Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, Senator Wicker, Senator Vitter, myself, and Senator Cochran to some degree have been working for months literally on this bill. It is a very important bill--as has Senator Nelson of Florida--a very important bill to Mississippi and Louisiana that felt the brunt of these last storms that we will be marking the third anniversary of this August, not too far from today, and in September for Hurricane Rita. As I was saying earlier this morning, thousands and thousands and thousands of homeowners are having a difficult time, the causes of which are very different. In some parts of the country people extended debt beyond what was wise and reasonable and find themselves losing their homes and in some instances it is partly their fault. In some places, some consumers had bad deals thrust at them, and maybe through fraud or some other abuse they find themselves losing their homes. The people I represent didn't do either of those two things. The people I represent in Louisiana and along the gulf coast did nothing but basically play by the rules, have insurance if they were required to, didn't have insurance when they were not required, for the most part. There were some families who should have had insurance who did not, but that is another subject for another day. But the bulk of the people did exactly what they were supposed to do, and they are still going to lose their homes because of two reasons: The Federal levees that should have held didn't and the insurance paradigm we have established is not sufficient. That is what this bill is about. To describe this in very clear graphics, I wish to put up this poster that shows why we are on the floor today: $17.53 billion; that is a lot of money. That is why this bill is on the floor today, because we have to ``reform the system'' because it is obviously not working. We set up a flood insurance program and for years it would basically break even because of the way it was structured. Then in 2004, it went into debt a little bit, $225 million. Then we went into debt a little bit more, $300 million, but still manageable. Then Katrina and Rita hit and the debt goes up to almost $20 billion. So make no mistake about it, that is why this bill is on the floor. This is a taxpayer bailout of $20 billion. At the same time the taxpayers are bailing out the insurance industry, I wanted to show you what the insurance industry profits are. Everybody--some Republicans and a lot of Democrats--has been on this floor talking about oil companies. I guess I can understand why oil companies are making profits, because prices are high. That is a whole other subject for another day. But I wonder how insurance companies can make profits when you are supposed to have a record loss. I understand profits when prices are high; I don't understand profits when losses are great. There is something wrong with this system. So, in 2005, the insurance profits went up to $48 billion. Katrina and Rita hit; they don't go down. The profits go up. Because it is basically a system where insurance companies just cannot lose money. People can lose money. People can lose their houses. Businesses lose their businesses. Businesses lose their contents and their markets. But for some reason, in this insurance bill we are operating under, insurance companies make money in the middle of a disaster. Some of my constituents, including myself, would like to know how this happens. As to the National Flood Insurance Program, the GAO did a report that says: ``Greater Transparency and Oversight of Wind and Flood Damage Determinations Are Needed.'' They just issued this report. I would say so, since the taxpayers are going to pick up the $20 billion bill. You heard the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson. They were so desperate in Florida, the State had to sort of insure itself, which, thank goodness, Florida is big enough and maybe wealthy enough to do. It is very risky for the State of Florida to do that. If they have four our five hurricanes in one season, like they did a couple seasons ago, it could bankrupt the State. I am sure this debate went on in the Florida Legislature. But they were so desperate, they actually had no recourse because the Federal Government will not come up with a plan that will work for everyone. So Florida had a choice: They could either shut down every commercial business, shut down every homebuilder, completely stop the housing market in Florida, or they could self-insure themselves. It was a pretty desperate situation, so Florida went ahead and did that. But let me explain, Louisiana is not a rich State, and we are not a big State. We cannot insure ourselves that way. If we had another Katrina, the whole State would go bankrupt and our kids could not go to universities, our hospitals would shut down. I know people think I am making this up, but it is the truth. We cannot assume that risk onto ourselves, and neither can Mississippi, and I would suggest neither could Alabama. Maybe California could do it, maybe New York could do it, maybe Texas could do it, and maybe Florida could do it because they are big States, but our little States would go bankrupt. So our GAO says the insurance business needs some more transparency and oversight. I will tell you why. As shown on this chart, this is what is in the report. As you know, maybe by word of explanation, under the current system--as unbelievable as this might sound--you have the real estate agents who are in the private sector writing wind insurance for their companies, which they can make a profit on. It is private. They are writing the flood insurance policies. So it is ``write your own'' policy. So the same people who write the Federal, taxpayer- guaranteed flood program write the private program. So right now--and this bill does not fix this; this bill does not do anything to fix this--right now, according to our own GAO, Government Accountability Office, which is completely neutral, not political: In certain damage scenarios, the WYO [write your own] insurer that covers a policyholder for wind losses can have a vested economic interest in the outcome of the damage determination that it performs when the property is subjected to a combination of high winds and flooding. Which, hello, most often happens in a hurricane. You have winds and water. So it always happens that way. In such cases, a conflict of interest exists-- Let me underline ``a conflict of interest exists''-- with the WYO insurer as it determines which damages were caused by wind, to be paid by itself. . . . So if a house is destroyed and the person comes in and says: This house was destroyed by wind 85 percent--if that is the case--then I have to pay it out of my pocket. If it is actually 85 percent flood, then the Government can pay it. The poor taxpayers can pick up this tab, so the insurance companies move their liability to the taxpayer. I know, Madam President, as a former auditor, you can most certainly appreciate and understand this situation. So it says: In such cases, a conflict of interest exists with the WYO insurer as it determines which damages were caused by wind, to be paid by itself, and which damages were caused by flooding, to be paid by NFIP [the National Flood Insurance Program]. Which is basically the taxpayers. Moreover, the amount WYO insurers are compensated . . . In addition to that obvious conflict of interest, which is not corrected in this bill, the insurers are compensated for servicing a flood claim, and it increases as the amount of the flood damage increases. So their compensation, their percentage is increased. So if the flood insurance is more, they get a little bit of a premium. So this bill has been in committee being worked out through the House and Senate, it is finally on the floor, and this problem has not been corrected. So that is why I offer my amendment to try to correct some portion of it. Let me show you one of the actual transactions we have uncovered. This is an actual blowup of a claim, the paperwork that was done. It talks about the flood that occurred on August 29. Damage appears to be the result of the general condition of flooding. The first inspection revealed an exterior waterline of 15 to 20 feet, an interior waterline of 8 to 12 feet. Damage was extensive. It lists this. That sounds wonderful and great. That is kind of what one of these documents would look like. The problem is, the adjuster who turned in that document said--this is under oath in one of the court proceedings that is slowly moving through the courts--``I did not put those numbers in there.'' ``There was no house to measure a waterline.'' ``I did not prepare that letter.'' ``They didn't call me about that letter.'' ``That is the document that is sent to the Federal Government.'' This is an adjuster. We have blocked his name out because he would probably get in trouble if they knew he was sharing this information with us. So, in other words, again, this is not complicated, because I know insurance can be complicated. I do not really like the subject very much, but I have had to learn more about it than I care to know because of what we are going through. But we have a system which we are getting ready to vote on right now that allows the same insurance companies to write their own personal policies or their own business policies, and they do the Government a ``big favor'' by writing the flood insurance policies. They decide when their houses are destroyed, how much they have to pay out of pocket, if it was done by wind, or how much we have to pay if it was done by flood. These documents are barely ever audited, or this system is barely ever audited. When we went and checked, as shown on this chart, this was the house that supposedly had a water line. Of course, you can see this address. There was no house. There could not possibly have been any measurement because there are no walls to measure. So this is just an example of hundreds that are coming out as these court cases move forward all along the gulf about the very serious problems related to the way the U.S. flood insurance program works. Now, I know we need a flood insurance program. My State benefits tremendously from having one that is fair and equitable to the people who are paying the premiums, to the homeowners and businesses who rely on it. I also have an obligation to taxpayers generally in this country to support a program that is honest and fair. What I am suggesting is that the bill we are about to vote on--which is probably why I am going to vote no--does not do anything to change this. So I am going to put up my ``$20 billion'' sign again. This $20 billion debt exists in large measure because of this system I have just described. Now, this bill is going to pass, and magically the Federal Government is going to just absorb the $20 billion so we kind of get back to even. The bill, then, generally said, to make up for that, we are going to raise rates. But do you know on whom they raise rates? Not on the insurance companies that have already made record profits. Do you know on whom they raise rates? People who cannot afford the rates today. In the underlying bill, they can raise rates 15 percent a year or 25 percent a year. When we ask the committee to please consider that the people of Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama cannot afford higher insurance rates, couldn't we possibly consider some kind of catastrophic plan-- because we might have hurricanes, but Memphis is going to have an earthquake someday, and Seattle is going to have a tsunami; in 1938, a hurricane 5 slammed into Long Island--we are told no. We cannot even consider such a thing. So there are many things wrong, and I really cannot correct them. I tried to hold this bill up as long as I could, and everybody decided we needed to have a flood insurance bill, so I said: Fine. Let the bill come to the floor, but I am going to talk against it. That is what I plan to do. So the purpose of this bill is for the taxpayers to eat $20 billion, to let insurance companies have record profits, and the end result is the people of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana get rates raised every year from now until who knows. And I am supposed to just sit here and say this is a great bill the committee came up with? So the amendment I am offering--which is not going to fix this bill, but it might fix one problem with this bill--is to establish an ombudsman. Oh, and this is really ironic, what is in the underlying bill. In the underlying bill, there is a provision that establishes an office to register complaints. It is a flood insurance advocate section of this bill. If I had the section, I would read it. But in the underlying bill, there is a section that talks about that if anybody has a complaint, they could call a 1-800 number and complain. Now, I have e-mails up to my ceiling in my office from people--not complaining, crying--not complaining, crying because they are getting ready to lose their business or lose their house. But they could, in the underlying bill, call a 1-800 number and make a complaint. But the language is so weak and flimsy, there is really not anything they can do other than complain. So I have taken that section and strengthened it. That is what my amendment does. It does not just establish a complaint counter. It establishes an office that has some teeth. It establishes an ombudsman's office. We kind of took the language from some of our IG legislation which will allow the establishment of an office with some significant funding attached to it that can review and audit more carefully this National Flood Insurance Program. I would hope the leaders of this committee would look carefully at this amendment and know that I offer it in very good faith. Again, I do not believe the underlying bill, in this provision just establishing an office to complain, is enough considering the gravity of the situation we are dealing with. I offer this amendment in good faith. I offer it with Senator Nelson from Florida as a cosponsor. It establishes an office that would conduct audits to ensure that only flood losses are being allocated to the flood insurance program. It ensures that write-your-own insurers are preserving the necessary documentation to justify their payments, to conduct any other examinations to protect the financial integrity of the program, and to prevent fraud and abuse and conflicts of interest. Now, again, our Government Accounting Office has already established there is an inherent conflict of interest in the current program. So we are not guessing that there might be a conflict of interest; there is a conflict of interest. It says so according to the GAO: In certain damage scenarios, the insurer that covers a policyholder for wind losses can have a vested economic interest in the outcome of the damage determination that it performs when the property is subjected to a combination of high winds and flooding. A conflict of interest exists, as it determines whether it says your house was damaged by wind. So let me go ahead and pay your claim on it, or the insurer says: No, I think it was damaged by flood, which then the taxpayers can pay for, and my insurance company gets off Scot-free. And maybe, just maybe, that might explain why in the worst disaster in the history of the United States, at least recently, taxpayers have to pick up $20 billion and insurance companies file record profits. Is there anything in this underlying bill that might suggest that we could watch the taxpayers' money a little more carefully? No. They put in an office, a 1-800 number where people might complain. So instead of the 1-800 number where people might complain, I would like to put in an office where, if something is wrong, people can be criminally prosecuted. If there is fraud, people can be penalized with civil penalties and criminal penalties. I know this is very tough language, but I am not suggesting this particular document suggests that there is any stealing or any crime. But there is something wrong in our system of justice where somebody goes into a grocery store and steals $100 and gets 3 years in jail, and we have companies that--``fudge'' is the word. They didn't really use the word ``steal,'' but they will fudge a little and take $20 billion out of the Treasury and they get nothing--not a slap on the wrist, not a fine. The only thing that happens is the poor homeowners and businesses get increased premiums. So that is one of the things this amendment does. I hope my colleagues, whether they vote for the bill--I probably will not vote for the bill unless it is amended substantially, which it may be between now and the time we vote on final passage--but I hope my colleagues will look very carefully at this amendment that I offer with Senator Nelson. It establishes basically an IG ombudsman within this program to make sure the taxpayers don't pick up another $20 billion in costs. I know people will say: Well, Senator Landrieu, if we don't have this bill, your people won't have flood insurance. Well, I understand that, but our people have--we are between a rock and a hard place. We need flood insurance, but we need flood insurance that we can afford. We would like to believe we have a flood insurance program that operates honestly. I am not sure that we do. So that is what this amendment does, amendment No. 4706. Amendment No. 4705, as Modified, to Amendment No. 4707 I have one final amendment to offer. If I can, I would like to send the amendment, as modified, No. 4705, to the desk.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I send this amendment to the desk, which is actually on behalf of myself, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Pryor, that addresses the mandatory coverage requirements in the underlying bill. I hope my colleagues will not think again that this bill only affects the gulf coast because there are some provisions in this bill that are going to affect the entire country. One of the provisions is, it is going to be mandatory as FEMA maps home and businesses located beyond levees and dams and floodwalls and other manmade structures into residual risk areas. Once these homes and businesses are mapped into such areas, the legislation would require them to purchase flood insurance. Now, levees and dams don't just exist in New Orleans, although we have quite a few of them because we are a low-lying area. But we have 14,000 miles of Federal levees throughout the country along many rivers. In fact, I see the Senator from North Dakota, and he himself has had very significant experience with one of his towns being demolished, devastated, almost completely destroyed, I think it was maybe 15 years ago, when their levees broke. So he is well aware. Whether you are in Michigan or Illinois or Missouri or in many places where there are levees and dams, there are 14,000 miles of Federal levees, 79,000 dams, and 22 percent of all counties and parishes have a levee. So it is one out of every four that will be affected by the underlying bill; that is, once FEMA finishes mapping the whole United States, which they are doing and which we need to do. We need to have better maps using new technology to try to determine who is near sea level and who is above sea level and who is at risk. I have no problem with that. But this bill will mandate that everybody behind those levees pays insurance. So my amendment will basically establish before that requirement goes into place--and, again, it may be necessary--that there be adequate study about the issue. The amendment strikes the mandatory purchase requirement. In its place, it requires the GAO to study the cost, the regulatory, financial, and economic impacts of extending the mandatory purchase on the cost of home ownership, the actuarial soundness to this program, to the local communities, insurance companies, and local land use; the effectiveness of sending such a purchase requirement in protecting homeowners from financial loss and protecting the financial soundness of the program. Now, I know this was debated in committee. I am not sure that it has gotten a lot of coverage, but my phone has been ringing off the hook from other Senators who are just waking up and saying: Well, Senator, I thought this flood insurance program only affected those places along the coast, and now I am realizing this flood insurance ``reform'' bill is going to raise fees--not necessarily taxes but premiums--on thousands and thousands and thousands of homeowners and businesses throughout the country. We may have to do that. We may have to do that. But let's do it after GAO has studied and laid out what the impact and ramifications are, and let's do it in a system that is fair so it is not just the homeowners who have to pay premiums, the taxpayers who bail them out when there is a problem, and insurance companies that can't lose money under the current system. That is basically the system that we have. So, again, 43 million people are affected by the underlying bill with this new provision. Twenty-two percent of all counties in the country, and in our case parishes, have levees; 79,000 dams and 14,000 miles of Federal levees. So these are the two amendments that I offer. This has been done in a package with Senator Wicker and Senator Vitter. We have offered a package of amendments trying to fix and expand wind coverage to this bill, to lift the coverage limits. Again, a big problem with this bill is it has not kept pace with inflation and only covers homes valued up to $225,000. That might sound like a lot, but it is not keeping pace with inflation. Our amendment would lift the coverage to homes over $325,000. Then my ombudsman amendment and this mandatory coverage reprieve would be the other amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I will.

Ms. LANDRIEU. It doesn't strike the mapping requirement. It doesn't strike the mapping requirement, but it strikes the mandatory coverage provision until there is a study done about what the economic impact will be to people living behind those levees and dams.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, it does. That is the intent of the amendment. Madam President, there are many Senators who feel as though this is a very abrupt requirement. They are not sure of what the outcome of these premiums might be to people who are already struggling with higher costs. And because there is no estimate to my knowledge, we thought it would be better to offer an amendment that would basically require a study so more discussion can be had, and then perhaps later we could insist on mandatory coverage or phase it in as is appropriate. But is that the Senator's concern?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would be happy to. I appreciate the Senator raising it. I will review the way this amendment is structured. But, again, I would be happy to work with the Senator so we could offer something together because there are many Senators who are concerned, and rightly concerned, about this particular section. If the Senator would allow me to finish, I will be happy to yield the floor for further discussion because I am about ready to finish my remarks. There are no votes scheduled. There are other amendments that are going to be offered. But, again, a package has been put together by several Senators, both Republicans and Democrats. I have to say again, in conclusion, I don't like the underlying bill. I did a great deal to keep this bill bottled up in committee for over 2 years. But I have been convinced the better way to proceed is to have this bill come to the floor, which is what I allowed with Senator Vitter and Senator Wicker, as long as we can offer amendments and have some time to air our grievances. The chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee have been men of their word and allowed us to do so. So at some point, Madam Chair, I would request that the Senate vote on these amendments together as a package, but individually the one regarding wind, the one regarding the increased coverage, the one regarding the ombudsman, and the amendment regarding the mandatory coverage, and then the additional coverage options. So there are five amendments in this package that we have been working on. At some point, when that can be agreed to, we can move this bill forward. In the meantime, I will be happy to work with my colleague from North Dakota to see if the language he has suggested is the same as ours. If not, perhaps we can modify our amendment to accommodate that, or perhaps he will offer the amendment with our acquiescence. With that, I yield the floor to my friend from North Dakota.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I don't know how this will be resolved. I certainly can appreciate that, and I agree with the Senator, because one size doesn't fit all, which has been part of the problem with this bill--that it is pushing everyone into a one-size-fits-all requirement. It is not the appropriate response to our situation. I hope the Senator will consider either modifying the amendment I have laid down, or I would be happy to actually support a narrower amendment that any communities that can establish that they have created protection that is over and above the average, which is 100-year flood protection, might not be subject to this requirement. As the Senator knows--because he is chairman of the Appropriations Committee that funds levees in the country, so he most certainly is one of the leading experts--the standard in America right now is not sufficient, and it is 1 storm out of 100. Very few communities can boast of being as protected as his community can. I suggest that most certainly I would not object as the main author of the amendment, but there are several cosponsors. I am sure we could work something out.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4705 be modified further with the changes at the desk and that Senators Dorgan, Lincoln, and Pryor be added as cosponsors.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if this amendment does not pass, significant portions of many States will be required to have flood insurance which has never been required before. The underlying bill says everywhere there is a dike, a dam, or a levy, regardless of the situation behind the dike, dam, or levy, regardless of how strong the dike, dam, or levy is, you will be required to have flood insurance. That is a very different jump from where we are today. Our amendment strikes that language and instead says there shall be a study and evaluation to make better determinations. This is a tough issue because we were behind levees that broke. It would have been a good idea, but this is a tax and fees on people without the appropriate study. That is what our amendment does.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what are the three votes?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. As I was saying, the letter goes on to say: I have paid enough in insurance premiums to rebuild my house out-of-pocket had it been completely destroyed. But again, when we try to get decent, affordable coverage for people, both for flood and wind, we are having a difficult time on this floor and in this Congress. So I hope as we continue to discuss through the afternoon the importance of this that people will understand and recognize that this amendment--there are several but this amendment regarding wind is very important so we can continue our recovery in the gulf coast. As I was saying before I was asked to pause for a minute, I recognize the foreclosure difficulties throughout the country, and I have said I am sensitive to the concerns of those communities. But I want to please remind everyone again: The people of the gulf coast do not have a foreclosure problem brought on by themselves. In fact, our foreclosure rate is lower, much lower than any--much lower than the national averages. But our people are getting their homes foreclosed and taken away from them because Federal levees that should have held failed and an insurance system we should have regulated has gone in large measure unregulated, and programs such as this that are supposed to be helping people afford insurance are not doing so. It is not right. Our people have nowhere else to go other than to Congress to help them get a better system in place. That is why I and many of my colleagues have held this bill up for 2 years in committee. We may or may not get to vote on it this afternoon, depending upon how many e- mails I decide to read into the Record. I wish to talk about an amendment I am going to offer and send up, amendment No. 4706, as modified.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, and I will offer another one.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am proud to honor a group of 97 World War II veterans from Louisiana who are traveling to Washington, DC, this weekend to visit the various memorials and monuments that recognize the sacrifices of our Nation's invaluable servicemembers. Louisiana HonorAir, a group based in Lafayette, LA, is sponsoring this Saturday's trip to the Nation's Capital. The organization is honoring each surviving World War II Louisiana veteran by giving them an opportunity to see the memorials dedicated to their service. On this trip, the veterans will visit the World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Iwo Jima memorials. They will also travel to Arlington National Cemetery to lay a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknowns. This is the ninth flight Louisiana HonorAir will make to Washington, DC. World War II was one of America's greatest triumphs, but was also a conflict rife with individual sacrifice and tragedy. More than 60 million people worldwide were killed, including 40 million civilians, and more than 400,000 American service members were slain during the long war. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the valor of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry, which supplied our military on two distant fronts. In Louisiana, there remain today more than 40,000 living WWII veterans, and each one has a heroic tale of achieving the noble victory of freedom over tyranny. The oldest in this Honor-Air group was born in 1913. They began their service as early as 1938, before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and some members of this group served as late as 1979. They served in various branches of the military--34 members in the Army; 14 in the Army Air Corps; 37 in the Navy; 8 in the Marines; 1 in the USO; and 3 in the U.S. Coast Guard. Our heroes served across the globe, participating in major invasions such as those at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guadalcanal, Leyte, the Phillippines, and southern France. One was a prisoner of war in Italy, another served under General Patton, and one flew 35 bombing missions over Europe. Many of these veterans earned Purple Hearts, Bronze Star Medals, Air Medals and Navy Crosses. I ask the Senate to join me in honoring these 97 veterans, all Louisiana heroes, that we welcome to Washington this weekend and Louisiana HonorAir for making these trips a reality.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to ask that the Senate support technical corrections to a few highway bill projects in Louisiana. Specifically, a modified alignment to a project in Lake Charles, an expanded project area for Jefferson Parish and expanded use for a project in New Orleans. These limited technical corrections will improve transportation in Louisiana and get the dollars previously directed toward this work into the economy. Notably, the corrections do not change the previously authorized level of spending, nor do they fundamentally alter the scope of the project. I look forward to working with the Environment and Public Works Committee to address these technical corrections.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to ask that the Senate support technical corrections to a few highway bill projects in Louisiana. Specifically, a modified alignment to a project in Lake Charles, an expanded project area for Jefferson Parish and expanded use for a project in New Orleans. These limited technical corrections will improve transportation in Louisiana and get the dollars previously directed toward this work into the economy. Notably, the corrections do not change the previously authorized level of spending, nor do they fundamentally alter the scope of the project. I look forward to working with the Environment and Public Works Committee to address these technical corrections.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on behalf of some of our most in need gulf coast residents impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As you know the gulf coast was devastated in 2005 by two of the most powerful storms to ever hit the U.S. in recorded history--Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We also experienced the unprecedented disaster of having a major metropolitan city--the City of New Orleans--under up to 20 feet of water for two weeks when there were 28 separate levee failures which flooded 12,000 acres, or 80 percent of New Orleans, following Katrina. In particular, I am speaking on behalf of our elderly and disabled residents impacted by these disasters. Many of these people are too frail or fragile to live on their own, yet they do not belong in a hospital. We have many people who been in seen homes or apartments for disabled and elderly residents, for adults who are not older but instead disabled through an accident or injury. In many cities, this type of housing is run by such organizations as Catholic Charities or other nonprofits. Right now in the gulf coast region, we desperately need more of this type of housing to take care of the most fragile people who either are without shelter or are without safe, affordable shelter with appropriate supportive services. One can imagine the challenges of providing sufficient housing for this group under normal circumstances. But here we find ourselves, dealing with the aftermath of a catastrophe, trying to provide additional housing for thousands of people now returning to the region. According to the Congressional Research Service, 88,000 persons aged 65 or older were displaced by Hurricane Katrina--of that group 45,000 were 75 years of age or older. Furthermore, almost 15 percent of all displaced seniors had incomes below the poverty line. While recovery has primarily focused on restoring owner-occupied and rental housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, assisted housing for our elderly and disabled residents has not received a great deal of attention. In particular, 123 properties of Section 202 housing, which serves elderly residents, and Section 811 housing, which serves disabled residents, were impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in my State alone. This includes 5,261 total units of 202/811 housing. As of February 2008, 602 of these units were still offline and I am aware that, for every unit of 202 housing, there are 10 eligible low-income seniors on the waiting list. To further highlight the ongoing needs of the gulf coast, let me provide a snapshot of one community in my State--New Orleans East. In our Vietnamese community in New Orleans East, 6,000 people--or approximately 95 percent of the pre-Katrina population--have returned to the area. Of this 6,000, it is estimated that 2,400 are seniors. The average age of these seniors is 72 years of age and 98 percent are considered extremely low- income according to HUD standards. This means that they earn below 30 percent of the area median income a year, or less than $12,550 a year. Of these seniors 82 percent receive supplemental security income as their only source of income--approximately $637 per month for a single household. Prior to Katrina, there were six retirement communities in New Orleans East, consisting of about 735 units, serving this community. Presently none of them are in operation. This is not just a short-term recovery problem as the demand for age-restricted housing will continue to increase in the next few years, particularly in New Orleans East. Given the ongoing needs in the southern part of my State in regard to damaged multifamily and senior/disabled housing, as well as all across the Gulf Coast, I am proud to introduce today the Gulf Coast Multifamily and Assisted Housing Recovery Act of 2008. I am joined on this bill by my colleagues Senator Thad Cochran and Senator Roger Wicker. This legislation includes some key provisions which should target assistance where it is most needed. The bill will also help to cut through some Federal red tape stalling redevelopment efforts in the region. To address the affordable housing needs in my State, as well as across the gulf coast, our bill authorizes $125 million for additional Section 202 housing and $75 million for new Section 811 housing. This provision would create almost 1,500 new 202/811 units. The bill would also authorize $4 million to cover gaps for the redevelopment of former Section 202 housing in the City of New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish. Another major problem in New Orleans East is that 50 seniors were living pre-Katrina at Versailles Arms, a project-based Section 8 housing development which has not reopened. I understand that a few weeks ago the community boarded up the development. While this property is sitting vacant--but vacant with a project-based contract still attached to it--Mary Queen of Viet Nam Community Development Corporation, MQVN, and Providence Community Housing have begun work on Phase I of the Mary Queen of Viet Nam Retirement Community. This project would provide 84 units of affordable senior housing. Their problem, however, is with the downturn in the tax credit market in the last 4 months, the equity investment will not be sufficient to cover the development costs. For example, the current rent structure, which is below the market rates, is not sufficient to support a mortgage to cover the development gap, so they are in need of a project-based subsidy to complete the project. MQVN have been trying to work with our local housing authority, the Housing Authority of New Orleans, HANO, to secure project-based assistance for this project. However, as many of our developers have discovered, HANO has exhausted its 20 percent maximum set aside for project-based subsidies. This is troubling for those of us in Congress, especially for my colleagues and I who are members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Last year, via the fiscal year 08 Supplemental Appropriations bill, we provided HANO with additional vouchers by allowing HUD to utilize pre-Katrina population figures in allocating Section 8 vouchers, rather than post-Katrina population figures. While there certainly are increased demands for such assistance, the fact that so many developments are in need of this type of assistance and that HANO lacks the necessary resources to fully address needs on the ground raises many questions. For my part, I do not have all the answers but I can provide a commonsense solution to address the need for project-based assistance in New Orleans and the rest of the gulf coast. Each year, in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill, there has regularly been legislative authority for HUD to transfer some or all project-based assistance associated with one or more multifamily housing projects to another multifamily housing project or projects. In the fiscal year 06 Appropriations bill, Public Law 109-115, Section 318 addressed this issue, and in the fiscal year 08 Omnibus Appropriations bill, Public Law 110-161, which passed the Congress in December 2007, this language was contained in Section 215. While this language is discretionary, not mandatory, it does provide HUD with the legislative authority to transfer project-based assistance from a damaged or vacant property to another property, with certain restrictions. However, as I mentioned, this annual language is discretionary so HUD is not required to review and approve transfer requests. This has proven to be the main obstacle for housing organizations. Some of these properties have been destroyed and, rather than asking for new project-based contracts, the developers simply want to transfer the existing ones to new buildings. This would maximize existing resources, and in many cases, could help communities build housing which could better resist future disasters. While HUD currently has this transfer authority, there have been numerous instances post-Katrina where HUD has failed to quickly implement such transfers. For example, Mississippi Methodist Senior Services, MMSS, is a nonprofit which, despite testifying before Congress last year, ended up having its Section 318 transfer request rejected by HUD. It subsequently lost 65 units of elderly housing. This is even more troubling as MMSS was the first non-profit in Mississippi to provide affordable housing for seniors. So this is a group with extensive experience in senior housing--one with deep roots in the community. The nonprofit had seven properties throughout the State, serving 1,800 seniors daily. One of its properties in Biloxi had significant wind damage and suffered 2 feet of Gulf water on the first floor. Upon further inspection, there was additional damage found and their insurance company determined it would only cover repairs on the first floor. This left MMSS with an uninhabitable building and a $1 million gap between insurance and the amount that was necessary for repairs. To redevelop the property and provide badly needed housing, MMSS intended to transfer the 65 units of project-based assistance to a new site further inland. The new site would be in a better position to avoid gulf coast waves and weather patterns. As with most gulf coast groups in this situation, MMSS submitted a Section 318 request and started working with HUD to prepay the existing mortgage, sell the property, and transfer the Section 8 contract. However, in December 2006, HUD eventually refused the transfer, forcing MMSS to abandon the contract and sell the property. This resulted in the loss of housing for 65 elderly families. Our observation of these failures has led us to believe there is a need for Congress to enact stronger legislation on this issue. To address this issue, the legislation I am introducing would tackle this problem in three important ways. First, this bill would require HUD to maintain project-based contracts in declared Katrina and Rita areas until the date specified in the contract or not less than 3 months after the property is made habitable. This provision would ensure that there is no loss of current project-based contracts. Next, the bill would require HUD to review and approve any feasible transfer proposal made by owners of damaged/destroyed multifamily housing. The language in this bill tracks Section 215 language from the fiscal year 08 Omnibus, except that we limit this requirement for Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana and sunset it on October 1, 2009. These restrictions are to ensure that it is strictly for recovery purposes. Lastly, to get a full picture of the number of units that may have been lost, the bill requires that HUD report to Congress on the number and location of project-based contracts which have been cancelled since the storms. These key provisions would make a real difference not only for MQVN in New Orleans East but for countless providers of multifamily housing across the gulf coast. As chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery, I have been working with my Senate colleagues to push for better Federal Government disaster preparedness. Therefore, in addition to addressing current needs on the gulf coast, the bill also looks forward to future disasters. This bill requires that, not later than June 1, 2008--the start of the 2008 Atlantic Hurricane season--that HUD provide Congress with a disaster response plan for HUD-assisted Section 202/811 properties. A number of recommendations have been made to HUD by the affordable housing community on regulatory waivers and funding gaps that the agency will face in future disaster situations. There is no reason that HUD, or Congress for that matter, should have to expend future resources, time, and energy to address some of the similar issues which this bill is attempting to address for Katrina and Rita areas. Lessons learned from Katrina and Rita have been well documented by Congress. It is now time that HUD improves its preparedness and response to disasters which could impact assisted properties. In closing, let me reiterate that this bill addresses one of the most fundamental needs following a disaster: the need to return home. For our elderly and disabled residents, a safe and affordable home is even more essential. Many gulf coast residents lost homes, family members, and pets, among other things. It is our obligation as a city, county/ parish, State, and as a nation to help. So I am here today, for my part, to try to put forward legislation which I strongly believe will make a real difference for those most in need in the gulf coast region. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan recovery legislation as these disaster victims are counting on the United States Senate for action. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and supplemental material be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on behalf of some of our most in need gulf coast residents impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As you know the gulf coast was devastated in 2005 by two of the most powerful storms to ever hit the U.S. in recorded history--Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We also experienced the unprecedented disaster of having a major metropolitan city--the City of New Orleans--under up to 20 feet of water for two weeks when there were 28 separate levee failures which flooded 12,000 acres, or 80 percent of New Orleans, following Katrina. In particular, I am speaking on behalf of our elderly and disabled residents impacted by these disasters. Many of these people are too frail or fragile to live on their own, yet they do not belong in a hospital. We have many people who been in seen homes or apartments for disabled and elderly residents, for adults who are not older but instead disabled through an accident or injury. In many cities, this type of housing is run by such organizations as Catholic Charities or other nonprofits. Right now in the gulf coast region, we desperately need more of this type of housing to take care of the most fragile people who either are without shelter or are without safe, affordable shelter with appropriate supportive services. One can imagine the challenges of providing sufficient housing for this group under normal circumstances. But here we find ourselves, dealing with the aftermath of a catastrophe, trying to provide additional housing for thousands of people now returning to the region. According to the Congressional Research Service, 88,000 persons aged 65 or older were displaced by Hurricane Katrina--of that group 45,000 were 75 years of age or older. Furthermore, almost 15 percent of all displaced seniors had incomes below the poverty line. While recovery has primarily focused on restoring owner-occupied and rental housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, assisted housing for our elderly and disabled residents has not received a great deal of attention. In particular, 123 properties of Section 202 housing, which serves elderly residents, and Section 811 housing, which serves disabled residents, were impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in my State alone. This includes 5,261 total units of 202/811 housing. As of February 2008, 602 of these units were still offline and I am aware that, for every unit of 202 housing, there are 10 eligible low-income seniors on the waiting list. To further highlight the ongoing needs of the gulf coast, let me provide a snapshot of one community in my State--New Orleans East. In our Vietnamese community in New Orleans East, 6,000 people--or approximately 95 percent of the pre-Katrina population--have returned to the area. Of this 6,000, it is estimated that 2,400 are seniors. The average age of these seniors is 72 years of age and 98 percent are considered extremely low- income according to HUD standards. This means that they earn below 30 percent of the area median income a year, or less than $12,550 a year. Of these seniors 82 percent receive supplemental security income as their only source of income--approximately $637 per month for a single household. Prior to Katrina, there were six retirement communities in New Orleans East, consisting of about 735 units, serving this community. Presently none of them are in operation. This is not just a short-term recovery problem as the demand for age-restricted housing will continue to increase in the next few years, particularly in New Orleans East. Given the ongoing needs in the southern part of my State in regard to damaged multifamily and senior/disabled housing, as well as all across the Gulf Coast, I am proud to introduce today the Gulf Coast Multifamily and Assisted Housing Recovery Act of 2008. I am joined on this bill by my colleagues Senator Thad Cochran and Senator Roger Wicker. This legislation includes some key provisions which should target assistance where it is most needed. The bill will also help to cut through some Federal red tape stalling redevelopment efforts in the region. To address the affordable housing needs in my State, as well as across the gulf coast, our bill authorizes $125 million for additional Section 202 housing and $75 million for new Section 811 housing. This provision would create almost 1,500 new 202/811 units. The bill would also authorize $4 million to cover gaps for the redevelopment of former Section 202 housing in the City of New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish. Another major problem in New Orleans East is that 50 seniors were living pre-Katrina at Versailles Arms, a project-based Section 8 housing development which has not reopened. I understand that a few weeks ago the community boarded up the development. While this property is sitting vacant--but vacant with a project-based contract still attached to it--Mary Queen of Viet Nam Community Development Corporation, MQVN, and Providence Community Housing have begun work on Phase I of the Mary Queen of Viet Nam Retirement Community. This project would provide 84 units of affordable senior housing. Their problem, however, is with the downturn in the tax credit market in the last 4 months, the equity investment will not be sufficient to cover the development costs. For example, the current rent structure, which is below the market rates, is not sufficient to support a mortgage to cover the development gap, so they are in need of a project-based subsidy to complete the project. MQVN have been trying to work with our local housing authority, the Housing Authority of New Orleans, HANO, to secure project-based assistance for this project. However, as many of our developers have discovered, HANO has exhausted its 20 percent maximum set aside for project-based subsidies. This is troubling for those of us in Congress, especially for my colleagues and I who are members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Last year, via the fiscal year 08 Supplemental Appropriations bill, we provided HANO with additional vouchers by allowing HUD to utilize pre-Katrina population figures in allocating Section 8 vouchers, rather than post-Katrina population figures. While there certainly are increased demands for such assistance, the fact that so many developments are in need of this type of assistance and that HANO lacks the necessary resources to fully address needs on the ground raises many questions. For my part, I do not have all the answers but I can provide a commonsense solution to address the need for project-based assistance in New Orleans and the rest of the gulf coast. Each year, in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill, there has regularly been legislative authority for HUD to transfer some or all project-based assistance associated with one or more multifamily housing projects to another multifamily housing project or projects. In the fiscal year 06 Appropriations bill, Public Law 109-115, Section 318 addressed this issue, and in the fiscal year 08 Omnibus Appropriations bill, Public Law 110-161, which passed the Congress in December 2007, this language was contained in Section 215. While this language is discretionary, not mandatory, it does provide HUD with the legislative authority to transfer project-based assistance from a damaged or vacant property to another property, with certain restrictions. However, as I mentioned, this annual language is discretionary so HUD is not required to review and approve transfer requests. This has proven to be the main obstacle for housing organizations. Some of these properties have been destroyed and, rather than asking for new project-based contracts, the developers simply want to transfer the existing ones to new buildings. This would maximize existing resources, and in many cases, could help communities build housing which could better resist future disasters. While HUD currently has this transfer authority, there have been numerous instances post-Katrina where HUD has failed to quickly implement such transfers. For example, Mississippi Methodist Senior Services, MMSS, is a nonprofit which, despite testifying before Congress last year, ended up having its Section 318 transfer request rejected by HUD. It subsequently lost 65 units of elderly housing. This is even more troubling as MMSS was the first non-profit in Mississippi to provide affordable housing for seniors. So this is a group with extensive experience in senior housing--one with deep roots in the community. The nonprofit had seven properties throughout the State, serving 1,800 seniors daily. One of its properties in Biloxi had significant wind damage and suffered 2 feet of Gulf water on the first floor. Upon further inspection, there was additional damage found and their insurance company determined it would only cover repairs on the first floor. This left MMSS with an uninhabitable building and a $1 million gap between insurance and the amount that was necessary for repairs. To redevelop the property and provide badly needed housing, MMSS intended to transfer the 65 units of project-based assistance to a new site further inland. The new site would be in a better position to avoid gulf coast waves and weather patterns. As with most gulf coast groups in this situation, MMSS submitted a Section 318 request and started working with HUD to prepay the existing mortgage, sell the property, and transfer the Section 8 contract. However, in December 2006, HUD eventually refused the transfer, forcing MMSS to abandon the contract and sell the property. This resulted in the loss of housing for 65 elderly families. Our observation of these failures has led us to believe there is a need for Congress to enact stronger legislation on this issue. To address this issue, the legislation I am introducing would tackle this problem in three important ways. First, this bill would require HUD to maintain project-based contracts in declared Katrina and Rita areas until the date specified in the contract or not less than 3 months after the property is made habitable. This provision would ensure that there is no loss of current project-based contracts. Next, the bill would require HUD to review and approve any feasible transfer proposal made by owners of damaged/destroyed multifamily housing. The language in this bill tracks Section 215 language from the fiscal year 08 Omnibus, except that we limit this requirement for Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana and sunset it on October 1, 2009. These restrictions are to ensure that it is strictly for recovery purposes. Lastly, to get a full picture of the number of units that may have been lost, the bill requires that HUD report to Congress on the number and location of project-based contracts which have been cancelled since the storms. These key provisions would make a real difference not only for MQVN in New Orleans East but for countless providers of multifamily housing across the gulf coast. As chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery, I have been working with my Senate colleagues to push for better Federal Government disaster preparedness. Therefore, in addition to addressing current needs on the gulf coast, the bill also looks forward to future disasters. This bill requires that, not later than June 1, 2008--the start of the 2008 Atlantic Hurricane season--that HUD provide Congress with a disaster response plan for HUD-assisted Section 202/811 properties. A number of recommendations have been made to HUD by the affordable housing community on regulatory waivers and funding gaps that the agency will face in future disaster situations. There is no reason that HUD, or Congress for that matter, should have to expend future resources, time, and energy to address some of the similar issues which this bill is attempting to address for Katrina and Rita areas. Lessons learned from Katrina and Rita have been well documented by Congress. It is now time that HUD improves its preparedness and response to disasters which could impact assisted properties. In closing, let me reiterate that this bill addresses one of the most fundamental needs following a disaster: the need to return home. For our elderly and disabled residents, a safe and affordable home is even more essential. Many gulf coast residents lost homes, family members, and pets, among other things. It is our obligation as a city, county/ parish, State, and as a nation to help. So I am here today, for my part, to try to put forward legislation which I strongly believe will make a real difference for those most in need in the gulf coast region. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan recovery legislation as these disaster victims are counting on the United States Senate for action. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and supplemental material be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am proud to honor a group of 94 World War II veterans from Louisiana who are traveling to Washington, DC, this weekend to visit the various memorials and monuments that recognize the sacrifices of our Nation's invaluable service members. Louisiana HonorAir, a group based in Lafayette, LA, is sponsoring this Saturday's trip to the Nation' s Capital. The organization is honoring each surviving World War II Louisiana veteran by giving them an opportunity to see the memorials dedicated to their service. On this trip, the veterans will visit the World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Iwo Jima memorials. They will also travel to Arlington National Cemetery to lay a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknowns. This is the eighth flight Louisiana HonorAir has made to Washington, DC., and there will be one additional flight this spring. World War II was one of America's greatest triumphs, but was also a conflict rife with individual sacrifice and tragedy. More than 60 million people worldwide were killed, including 40 million civilians, and more than 400,000 American service members were slain during the long war. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the valor of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry, which supplied our military on two distant fronts. In Louisiana, there remain today more than 40,000 living WWII veterans, and each one has a heroic tale of achieving the noble victory of freedom over tyranny. Veterans in this HonorAir group range in age from 79 to 91. They began their service as early as 1939, before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and some members of this group served as late as 1976. They served in various branches of the military--37 members in the Army; 17 in the Army Air Corps, including one in the Women's Air Corps; 28 in the Navy; 3 in the Naval Reserve; 4 in the Marines; 1 in the Marine Corps Reserve; 2 in the Merchant Marines; and 2 in the U.S. Coast Guard. Our heroes served across the globe in the Pacific, Atlantic, Asiatic Pacific and China Burma India theaters. Others served in North Africa, Japan, Korea, the islands of the South Pacific and in other areas of Europe and stateside. Our service members battled at Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Okinawa, Saipan, Tinian and the Solomon Islands. Many of these veterans earned Purple Hearts, Bronze Star Medals and Croix de Guerre medals. They served on famous battleships such as USS North Carolina, and they participated in the liberation of the Philippines. I ask the Senate to join me in honoring these 94 veterans, all Louisiana heroes, that we welcome to Washington this weekend and Louisiana HonorAir for making these trips a reality.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am proud to honor a group of 99 World War II veterans from Louisiana who are traveling to Washington, DC, this weekend to visit the various memorials and monuments that recognize the sacrifices of our Nation's invaluable servicemembers. Louisiana HonorAir, a group based in Lafayette, LA, is sponsoring this Saturday's trip to the Nation's Capital. The organization is honoring each surviving World War II Louisiana veteran by giving them an opportunity to see the memorials dedicated to their service. On this trip, the veterans will visit the World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iwo Jima memorials. They will also travel to Arlington National Cemetery to lay a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknowns. This is the seventh flight Louisiana HonorAir has made to Washington, DC, and there will be two additional flights this spring. World War II was one of America's greatest triumphs, but was also a conflict rife with individual sacrifice and tragedy. More than 60 million people worldwide were killed, including 40 million civilians, and more than 400,000 American servicemembers were slain during the long war. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the valor of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry, which supplied our military on two distant fronts. In Louisiana, there remain today more than 40,000 living WWII veterans, and each one has a heroic tale of achieving the noble victory of freedom over tyranny. Veterans in this HonorAir group began their service in 1938, before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and served in the European and Pacific theaters, as well as stateside. Some members of this group served as late as 1970. They served in various branches of the military--28 members in the Army; 18 in the Army Air Corps; 37 in the Navy, including three SeaBees; three in the Naval Reserves; eight in the Marines; one in the Merchant Marines; and four nurses from various branches. Several of our heroes fought at Iwo Jima and others at Guadalcanal. Many of these veterans earned Purple Hearts, Bronze Star Medals, and Silver Stars. Some participated in the Battle of the Bulge and the D- day invasion of France at Omaha Beach. Others defended the Atlantic, Pacific, and Asiatic-Pacific Seas. As a soldier with the Army 1st Calvary Division, one of our heroes was part of the liberation of Santo Tomas Prison Camp in Manila. I ask the Senate to join me in honoring these 99 veterans, all Louisiana heroes, that we welcome to Washington this weekend and Louisiana HonorAir for making these trips a reality.