some very special relief. Part of that bill was actually crafted by Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley as chair and ranking member of the Finance Committee, and there was a big piece of that in this housing bill. In that Finance piece was a tax relief provision that is, in my view, central, crucial, and vital to the recovery, ongoing recovery of South Louisiana and the gulf coast. We added this language to the Foreclosure Prevention Act back in April, where it passed the Senate on a 74-5 vote and I am pleased to see that the combined housing package preserves this critical assistance. In short, the legislation ensures that hurricane survivors are treated both fairly and with dignity as they struggle to rebuild their lives. As you know, when these storms, Katrina and Rita, hit, now 3 years ago, they were unprecedented in the size and scope of the destruction. This country has not seen anything like it in well over 100 years, and hopefully we will not see anything like it for another 200 or 300 years. When we went to the Federal toolbox, if you will, to see what tools were available to help the 250,000 homeowners who lost their homes, many did not have insurance because their homes were paid for, or they were not in the flood plain. They lost everything, their homes, their business, their place of worship, the schools their children went to. So when we went to the toolbox, there were not adequate tools to help them. We have been crafting those tools slowly. It has been agonizing for people who are waiting for us to give them a hand. Many of these taxpaying, hard-working citizens are not asking for charity; they are asking for a chance to get their business back, get their feet back underneath them. As you know, I am sure it is this way in Virginia. Most middle-class and upwardly mobile families have most of their net worth tied up in their home. So when their home is considered destroyed and the contents as well, it impacts the financial stability of that family. That is why I have stayed focused on homes, on home rebuilding, and on small businesses, because it is the backbone of our recovery. I am proud to say that in this bill, we were able to deliver $1 billion of relief, literally $1 billion of relief to homeowners who you could argue deserve more help than almost any group of homeowners in America. Again, these homeowners are suffering kind of a double whammy. Not only did they go through Katrina and Rita, but they are also now in an atmosphere of a slow real estate market; in some places a market that is spiraling downward because of the atmosphere of the country and the economy; although actually at home our economy relative to the country is doing pretty well. This underlying bill provides relief to homeowners along the gulf coast who had their homes destroyed after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. In 2005, thousands of people along the gulf coast took casualty loss deductions on their tax returns due to damage that their properties sustained from the hurricanes. In 2007, many of the same people began to receive payments to cover uninsured losses to their property under Louisiana's Road Home program, Mississippi's Housing Assistance program and similar programs in Florida and in Texas. The IRS has concluded, however, that individuals who took the casualty loss deduction in 2005 and subsequently received a grant payment must add the value of the casualty loss deduction their 2007 income. This decision not only increases the amount of taxable income but also: increases an individual's tax rate by bumping them into a higher tax bracket; subjects certain taxpayers to the Alternative Minimum Tax; phases out deductions; subjects an individual's Social Security benefits to additional taxation; and makes a taxpayer ineligible for Federal student load aid. So this relief was absolutely essential. Take the example of two very similar families--the Jones and the Smiths. Both earn $75,000 a year and both had homes that suffered substantial damage in Hurricane Rita. Both of the families received a road home grant of $75,000 in 2007 to cover uninsured losses to their homes. So at this point, they are exactly the same. In 2005, however, the Smiths took a $75,000 casualty loss deduction which entitled them to a refund of about $7,000. According to the IRS, the Smith family had to add the value of their 2005 casualty loss deduction, totaling $75,000, to their 2007 income. So what is the result of this? The Smith family had to pay $25,000 in taxes while the Jones family will have to pay about $7,000 in taxes. That is over a 350-percent increase in taxes. Not only did the Smith's amount of taxable income increase, but they were bumped into a higher tax bracket so their rate of taxable income increased. So what does this bill do? This bill would permit taxpayers to amend their 2005 tax returns to reduce or eliminate their casualty loss deductions. By eliminating or reducing their casualty loss deduction, they will not have to pay taxes on their road home grants. A current IRS regulation forbids individuals from amending their returns under this circumstance. So what effect would the bill have upon the Smith family. At the outset, they will not have over a 350 percent increase in their taxes. They will, however, have to pay back their refund they got in 2005, which would be about $7,000 in addition to their normal taxes. So by no means does this bill allow a free ride or any sort of ``double dipping.'' They still have to undo their casualty loss, but they will not be providing the IRS a windfall in taxes. Finally, behind the numbers, it is important to remember that these are real people who have undergone a traumatic event, having their homes destroyed. The Smith family, before Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus came to their aid, would have had to pay over $24,000 in taxes. These families literally are struggling to pay their electric bill, their utility bills, trying to pay double mortgages, rent and a mortgage on a house trying to keep their house together. They could not have possibly come up with $25,000. That is what we have corrected it. I thank this Senate for sending special care and attention to a group, hundreds of thousands of homeowners. It is not millions, it not tens of millions, but it is hundreds of thousands of homeowners along the gulf coast who would truly benefit immediately and correctly. This money will go into their pocket and hopefully they will be spending it on their new home or their new apartment or using it to pay back bills they had to charge to their credit cards to literally survive these last several years. This bill also extends an important provision to spur investment in residential and commercial property along the gulf coast. In response to Katrina and Rita, Congress enacted legislation that would permit bonus depreciation on new buildings. In order to take advantage of the bonus depreciation, investors needed to start construction on the property by December 31, 2007, and have the property placed into service by December 31, 2008, for lesser damaged counties and parishes and by December 31, 2010, for the most damaged counties and parishes. However, replacing the basic infrastructure needed to begin this construction has been slow and difficult. New environmental standards, building codes, and the high price of insurance and labor have delayed new construction. Many projects are planned, but these delays have resulted in few actual construction starts. This bill would simply remove the commencement date to ensure that the gulf coast can sustain and strengthen its recovery in the housing and commercial sectors. It does not change the completion date. By doing so, we can continue to build new residential and commercial properties that are necessary to our recovery. I know this overall bill contains many critical parts to address our Nation's housing troubles but I thought that it was important to personalize how this bill will help thousands of people struggling to rebuild on the gulf coast. I am very proud of the Senate. I do believe we should give tax relief when it makes sense. This most certainly makes sense. And $1 billion is a lot of money. I know we are struggling to balance our budget, but I think this was a very worthy expenditure. I thank Senator Dodd again, thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus particularly for remembering the families on the gulf coast and for helping them to achieve substantial tax savings by the passage of this bill. It will go a long way, with the other provisions in this bill, to help our recovery that is underway in the Gulf of Mexico. Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we passed, by an overwhelming margin, a supplemental emergency spending bill that will fund our ongoing operations in Iraq and in other parts of the world and will send some money stateside. In the view of this Senator, we have shortchanged, even with our good effort that was just made, shortchanged some real ongoing serious emergencies here at home. As far as the gulf coast is concerned, I voted for the bill because I have always believed that half a loaf is better than none. In the bill, in large measure because of the work of Members on both sides of the aisle, we have a significant amount of money toward the construction of levees that failed and put a great city and region and regions throughout the gulf coast at risk, particularly the New Orleans metropolitan area. I know people get tired of reviewing the details, but less than 3 years ago, several significant levees along the great port system in the city of New Orleans, levees that should have held collapsed, and 80 percent of the city went under water. The water is long gone, but the pain is still there. The rebuilding is still going on. The anxiety of homeowners, renters, small business owners and large business owners, and industrial investors is still there, questioning whether the Federal Government's commitment to not only fix the levees, restore the levees and bring them up to the standards that were promised decades ago, if that promise is going to be kept. This bill gets us part of the way there, but we still have an awfully long way to go. In the underlying bill we passed, in large measure crafted by House leadership--and I am disappointed in this view of the House leadership--they put in only a portion of the very critical levee funding that is needed for us to go forward, to restore these levees to 100-year flood protection. I don't know how to explain this, but 100- year flood protection is the bare minimum for the United States. There are a few areas that are enjoying 200- and 300-year flood protection in this country, but very few. Most do not have, as you can tell by the flooding going on now in States such as Missouri and Iowa and parts of Illinois, most places don't have the 100-year protection. For a reference point, I wish to impress upon my colleagues that this is a minimum standard. The country of the Netherlands, which is so small it could fit inside of Louisiana, a powerful economy but a small nation, has flood protection for its people against storms that happen once every 10,000 years. We, the United States of America, cannot claim that we have flood protection for 99 percent of our people against floods once every 100 years. I am going to say again, as I have said 100 times on this floor, incremental funding, nickles and dimes, a few hundred million here or there, is not going to get the job done. In the long run, it is going to cost the American taxpayer billions and billions of dollars more. So here we go again, after the flood, after the storm, after the promises, after the speeches, after the lights, after the photographs, the bill is passed, but we do not have the whole amount of money necessary to reconstruct the levees as promised by the President and as spoken to on numerous occasions by many Members of the House and Senate. We do have $5.8 billion in this bill, $1.16 billion for the Lake Pontchartrain vicinity which is a long, ongoing project, I think started back in the 1960s. We do have $920 million in for west bank levee which was started back in the 1960s. We have $967 million in the southeast Louisiana flood control project that was started in the 1990s. We have $2.9 billion of flood control and emergency projects, modifying drainage canals, installing pumps, armoring levees, improving protection at the inner harbor canal, federalizing certain non-Federal levees in Plaquemine Parish, the long parish that sits at the toe of the boot in Louisiana, reinforces and replaces floodwalls, repairs and restores floodwalls. The problem is the match that is required because of the House action. The Senate reduced the match required by the State of Louisiana and extended our payment terms. Instead of requiring the State of Louisiana to pay a higher level of 35 percent, the Senate had suggested, I think wisely, that we revert back to the historic share, which is 25 percent. No one in Louisiana thinks we have to get these projects for free. Everyone in Louisiana understands we have to step up and pay our share. No one is objecting. What we simply asked for was a reasonable share, a historic share, not 35 percent but something like 20 or 25 percent. And most importantly, we had asked that we be allowed to pay it over 30 years. But, no, under the House version that was very ill-conceived and very poorly thought out, the terms are tougher than historical standards and will require the State to come up with a greater match, 35 percent, and require us to pay it over 3 years. I submit for the Record a letter from the president of Jefferson Parish, Aaron Broussard, a parish now of a half million people, as well as a letter from Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to read part of the Governor's letter: As proposed in the House bill, the State of Louisiana would be faced with a $1.8 billion cost share over the next three years for hurricane protection. This would result in a 4000 percent increase [not 4, not 40, not 400] over the state's pre-Katrina contribution toward hurricane protection efforts. I know it is not the intention of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee or the Speaker of the House or the majority and minority leaders in the House to make Louisiana pay 4,000 percent more than we were paying before the storm, when we are in an economic situation that is far more challenging than we were before the city and many of our parishes went under water and 1 million people were displaced in the southern part of our State, but that is exactly what they did. I am going to leave here, along with my colleagues, but I am going to come back and find a way, with the goodwill on the floor of this Senate, working with Republicans and Democrats, to come to some reasonable terms for the people of Louisiana so we can pay a reasonable share and have a longer period to pay it back. I know we are one Nation and we all have to support each other's projects, but to put this in perspective, many of us here have funded over the last maybe 15 years a project that is rather famous and well known called the big dig in Boston. That project is an eight-lane highway under the city of Boston that extends for 3.5 miles. We all spent money to do it. It cost $14.8 billion for the big dig. I asked in this supplemental for $8 billion to help build 200 miles of levee to protect up to 2 million, roughly, people from losing everything they have worked for and their parents and their grandparents have worked for, because when those levees break, nothing is saved, and insurance does not even begin to cover the cost of what people have lost. We had to be told in this supplemental discussion that we weren't a priority or we needed to wait. It couldn't fit in this bill. Sorry, we couldn't do it. Sorry, we couldn't find the appropriate cost share. I am happy for projects like the big dig and other projects around the country. I know some people think I am wearing out my welcome, but it is my job to represent the people of my State. I intend to do it as fairly as I can. I have to say, the President was the one who came to Jackson Square. I didn't go to Jackson Square and turn the lights on and make a promise to the American people that these levees would be rebuilt. He did. Then many Members of Congress came down, Republicans and Democrats, and took shots with a lot of people and said they would rebuild these levees. We want to rebuild our levees. We are willing to put up our share. But the people of Louisiana, under no circumstance, can pay a 4,000-percent increase. Under no circumstance can our State come up with $1.8 billion every year for the next 3 years out of our general fund. I want to make one more point about the levees. The people on the other side of the levee are not in high-rise condominiums. They are not lying on the beach sunbathing, and they are not frolicking in 2 feet of water for recreational purposes. The people on the other side of these levees are running the greatest port system in North America. They are engaged in fisheries and transportation and oil and gas. They are the men and women who unload the ships that come from all over the world to support the economy of this Nation. We have work to do when we get back here. I am going to go home for a week. Then I am going to come back, and we are going to work on finding a better way for us to reduce the cost share and extend the time for us to repay our portion so we can get these levees built and give comfort and keep our promise to the people before we have to mark the third anniversary of Katrina, which will be August 29. We have time, but we don't have a lot of it. It is almost July. The third anniversary will be August 29. I want to put the Senate on notice that I am going to do everything in my power not to allow us to go home for August until some provisions have been made. There are two options. The President can, by executive order, do this. I am asking him to. I am sending him a letter tomorrow asking him to do it. If he doesn't, then every bill that comes to this floor will be subject to an objection by me until this situation is corrected. It is as if you did not give us any levee money, because without us being able to put up a match, the project can't go forward. Some provision will have to be made. I wanted to go on the record tonight saying I am willing to work toward any compromise that will be reasonable and look forward to doing that when we return. In addition, there were provisions that the Senate graciously, under Senator Byrd's leadership, had put in this bill to continue to help us with other elements of our recovery. The criminal justice provision was stripped out by the House. The health care provision was stripped out by the House. These amounted to literally a few hundred million dollars in the scheme of things. It is not a great deal of money, as these bills go, that are hundreds of billions of dollars. But it was important money to the city of New Orleans and the region and to hospitals that have never closed from the time that hurricane swept through and destroyed so much in its path. Oschner Hospital stayed open. West Jeff and East Jeff opened very soon, as soon as they could, and have continued to provide indigent care, losing millions and millions and millions of dollars, and yet cannot get the proper reimbursement necessary because of what they did. FEMA only provides help to public entities. Oschner is technically not a public entity, but it was the only hospital that stayed open, and the doctors and the nurses did the right thing. All they have been-- since doing the right thing--is punished because their board has lost money, money, money, month after month after month. I have pleaded their case on any number of occasions. Senator Leahy, Senator Harkin, and others have been very gracious to try to include help. But it seems as though at certain points it always gets stripped out. So we are going to come back, and I am going to ask again for some health care funding and some criminal justice funding and work with Senator Grassley, Senator Harkin, Senator McCaskill, and others to fashion better remedies for the thousands of homeowners in other parts of this country who have also been disappointed by levee systems that should have held and failed, by Federal bureaucracies that promised help and did not show up. I know only too well the pain that is going on right now in other parts of the country. I have lived this nightmare for 3 years in south Louisiana and in Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas. So we do have some work to do when we get back, and I look forward to working with you and others to accomplish that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to extend my remarks.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the evening is getting late, and we have taken some significant action tonight. But I wish to speak for a moment and ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes on the supplemental bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have come to the floor of the Senate tonight to pay tribute to a man who had a significant impact on the civil rights movement in my State and our Nation. Justice Revius O. Ortique, a native New Orleanian, passed away on Sunday, June 22, 2008. At the height of his long and distinguished career in 1992, he was the first African American elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court. But the road was not easy nor was the path to success clear. Justice Ortique served his country for 4 years as an Army officer in the Pacific theater during World War II. He returned home as part of a great generation his longtime friend Sybil Morial notes for its ``desire to bring about change.'' He attended college at Dillard University, earned a master's degree in criminology from Indiana University, and then earned a law degree from Southern University. It was a challenging time, to say the least, to be a young, African- American attorney in our South, but Revius Ortique rose to the challenge with determination to change the landscape for African Americans in our city--helping to desegregate lunch counters and neighborhoods, city halls and corporate boardrooms, throughout Louisiana and the South. He served his community as the president of the Urban League of Greater New Orleans for five terms and was also president of the Community Relations Council, a group of local leaders focused on bridging the racial divide and making our city stronger. Justice Ortique's efforts to heal the divisions of our community soon garnered rightful national attention. He became president of the National Bar Association in 1959. From that post, he had President Johnson's ear--a direct voice to power, speaking for millions of African-Americans. Moved in some measure by Ortique's urging, President Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to be the first African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice and appointed eight other distinguished African Americans to Federal judgeships. The first African American to be appointed to the Civil District Court bench in New Orleans, in 1978, Justice Ortique continued to be reelected and later served as chief judge. His friends and colleagues remember him as holding himself and his courtroom to the pinnacle of decorum. He was also an inspiring mentor to many young lawyers and judges. ``He really taught you how to be a good lawyer,'' said Judge Michael G. Bagneris, who serves on the Civil District Court in New Orleans. ``He always instilled in young lawyers that they had to show respect for the court.'' It is a respect Justice Ortique earned through his demonstrated wisdom on the bench and the gentlemanly standards he held. Justice Ortique was elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1992 but could only serve 2 years due to a State age restriction. He was not ready to retire. He remained as hungry to serve as that young man who went off to defend our country a half century earlier. Mayor Marc Morial appointed him to the New Orleans Aviation Board where he quickly became its chairman, serving for 8 years. Over the course of his career, five U.S. Presidents learned of his stellar reputation as a jurist and as a leader, appointing him to various Commissions, including the investigation into the killings at Kent State University. At the end of his life, Justice Ortique and his loving wife of 60 years, Miriam, were living in Baton Rouge. Their New Orleans house had been destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, and like so many Louisianians, they were working to soon return home. He is also survived by his daughter, Rhesa Marie McDonald, and three grandchildren. From the struggles of the civil rights era, to the successes that come with hard work and resolve, Justice Ortique's American story is one of great promise and determination. His legacy will live on through the generations he has inspired to bring about change of their own. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California, and I am pleased to join my colleagues in calling for the change Americans are hoping for, which this next election opportunity will bring, to focus on issues that need so much change in America. One of the items on the top of our Checklist for Change is a FEMA that works, a plan that treats local and State governments as respected and able partners, having a disaster plan that spends taxpayer dollars with care and efficiency, having a plan that puts a premium on helping families and extended families stay together through an ordeal that rocks the economic foundation and future of so many families as they are displaced, sometimes for weeks, sometimes for months, and, yes, even sometimes for years. We need a new FEMA. We need a muscular, robust, able, efficient, and effective FEMA to be a true partner with local and State governments and individual businesses and families in times of disaster. I have spoken many times on the floor about the disasters of Katrina and Rita and how it affected the gulf coast, from Beaumont to Mobile, with the great city of New Orleans and the metropolitan area being most directly affected. But we are not isolated in that suffering by any means. This week, we have seen what is happening today in Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois. There has been $1.5 billion in damages in Iowa alone, and 38,000 Iowans have been evacuated. More than 3,500 National Guard are deployed. More than 4.8 million sandbags have been used. I could go on and on about the towns that have been completely evacuated. Yes, New Orleans was completely evacuated. So was Saint Bernard Parish and so were large swaths of Jefferson Parish--a parish of more than 450,000 people--3 years ago this August. But today the towns of Hartford, Palo, and Fredonia have been completely evacuated--not as large as New Orleans but towns of substantial populations. The question is, Does FEMA have its housing plan together yet? Is there a plan for people to be able to get their medicines if they are relocated, to get their prescription drugs from their hometown pharmacy or their neighborhood? I am not sure that has been done yet. So we need a FEMA that works. We need an administration that understands it is not just disasters far away but disasters right here at home and that homeland security starts with hometown security, where people can be secure in their neighborhoods, in their homes, and that the levees that have been put up to protect them will actually hold the water and will not be breached or overturned. We do not have that confidence right now in America. So not only do we need a new FEMA, but we need a FEMA that will be an advocate for proper investments in infrastructure. It is embarrassing, I believe, to be in the atmosphere we are in, where people can look up and any day a bridge could collapse or any day a levee could break. We cannot prevent tornadoes. We cannot prevent hurricanes. We cannot prevent earthquakes. But I promise you, we can do a lot more than we are doing now to reform the Federal emergency system so it works better with local and State governments so that when earthquakes happen, when hurricanes happen, when other disasters happen, the people of the United States are getting the help they need. So that is one of our top issues on our Checklist for Change: a disaster planning and response system second to none. It is a long list. But it is a list that must get done. That is, in large measure, what this next election is about. It is about the kind of leadership that is going to bring about the changes necessary, so when a business collapses after 20 or 30 years of making a profit, or longer, when families' homes are destroyed, they have a Government they can count on--not to give them charity but to give them a hand up, to respond, to help them get back on their feet economically, spiritually, and emotionally. That is what our Government can do. So I am proud to join this team. Again, we are asking for a FEMA that works.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on April 24, 2008, 25 young men and women from Louisiana and the Washington area took part in Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day. I am going to submit all of their names for the Record to show that they spent a day working the Senate with me and with some of the other Senators and have seen firsthand the work that goes on. I want to acknowledge the MS Magazine Foundation that started Take our Daughters and Sons to Work Day to thank them for organizing this effort where there are thousands, maybe perhaps millions, of young people who have taken a day out of their school work to go to the various places where Americans are working to contribute to making this country of ours a better country and this world a better place. I ask to have the names printed in the Record for these young men and women and thank them for being a part of this special day and taking their time to come and learn about the workings of the Senate. The list follows. From The Bryn Mawr School: Alexandra Argo, Baltimore, MD; from Urusline Academy: Kelly Francis Antrum, New Orleans, LA; from Ursuline Academy: Jennifer Baker, New Orleans, LA; from Lake Castle School: Anna Campbell, Abita Springs, LA; from St. Angela Merici School: Margret Domingo, Metairie, LA; from St. James Episcopal School: Ashton Eymard, Baton Rouge, LA; from St. Margaret Mary: Cameron Gerhold, Slidell, LA; from Georgetown Day School: Cleo Gill, Washington, DC; from Georgetown Day School: Camilla Herrera, Washington, DC; from Grace Episcopal School: Mary Snellings Inabnett, Monroe, LA; from LSU Lab School: Jeremy Jetson, Baton Rouge, LA; from St. Peter's: Marlena Jones, Washington, DC; from St. Dominic School: Ashley Landrieu, New Orleans, LA; from St. Dominic School: Claire Landrieu, New Orleans, LA; from St. Dominic School: Katie Landrieu, New Orleans, LA; from Our Lady of Prompt Succor: Alyse Lemoine, Dryprong, LA; from St. Dominic School: Sarah Mayer, New Orleans, LA; from Academy of the Sacred Heart: Natalie Lindon, St. Martinville, LA; from T.S. Cooley Magnate School: Hanaiah Morris, Lake Charles, LA; from LSU Lab School: McKenzie Prudhomme, Baton Rouge, LA; from St. Dominic School: Alexandra Sensenbrenner, New Orleans, LA; from St. Ignatius School: Mary Francis Seiter, Mobile, AL; from Georgetown Day School: Mary Shannon Snellings, Washington DC; from Ursuline Academy: Gabrielle Terrebonne, Gretna, LA; from St. Margaret Catholic School: Brooke Walker, Lake Charles, LA.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the supplemental bill that was put together by many Members, actually, on both sides of the aisle, who believe that, yes, we should expedite funding for our troops in the field, but also there are emergencies right here at home, as eloquently described earlier this morning in the remarks of the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Washington State. I would like to add some words to their arguments. First of all, I realize there is an emergency and a war and conflict going on in Iraq and international incidents around the world that deserve the attention and support of this body. But there are also emergencies right here at home and imminent and ongoing threats. This chart basically says it all. It is a frightening chart to me, a depressing chart, but it is reality. The reality is, since 1955 through 2005, this is the track of hurricanes that have hit the United States. Some of these are category 1, some are category 2, but dozens of them are categories 4 and 5. This track is Hurricane Katrina in yellow and Hurricane Rita in blue, which devastated large parts of Louisiana and Mississippi, even going into Alabama and Texas--flooding thousands of homes and killing 2,000 people plus along the gulf coast. The predictions are that these kinds of storms are going to get more frequent and worse. There is nothing we can do to prevent hurricanes. This is Mother Nature. We have just seen it explode in China and in Burma. It is frightening to a civilized society. We get in strong buildings like this and think that nothing can hurt us; surely no water could reach us or wind destroy us. Then Mother Nature appears in a very violent way sometimes and reminds us how vulnerable we all are. In the United States, we just don't cry about these things and wring our hands. We do something. We, the States, local and Federal Governments appropriate funding to build the right kind of levees and dams, and we provide the right paradigm or framework for insurance because that is the way we protect ourselves. Hopefully, we have infrastructure that will not fail when the pressure comes; and then insurance, if it does come, to help people who have lost so much get back on their feet. That is all we can do. It would be good if we would do that. But if we vote against this bill today, we are not taking the necessary steps to get that done. Again, this is a depressing chart to me. I don't like to see it, but I put this up in my office to remind myself that this is not just about Katrina and Rita, which we will be marking the anniversary of on August 29--3 years--and then September 24, 3 years for Rita, two of the most destructive storms to hit the United States. I remind myself that New York is in danger, New Jersey is in danger, and South Carolina and North Carolina are in danger. And Florida, in 2005, had the worst storm season of the century, according to the Senator from Florida. Briefly, referring to this chart, this is the area that went underwater in New Orleans, this region--New Orleans and Jefferson and St. Bernard. Some say: Why don't you all just relocate? That would be a very expensive proposition, and impossible, for any number of reasons. One, about 1 million people live in the metropolitan area; two, the mouth of the Mississippi River is something that the people of Mississippi and Louisiana most certainly think is an important asset to the country--so important that Thomas Jefferson, when he was President, leveraged the entire Federal Treasury to purchase it. We put all of our defenses along the river to defend it. You cannot close this river. The people who work on the river and contribute to the assets of the country cannot go live in Arkansas or north Texas or north Mississippi. They need to live close to the coast for all of the important energy that comes. The city is no longer underwater. The water is long gone, but the tears are still there and the pain is still there and the frightening part is still there because the start of the hurricane season is just right around the corner, June 1. We have reports in the paper today that there is some leakage in the same canal that breached and destroyed over 10,000 homes--or more, actually--in the Lakeview area, which is a solid middle-class area. This is a picture from the Times-Picayune today. In this bill, there is about $7 billion for levees, to finish the construction of levees that broke--Federal levees that should have held and didn't. We are in a mad dash to get these levees and this infrastructure rebuilt strongly, correctly, and safely so people can begin to rebuild this city higher, yes, and stronger, yes. But no one living in the middle of a city or urban area should have to go to bed at night and wonder when they wake up if they will be in 8 feet of water or 12 feet. This is the 17th Street Canal, and you have seen this many times in pictures. That is what is in this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the supplemental. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. We have hurricane levees in this bill. We also have housing vouchers. The risks have increased substantially in the region. After the storm, we lost 250,000 dwellings in Louisiana and thousands in Mississippi. We have a homeless population that has doubled. There are housing vouchers in the bill for the homeless, for the very low income, and for the disabled. After storms like these, that population is gravely threatened. I will come back later and finish my remarks. This is important to the people of the gulf coast. I thank the Senator for the time allowed this morning. I urge my colleagues, in supporting the war funding in Iraq, please let's remember the emergency still going on at home.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, 10 Louisiana law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty this past year, and they are being recognized in Washington this week as part of National Police Week. I welcome their families and colleagues to the Nation's Capital. These officers lost their lives while serving their communities and are being honored for their courage and the ultimate sacrifice they made to serve and protect the citizens of Louisiana. National Police Week is collaborative effort to honor the service and sacrifice of America's law enforcement community and includes the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, NLEOMF, the Fraternal Order of Police/Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary, FOP/FOA, and the Concerns of Police Survivors, COPS. Officers from around the country and the families of fallen officers travel to Washington, DC, for events including the Peace Officers Memorial Day Service at the U.S. Capitol and the National Police Survivor's Conference. In addition, the names of our 10 Louisiana heroes will be engraved on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial along with 348 other names from around the country. The names will also be read at a candlelight vigil at the memorial this week. The following brave police officers and Sheriff's deputies gave their lives to protect our Louisiana communities: Patrolman Brian Keith Coleman, Alexandria Police Department; Detective Thelonious Anthony Dukes, Sr., New Orleans Police Department; Sergeant R. Alan Inzer, Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office; Deputy Hilery Alexander Mayo, Jr., St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office; Deputy Joshua E. Norris, Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office; Sergeant Linden Albert Raimer, St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office; Chief David Gerald Richard, Port Barre Police Department; Sergeant John Russell Smith, Bastrop Police Department; Detective Charles Douglas Wilson, Jr., Bastrop Police Department; and Deputy Yvonne D. Pettit, Washington Parish Sheriff's Office. The sacrifices of our heroic law enforcement officers remind us that it is Congress's responsibility to ensure the Federal Government looks after our disabled officers and firefighters, as well as the families of our fallen and disabled first responders. They put themselves in harm's way each day so that the rest of us may live safely and peacefully in a free society. There is no group more deserving of our full support, and the truth is, our Federal Government has not done enough to care for and honor these officers, their families, and their sacrifice. National Police Week provides an opportunity for us to reflect on our law enforcement officers' contributions to building safe and productive communities in Louisiana and across the country. I ask the Senate to join me in honoring these 10 Louisiana fallen officers, their families, and their colleagues across the country for their unwavering service and dedication to keeping us safe.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased today to rise in honor of National Charter School week. The role of charter schools has become increasingly important as these institutions have become one of the fastest-growing innovative forces in education policy. In the past 4 years, 1,600 new charter schools opened and 500,000 additional public school students chose to enroll in charter schools. In the fall of 2007, 350 new public charter schools opened and an additional 115,000 public school students enrolled in these schools. Nationwide in 40 States and Washington, DC, over 4,300 public charter schools enroll more than 1.2 million public school students. As many of you know, I have been a longtime advocate of charter schools, which not only help to better educate students, but can also help to build stronger, more prosperous cities. As incubators of innovation in education, public charter schools are an indispensable component of our Nation's educational landscape. Back home in New Orleans, in the aftermath of the catastrophic devastation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita came an opportunity to recreate a public school system through bold innovation and community involvement. The educational entrepreneurship of public charter schools has been integral to the city's recovery. They are inspiring positive changes throughout the system, as other schools work to cultivate the same benefits. Our hope is that all public schools in New Orleans will enjoy the same entrepreneurship, independence, and community involvement that the public charter schools have fostered. Public charter schools were the first schools to open after the storm and they have since thrived. Today more than 57 percent of the city's public school students attend public charter schools, and more than half of our public schools are independently chartered, the highest percentage in the country. Moreover, public charter schools are gaining momentum and support around the Nation. The recently released 2008 Public Charter School Dashboard included a national opinion poll that found that more than three out of four voters favor giving parents more options when choosing a public school for their children. As we celebrate National Charter Schools Week with this resolution, it is my sincere hope that Congress will commit to supporting the growth of charter schools as critical tools for closing the achievement gap.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. OK. That is the only unanimous consent agreement. That is fine.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a moment, if I could, about the wind amendment that is pending that Senator Wicker, myself, Senator Vitter, and Senator Cochran have cosponsored. Several of us have been working on this for months now, and our colleagues in the House, particularly from Mississippi and Louisiana, have been very engaged, but there are other delegations that are engaged in this issue as well. The reason is because flood insurance, while it has been helpful--very helpful to some degree--throughout the southern part and coastal areas of the country, is not sufficient. We have to provide some opportunity for our homeowners and businesses to have access to affordable wind insurance, and the operative word here is ``affordable.'' That is why we have offered this amendment to modify and expand the insurance bill regarding flooding. That is why we have held this bill up--one of the reasons this bill has been held up by several of us for several months now--until we could try to get an opportunity to fix this bill which is still, in my view, greatly flawed in a number of areas, and this is one. This bill is not providing what people need-- not just in Louisiana and in Mississippi but in Texas, in Alabama, in South Carolina, in North Carolina, in Florida--in many places around this country that may be subject to storms, particularly along the lines of Katrina and Rita and other storms that have hit recently and are projected, obviously, to continue. We are making some significant changes. People are building stronger. There are new building codes being adopted county by county, parish by parish, and State by State. There are new ideas about designs and building more safely. Even some communities are moving to higher ground. Neighborhoods are making tough decisions about where we should build and where we shouldn't. All of that is going on throughout many parts of the country. I wish to read a couple of letters--because I think my colleagues have explained this issue very well--that we are receiving from constituents who have been struggling to get themselves back in their homes and to pay not just their mortgage but their insurance costs as well as the rising cost of fuel and the rising cost of groceries. This is exacerbating a very tough economic situation that we are experiencing in the gulf. This is an e-mail I received from Chet in Metairie: Hello. I live in Old Metairre. My home did receive wind damage from Katrina, with a total insurance claim of just under $30,000. I share my mortgage costs with my mother who is a 79-year-old retired Jefferson Parish school teacher. This year, our homeowners insurance tripled. Thanks to this, the total amount we pay to our mortgage company has almost doubled in 2008. Our monthly payment of loan, property tax, and insurance has gone from about $1,200 before Katrina to $2,093 post-Katrina. My income has not increased. My mother's pension has not increased at all. My brother in Mandeville has experienced similar increases. We know that insurance companies reported record profits in the year following Katrina. It is very interesting to me that so many people on this floor are screaming and yelling about record oil profits. I didn't hear anyone come to the floor to talk about the strange and unusual situation of after one of the greatest catastrophes in the history of this country, or at least recent catastrophes, the insurance profits hit a record high, but no one from the committee came down to talk about taxing or curbing insurance profits. Yet we can't even get any kind of expansion or affordable rates for wind coverage. I am not blaming all insurance companies, but there is something to be said for in the same year that there is the largest catastrophe in the country, the companies that are covering the catastrophe had record profits. I don't understand it and most of my constituents don't understand that. So there is a plea from constituents everywhere to try to do something about affordable insurance coverage. Here is another e-mail from Kim in New Orleans: Dear Mary, I'm not really sure what category this falls under. I have owned a home in New Orleans for the past three years. My insurance has gone from $995 a year to $5,133. I am a single mother with one child. I cannot afford an insurance premium of $995 to $5,135. What are we going to do? Another from Mandeville: My homeowners insurance has just increased $1,000. Since my insurance company decided not to cover hail and wind anymore, I will have to buy insurance from the ``Fair'' plan-- Which is our State's pool-- at a higher premium. In addition to keeping the premium low enough to afford my mortgage, I cannot cover everything inside of my home. Now, again--I know the Presiding Officer has been down to Louisiana-- I am not talking about second homes on beaches. I am not talking about homeowners who live on the water. I am talking about people who live in the city, a port city, similar to Baltimore. We have New Orleans, a great port city, that services not just the millions of people who live in and around the metropolitan area and all up and down the lower Mississippi River, but a port city that benefits the whole entire Nation. So basically, with the bill that the committee has brought to the floor, which I have objected to, their basic philosophy is everybody who lives in and around a port that generates profit can pay high rates, so everybody else can pay extra low rates, and the people in the port cities can basically absorb the difference. I understand about risk. If you are living in Florida on a beach in a condo as a second home or maybe even your first home or you are living on a beach in Alabama or in Mississippi, maybe you should pay a little bit extra. But the people whom I am representing--we only have two beaches. There are only two, 3 miles long, and you can't even get to them basically without a boat. I have people in Mandeville, in St. Tammany Parish, in Tangipahoa Parish and in the city of New Orleans 5 minutes from the Superdome who are seeing their rates quadruple. These people are not living in a vacation area. This committee is having a hard time understanding this issue. That is why the Members, both Republicans and Democrats, have brought this bill, to try to say what are we going to do to give affordable wind coverage to people who live in and around these port communities. This is from Robert in Slidell: This will be an increase from $500 to $3,887 or an increase of 775 percent. My dwelling coverage increased by more than 21 percent in June of 2007 and another 21 percent in June of 2008. This is in addition to my deductible increasing 775 percent. He says: I am confused. Well, let me tell Robert that I am confused too, because this is supposed to be a reform bill coming through to give people better insurance and better coverage and it leaves wind out of it completely. That is why we put on a wind amendment. I ask my colleagues to please support the amendment that will allow us to include wind. This is a final e-mail from Theresa in LaPlace, LA, again, 75 miles from a beach: I just received notice from my mortgage company that due to the skyrocketing insurance premiums for my landlord policy, the house note is increasing from $312 per month to $725 per month. The monthly insurance premium is more than the monthly house note. If something is not done, I am going to be forced to sell my house. Now, I have been to this floor many times before. I am very sensitive to the foreclosure problems going on around this country. I know the counties that are experiencing very high foreclosure rates. Some of them are because lenders speculated. Some of it is because a few home builders got greedy--not all, because most home builders are doing the right thing, but they maybe speculated in a market. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment 4706, as modified, at the desk.