Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my colleague from Illinois for those comments. I do appreciate his help because from the beginning of the catastrophe we faced from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the anniversaries of which we will not celebrate, by any chance, but mark by the end of August of this year and, of course, 3 weeks later in September, we still are struggling. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his constant help and support as we work through how to recover, how to rebuild with a Federal agency, FEMA, that was caught flat footed and poorly staffed and poorly resourced and disorganized. Initially, it made some improvements, but we still have great challenges when it comes to the rebuilding of the gulf coast. That is why I am here to take this opportunity, while we are on a housing bill for the Nation, and there is some real urgency to get real help to real people who need the Federal Government to act to help stabilize markets appropriately. And as we are talking about this, I wanted to offer an amendment that I would like to speak on, one amendment that I intend to offer to make sure this bill, in its attempt to help homeowners struggling to get back in their homes, as this bill tries to help neighborhoods stabilize from Detroit to California to the east coast, as this bill attempts to do other things, that we do continue to give appropriate aid and support to the hundreds of thousands of homeowners who are still struggling despite the good work this Congress has done to give them help. A chart illustrates this, if I could put it up. We have heard a lot about the city of Detroit and a region which has, outside of Stockton, CA, and Las Vegas, NV, the highest percentage of foreclosures, almost 5 percent in this region, which is a significant percentage. Stockton, CA, almost 5 percent; Las Vegas, 4.2; other communities from Sacramento to Miami, FL, to the Denver-Aurora area, Fort Lauderdale, a fairly significant percentage of homes that are foreclosed. In some areas, it is quite a few people. Let's look at San Bernardino, CA. This is 51,000 homes. That is a lot of homes, a big place, lots of people, lots of children. You can imagine in your mind, if you are from a community of 50,000, how big that could be. They are not all in this situation, clustered, 51,000 foreclosures all in the same block. Some of them are spread throughout a great area. But that is still a large number. This is why we have come to the floor to try to bring help to these families. Some of them, in my opinion, deserve help. Maybe some of them don't. I hope this bill will sort the wheat from the chaff because maybe some of these people entered into the kind of loans they shouldn't have. Maybe they should have read the fine print, and they didn't. I am not here saying every single one deserves a handout, but I am saying they deserve this Senate to talk about what help they might need to receive and the ramifications. If the whole financial establishment could get together and have a debate about Bear Sterns and Wall Street and what it might mean, what it would mean to the country if Bear Sterns collapsed, and they debated and came up with a solution, we most certainly need to be on this Senate floor talking about what solutions might be appropriate for homeowners. I understand the Bear Sterns issue was that they were all intertwined and, if they failed, maybe all the other banks would fail. Let me say for the record that in places such as Detroit, if all of these homes fail, it will put such a burden on that city or that area that others who had nothing to do with any of this may also fail. That is the principle. It is the same principle for which the Fed sort of bailed out Bear Sterns. And we most certainly need to be on the floor of the Senate talking about not trying to save people who did the wrong thing but trying to help people who did nothing wrong and may get pulled down by maybe whatever people want to characterize as our inaction or inappropriate regulation, whatever. But this is not normal. We are on the floor talking about these numbers because they are high. Let me show you what the gulf coast numbers, though, look like because it is striking. Let's take St. Bernard Parish. Let's look at this chart with the other one so we can get a comparison. Remember, Detroit has 41,000 homes, or 4.9 percent, that were destroyed. That is basically this Detroit, Livonia, Dearborn area. Let me tell you about what the people from St. Bernard are still reeling from. It is not a 5-percent, it is not a 10-percent, it is a 54-percent destruction rate--54 percent. There is no county or parish in the country that is experiencing right now the devastation of homes, including those that are closed, empty or vacated. Now, we are recovering from a disaster, which is not necessarily the same thing as a foreclosure. But I hold these charts up to show the nature and the scope of the problem. In Cameron Parish, it is not 4 percent, it is not 10 percent. It is 46 percent. In Plaquemines Parish, it is 44 percent. In Orleans, it is 78,000 households, 41 percent. In Hancock County, MS, it is 27 percent. In Harrison County, MS, it is 10 percent. In Jackson County, MS, it is 4 percent. In Jefferson Parish, LA, it is 2.6 percent. In St. Tammany Parish, LA, it is 2.4 percent. In Vermilion Parish, LA, it is 1.0 percent. So my amendment is drafted to address something that will help these families. After the storm, when these homes were destroyed, we passed a special community development block grant, extra grants to Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama and Texas, sort of like we did right after the Twin Towers fell in New York, there was some extra community development block grants sent. The Congress did the same. Not everything we did was perfect in that regard. There were still some discrepancies in how it was allocated. But suffice it to say for this discussion that money was sent, and out of that money, Mississippi created the Homeowners Assistance Program and Louisiana created the Road Home Program. These were grants that were given to homeowners to try to help them between what their insurance would pay--and many of these homes were fully paid. These are problems where the mortgages were completely paid off. Some of these properties had insurance. Some of these properties did not have insurance because they were not in a flood plain, and they were not required to have insurance. So these are homeowners who did not do anything wrong. The homeowners I am talk talking about did just about everything right. Some of them maybe should have had insurance and did not, but, believe me, they are suffering the consequences of that. We are not bailing everybody out. But what we did do was allow them to take this Road Home grant. Then in the tax law they can also take a casualty deduction. This is the problem: If my amendment, which I am going to offer when I can, and ask for a vote on it--and I will offer this amendment not just for myself but for Senator Cochran, Senator Vitter, and Senator Wicker. All of us are together in a bipartisan way asking the Congress to give us some relief. If this amendment I am going to offer is not adopted, these families--I am going to give you an example of the Jones family and the Smith family--will end up paying much more in taxes than they can afford, and it will be counterproductive to our recovery effort. Let's take the Jones family. They earn $75,000 a year. Their home was substantially damaged. They did not take a casualty deduction as the current law allows. They paid the full amount of the taxes. Then out of the community development block grant--let's say they are in Mississippi--they received a grant from the State of Mississippi of $75,000, from the Mississippi Homeowners Assistance Program. Their Road Home grant will not be taxed. This family is fine. But for this family, the Smith family--which makes the same amount of money, and their house was completely damaged--they did take the deduction. They got about a $7,000 benefit. Because of what we did, they got their $75,000 grant, but if they have to pay taxes on this, their tax could be as high as $24,000. Now, the people whom I represent in Louisiana--and I am sure this is the same for Mississippi--can barely pay their utility bills right now, their insurance bills. They most certainly cannot pay a $24,000 tax bill. If my amendment is not adopted--and I think it has good support from Finance on both sides--this family that I told you about that makes only $75,000 a year, that had their home destroyed--through no fault of their own--because of a confluence of things we have done, will end up having to pay $24,000. So you may ask me: Senator, how expensive is your amendment? It is not cheap. The score for this amendment is $1 billion. It is not cheap. But we have to provide this support for these gulf coast families or you will have thousands and thousands of families suffer who arguably need the most help in the country. These are families who at one time owned homes such as this, as shown in this picture. This happens to be a double. I will show you another picture of another home. These are people who did not do anything wrong. They did not take out any subprime loan. They did not try to take out a low adjustable mortgage. They took out their regular 30-year mortgage. They paid off their regular 30-year mortgage. They paid insurance their whole life. They will have to end up paying $24,000 in taxes, and it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. So you have heard me speak before about this issue. I know it can be a little complicated. We are not trying to ask for double dipping or anything. But I am going to be offering this amendment. It is important to remember, if we do not do this, we will have thousands of people, homeowners, who are trying to stay in their homes, rebuild these neighborhoods that are virtually destroyed, not on a beach--even though that is the case in some places in Mississippi--in the middle of the city, not close to any water or any beach, 5 minutes from the Super Dome, where the Hornets will be playing in one of their division championship games in a couple days, 5 minutes from the Super Dome. They did not even know the levees were going to break. The Federal levees broke and put their homes underwater. As shown in this picture, this is where the water line is. These families will have to pay $24,000 in taxes if we cannot get this fixed. So the bottom line is this: I am happy to try to vote for this bill for Michigan and California and places that have families that are experiencing some difficulty with their mortgages. But I have to ask this Congress to please continue to know that we still have homeowners who are struggling after 2\1/2\ years to get back into their homes, with some very complicated help that we and the States and the parishes are trying to give them. So my amendment will correct that. I will offer it when we move to that part of the legislation. I will also have several other amendments that will help the recovery process move forward. They are all about housing. They are all about helping people get back in their houses. They are not necessarily on a different subject or anything because I realize we will have other discussions later. But while we are on housing and while we are trying to fix it for everybody in the country, let's please stay focused and give a few tweaks here and there to keep this recovery going in the right direction on the gulf coast because we have a long way to go. I see my colleague from Kansas, and I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, may I inquire about the order of amendments that will be offered? Is there an order?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, reserving the right to object--

Ms. LANDRIEU. My suggestion is that we get an order now.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside so I can offer the amendment I spoke on earlier today.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I really appreciate the cooperation of the manager because this is a very important amendment for the gulf coast. It is an amendment I offer with the support of the Senators from Mississippi--Mr. Cochran and Mr. Wicker--as well as Senator Vitter from Louisiana. We have been waiting for some time now for some housing bill to get to the floor of the Senate where we could offer a small number of amendments that are essential to give aid during the ongoing housing crisis that exists in the gulf today. I say to the Presiding Officer, as you know, as you remember because you have been down to Louisiana, to New Orleans particularly--and we are very grateful for the support that so many Senators have given-- throughout the gulf coast, literally from Mobile to Beaumont, and particularly from Biloxi to Cameron Parish, there is still a tremendous crisis in housing and reconstruction. I am not going to belabor the point--only to say that I have had Secretary Chertoff on the record as late as 3 weeks ago, Chief Paulson today, the IG of the Homeland Security Committee today in Homeland Security saying the Stafford Act was not intended to handle catastrophic disasters and that FEMA has yet to make any substantial progress in getting ready to handle catastrophic disasters. They have made moderate progress. They have made modest but not substantial progress. Our people need substantial everything. They needed it yesterday. They need it today. This amendment will help them get a little bit of it now. My amendment basically will allow the people of Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas and Alabama--those who are affected by Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, which was one of the worst seasons of hurricane disaster, in 2005--to basically receive the aid we have already sent to them through the community development block grants. In Louisiana we call it the Road Home Program. These programs were designed at the State level, but they were funded by us. In Mississippi it is called the Mississippi Homeowner Assistance Program. It has literally sent direct lifesaving aid to over 150,000 families in Louisiana and about probably 50,000 to 75,000 in Mississippi. I do not have the Mississippi numbers. My amendment will help to correct this great injustice that is occurring now. We did not intend for this to occur, but it is going to occur if this amendment or something like this amendment is not adopted. We sent under a design, basically designed by this Congress, an approximately $150,000 grant to homeowners to help close the gap between what their insurance covered and the total cost of their loss. As I have said many times, homes that were worth $1 million or $2 million were totally destroyed, as well as homes that were worth $50,000. Many of these homes were not in the flood plain. They were not required to have flood insurance. They were destroyed by the failure of a Federal levee system that collapsed, as well as historic highs of flooding and water coming from Hurricane Rita, which was one of the toughest and most aggressive storms on record. So the long and short of it is, when we sent this $150,000 grant--we are still in the process of sending it. It has been very slow, very frustrating, and just so aggravating to so many people who are holding on by their fingernails to try to save what equity they had in their homes, which, as you know, for most American families that is their personal wealth. I think 95 percent of all Americans have almost 100 percent of their entire personal wealth tied up in their home. So this issue of helping homeowners in the gulf coast is literally trying to help restore to them a lifetime of work. In some instances, generations of work have been lost in this storm. Now, we are not making everybody whole. Believe me, there has been enough pain in the gulf coast to go around for a century or more. But what happens is, when they receive their $150,000 grant--and most people have received an average of about $65,000. The authorized level is $150,000, but you have to qualify for that amount. So the average is about $60,000, which sounds like a lot of money, but if your house was worth $500,000, and your insurance has refused to pay you, it is not a whole lot of money to rebuild your house with labor costs that are going up at 20 percent or more since the storm. So what is happening now is, when they receive these grants--and under the tax law, they can take a casualty deduction. If they did that last year, what happens this year--by April 15, which is in about 2 weeks--for that family who makes $75,000 a year--let's say the Smith family--let's take the Jones and Smith families. They make about the same amount of money. One family this year who took the casualty loss deduction is going to have to pay $24,000 in taxes. The family only makes $75,000, if they are lucky enough to have the job they had before Katrina and Rita struck. Now, this amendment is not cheap. I make no bones about it. It is about $1 billion. It can be done on an emergency basis. This most certainly is an emergency in housing. So that is the essence of the amendment. The Finance Committee is well aware of it. We have been talking about it with them for over a year now actually. We have just been waiting for a time to get it fixed. Now, again, this is an emergency. It is a real problem. It is almost April 15. We have, I would argue, families in America who need the most help on housing. I feel very sorry for people who are losing their homes in foreclosure, and I am not even going to try to say whether they are suffering more than the people in the gulf south. All I can say is the people in the gulf south didn't take out any adjustable mortgages. The people in the gulf south, most of them had already paid their 30-year mortgage. They own their house scot-free. They paid for it. Now they have lost everything, and we are trying to help them, but in my view, everything we try to do to help them kind of--sometimes it turns out to not help them as much as we would like. There is no textbook. There is no Stafford Act. There is no way to help people who lost everything because of levees that should have held but didn't. We are making it up as we go along, and this is part of my job here to do this. So we have to fix this, and that is what this amendment will do. I am very proud that the Senators from both States have agreed to cosponsor this. On behalf of Senator Cochran, at his request--and I am happy to support it--there is also a small change in this amendment which will allow this deduction--this goes on the accelerated depreciation piece that we gave to help some of our businesses. We lost 20,000 businesses that weekend. I think Mississippi lost 1,800. That is a lot of businesses to lose over a weekend. To help those businesses and people get back on their feet, this Congress extended to them a way to accelerate their depreciation, but we said: The way to get that accelerated depreciation is you have to start your project by a certain time and finish by a certain time. The problem is, the recovery has been so much slower than everybody anticipated because we have never really gone through this catastrophic situation. Senator Cochran is right when he says we should eliminate the start date. We are not asking for an extension, so technically it really shouldn't add money. We are not asking to extend it to any time or to let a lot of new people come in. But for the same universe, just don't make them start their project the way it said, but let them end it. That is also in my amendment. So we will solve two big problems: We will help our businesses, many small businesses, get the full benefit of what we wanted to give them anyway, actually work for them, and we will make this grant program work for them. Now, let me be clear. When we pass this amendment, which I hope we will do by unanimous consent or get a large vote on it because I think we really should do it in a bipartisan way, the people to whom we give this tax break--this will lower their rate to their regular rate they will have to pay. They have to go back and reimburse the Treasury for that deduction they took. So, in other words, we are not allowing them to take two benefits. They are going to have to lower their tax this year, eliminate the tax on Road Home, and go back and pay the Federal Government the benefit they took. Their CPAs will have to figure that out. But if we don't do this, there will be people who will be stuck with a tax bill they could not possibly pay, and they shouldn't have to; they have suffered enough. So I know the Senator from Connecticut, the chairman of the Banking Committee, knows full well what is happening down in the gulf. This is only one thing we are attempting to fix. I have several other amendments I intend to offer, if my colleagues would allow me, at an appropriate time, but this is the amendment I wanted to get in. April 15 is right around the corner, and they need to know what our intention is. This will help so many people. I appreciate it. I will ask for this amendment to be voted on when the first group, however large that group is--2, 5, 6, 10--whenever the first group of amendments is voted on, I would like for this to be included in that group. I ask unanimous consent for that to be the case.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will repeat for the Senator from Connecticut that I will be happy to take this amendment whenever, but I would like it to be voted on in the first group of amendments, however big that group is and whenever that group will be taken up.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate that. Let me tell my colleague that I have, and it is included in their tax package. So just so the Senator from Connecticut knows, I will not agree to any votes going forward unless this amendment is in the group. So I am fine, and I will just stay here. The Finance Committee is well aware of this, and they have actually put it in their package. My concern is that their package may not ever really sort of get to the floor. There are some things in that package that I think really need to be voted on. So that is OK. I will just stay here, and we will work on what we can do. I really appreciate it.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, again, I just want to be clear that I would expect this to be in the first group of votes that are taken as we proceed on this bill. Whether it is 2 or 3 or 10 or 20, this needs to be in it or I will object to going forward. Thank you.

Ms. LANDRIEU. No. Thank you.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation, the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act, that holds the promise of empowering cancer survivors and improving the quality of cancer care. Each year, more than one million Americans join the ranks of cancer survivors. Overall, nearly 12 million Americans live as cancer survivors. The legislation I am introducing will provide these cancer survivors with vital tools to help them manage their cancer care during active treatment and in the period of survivorship that follows treatment. Cancer survivors from the state of Louisiana and their physicians have explained to me in compelling fashion the assistance that cancer survivors need to understand and participate in their treatment, address the side effects of therapy, and transition to cancer survivorship. I am sure that many of my Senate colleagues have heard incredible stories of survivorship from their own constituents. Management of treatment and its potentially serious side effects is a daunting task. The legislation I am introducing seeks to assist cancer survivors in receiving quality care from diagnosis through survivorship. A dear friend and citizen of Louisiana, Tucker Melancon, has educated me about the necessity that all elements of cancer care be coordinated and that cancer patients be given assistance in managing cancer as a chronic disease. Judge Melancon and I have been friends for more than 20 years, and since 2001 he has demonstrated courage, strength, and good humor as he has undergone treatment for breast cancer. He has inspired me and many others, and it is with pleasure and humility that I introduce a bill that may help cancer survivors like Tucker receive cancer care of the highest quality. The core provision of the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act is the establishment of Medicare payment for the development of cancer care plans and survivorship plans for beneficiaries who are diagnosed with cancer. The Institute of Medicine, IOM, in a series of reports issued between 1999 and 2006, has documented the benefits of written plans that explain to cancer survivors all of the elements of active cancer treatment, including the side effects of therapy, and that detail the steps required to monitor the side effects of treatment during survivorship. What difference does a written plan of care make? Cancer survivors and their caregivers tell us that a written plan facilitates the coordination of care. That means that care plans provide cancer survivors the tools to receive therapy of the highest quality, accompanied by appropriate management of the side effects of treatment and the symptoms of cancer. Most people treated for cancer experience a range of side effects--including depression, pain, nausea, and vomiting--that can be debilitating and difficult to manage. Proper management of those side effects and symptoms can improve cancer survivors' quality of life and optimize their ability to complete treatment. The IOM has described patients who complete cancer treatment as ``lost in transition,'' uncertain how they will receive health care, including essential follow-up care, after active treatment. A written survivorship plan that details all elements of treatment received by a cancer survivor and that provides a roadmap to care after active treatment eases the transition from cancer patient to cancer survivor. For patients and health care providers, Hurricane Katrina caused significant interruptions in care. Cancer patients in the middle of treatment were left to find their displaced physicians or to find new cancer care teams. In either case, they suffered from a lack of information about their ongoing treatment or about follow-up care plans. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing today would not address all of the health care delivery problems created by a natural disaster like Katrina, but it would at least put in the hands of patients critical information about their care. With that information, cancer survivors would be better able to continue their care without serious dislocation. The U.S. Congress has provided its enthusiastic support to the National Institutes of Health for research to improve the treatment of cancer. By introducing the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act, I call on my colleagues to join me in a parallel effort to improve the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer. It is in our power to improve the quality of cancer care for Medicare beneficiaries. By improving Medicare, we set a standard of care for all Americans diagnosed with cancer. I am pleased to lead the Senate effort to advance the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act. A companion measure has been introduced in the House by Representatives Lois Capps and Tom Davis and already enjoys the support of more than 90 House cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting legislation that will provide cancer patients a helping hand in obtaining quality cancer care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation, the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act, that holds the promise of empowering cancer survivors and improving the quality of cancer care. Each year, more than one million Americans join the ranks of cancer survivors. Overall, nearly 12 million Americans live as cancer survivors. The legislation I am introducing will provide these cancer survivors with vital tools to help them manage their cancer care during active treatment and in the period of survivorship that follows treatment. Cancer survivors from the state of Louisiana and their physicians have explained to me in compelling fashion the assistance that cancer survivors need to understand and participate in their treatment, address the side effects of therapy, and transition to cancer survivorship. I am sure that many of my Senate colleagues have heard incredible stories of survivorship from their own constituents. Management of treatment and its potentially serious side effects is a daunting task. The legislation I am introducing seeks to assist cancer survivors in receiving quality care from diagnosis through survivorship. A dear friend and citizen of Louisiana, Tucker Melancon, has educated me about the necessity that all elements of cancer care be coordinated and that cancer patients be given assistance in managing cancer as a chronic disease. Judge Melancon and I have been friends for more than 20 years, and since 2001 he has demonstrated courage, strength, and good humor as he has undergone treatment for breast cancer. He has inspired me and many others, and it is with pleasure and humility that I introduce a bill that may help cancer survivors like Tucker receive cancer care of the highest quality. The core provision of the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act is the establishment of Medicare payment for the development of cancer care plans and survivorship plans for beneficiaries who are diagnosed with cancer. The Institute of Medicine, IOM, in a series of reports issued between 1999 and 2006, has documented the benefits of written plans that explain to cancer survivors all of the elements of active cancer treatment, including the side effects of therapy, and that detail the steps required to monitor the side effects of treatment during survivorship. What difference does a written plan of care make? Cancer survivors and their caregivers tell us that a written plan facilitates the coordination of care. That means that care plans provide cancer survivors the tools to receive therapy of the highest quality, accompanied by appropriate management of the side effects of treatment and the symptoms of cancer. Most people treated for cancer experience a range of side effects--including depression, pain, nausea, and vomiting--that can be debilitating and difficult to manage. Proper management of those side effects and symptoms can improve cancer survivors' quality of life and optimize their ability to complete treatment. The IOM has described patients who complete cancer treatment as ``lost in transition,'' uncertain how they will receive health care, including essential follow-up care, after active treatment. A written survivorship plan that details all elements of treatment received by a cancer survivor and that provides a roadmap to care after active treatment eases the transition from cancer patient to cancer survivor. For patients and health care providers, Hurricane Katrina caused significant interruptions in care. Cancer patients in the middle of treatment were left to find their displaced physicians or to find new cancer care teams. In either case, they suffered from a lack of information about their ongoing treatment or about follow-up care plans. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing today would not address all of the health care delivery problems created by a natural disaster like Katrina, but it would at least put in the hands of patients critical information about their care. With that information, cancer survivors would be better able to continue their care without serious dislocation. The U.S. Congress has provided its enthusiastic support to the National Institutes of Health for research to improve the treatment of cancer. By introducing the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act, I call on my colleagues to join me in a parallel effort to improve the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer. It is in our power to improve the quality of cancer care for Medicare beneficiaries. By improving Medicare, we set a standard of care for all Americans diagnosed with cancer. I am pleased to lead the Senate effort to advance the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act. A companion measure has been introduced in the House by Representatives Lois Capps and Tom Davis and already enjoys the support of more than 90 House cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting legislation that will provide cancer patients a helping hand in obtaining quality cancer care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for each of us to have a minute and a half.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, a group of Senators, now for several years, has been working to reduce the estate tax. With the constraints on the budget, particularly with spending $348 million a day in Iraq, this has been difficult. But some of us have been working in good faith to reduce the 55-percent rate and to raise the unified credit. The tax in its current form is onerous, in my view unnecessary, and it clouds the ability of many of our successful business owners from planning the growth and expansion of their businesses that create jobs right here at home in America. Something should be done now, something that is real and does not increase our debt. The amendment I offer will reduce the rate to 35 percent and increase the unified credit to $10 million. Most importantly, this is paid for by the President's own offsets in the budget he submitted to us. So it is fully paid for. It reduces the tax rate to 35 percent and increases the unified tax credit to $10 million.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I call up the amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with Senator Hagel legislation that would reinstate the White House Conference on Children and Youth. This Conference was originally created by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909, and continued every 10 years through 1970. Despite funding in 1981 and reauthorization legislation in 1990, no conference has been held since that 1970 gathering. It is time to renew our commitment to America's children and resurrect the oldest White House Conference in U.S. history. Similar to the White House Conference on Aging, this symposium would be the culmination of nationwide events held over a 2-year span. Just as with the first White House Conference, this summit would focus on child welfare issues. The legislation authorizes a conference to be held in 2010, and establishes a bipartisan, bicameral policy committee, including members selected by the next administration. To promote and inform the conference and to engage stakeholders, State and local events would be held around the country in 2009. These events and the conference would focus specifically on child welfare including the range of issues from prevention, intervention to permanency including reunification, kinship care and adoption. Participants would also include state officials, court and legal representatives, providers, children, tribal representatives and other parties affected by or involved with the child welfare system. By connecting these stakeholders through this conference, we can improve the lives of children throughout the country. Previous conferences have led to major policy improvements in child welfare. The Children's Bureau was established after the first conference, and recommendations were made that deemphasized the institutionalization of children and encouraged the growth of adoption agencies. In 1919, the White House Conference initiated standards for child welfare, and ten years later it created a 19-point charter to address the needs of our children. We look forward to comparable achievements from the conference in 2010, and hope that you will join with us in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with Senator Hagel legislation that would reinstate the White House Conference on Children and Youth. This Conference was originally created by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909, and continued every 10 years through 1970. Despite funding in 1981 and reauthorization legislation in 1990, no conference has been held since that 1970 gathering. It is time to renew our commitment to America's children and resurrect the oldest White House Conference in U.S. history. Similar to the White House Conference on Aging, this symposium would be the culmination of nationwide events held over a 2-year span. Just as with the first White House Conference, this summit would focus on child welfare issues. The legislation authorizes a conference to be held in 2010, and establishes a bipartisan, bicameral policy committee, including members selected by the next administration. To promote and inform the conference and to engage stakeholders, State and local events would be held around the country in 2009. These events and the conference would focus specifically on child welfare including the range of issues from prevention, intervention to permanency including reunification, kinship care and adoption. Participants would also include state officials, court and legal representatives, providers, children, tribal representatives and other parties affected by or involved with the child welfare system. By connecting these stakeholders through this conference, we can improve the lives of children throughout the country. Previous conferences have led to major policy improvements in child welfare. The Children's Bureau was established after the first conference, and recommendations were made that deemphasized the institutionalization of children and encouraged the growth of adoption agencies. In 1919, the White House Conference initiated standards for child welfare, and ten years later it created a 19-point charter to address the needs of our children. We look forward to comparable achievements from the conference in 2010, and hope that you will join with us in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I want to follow up on the remarks of my colleague from New Jersey who has been an extraordinary leader in so many ways, particularly on the housing issue. I thank him and associate myself with many of his remarks. I rise to speak about the housing situation and to try to bring some comparisons between the difficulties around the country and, in some places, downright despair because of the foreclosure situation and pending bankruptcies. I also want to remind my colleagues that there is still a tremendous need on the Gulf Coast relative to the housing crisis and ask my colleagues not to lose sight of the difficulties that we are still having in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. I know it is 2008. The storms of Katrina and Rita and Wilma are long gone in some people's memories but not in ours. These storms in many ways were just like yesterday, not just the hurricanes but the levees that broke and caused unmitigated disaster and despair. I thought it would be helpful to first examine communities with the highest foreclosure rates, and with the Senator from Michigan in the chair, the first area I want to speak about is in Michigan--Detroit, Livonia, and Dearborn, which I am sure she is familiar with--which happens to be the metropolitan area that has the highest percentage of foreclosures. This chart shows you the top 10 communities in the Nation and the numbers of homeowners facing bankruptcy or foreclosure. The number of homes is both striking and startling. If you think about foreclosure, the damage is not just done to the family losing their home or the individual but to the neighborhood as a whole. If it is so concentrated, as it seems to be in some particular counties, it has dramatic economic effects on the whole community. That is why Democrats--and I know some on the other side are sensitive to this--are trying to fashion a package that recognizes that while we don't want to bail out improper behavior, we most certainly don't want to bail out illegal behavior, we absolutely need a housing bill that recognizes that foreclosure does not just involve a single family, but it impacts an entire community, particularly in Michigan where some of this is probably associated with the downturn in manufacturing jobs. People are not only losing their jobs but losing their homes. While the causes of our loss were very different, it wasn't due to an economic downturn. It wasn't really due to subprime lending practices. Our problems were due to the levees collapsing when they should have held and the ensuing floods that wiped out hundreds of thousands of homes, which I will get to in a minute. But for purposes of my brief remarks this morning, these are the top 10 areas facing foreclosure problems in the United States, in Michigan, California, and Nevada. You have heard people say this crisis is limited to places within about seven States. But for comparison, I would like to show the counties and parishes in the Gulf Coast that have the highest rates of housing loss due to the floods. This is an extraordinary comparison. If I could ask the staff to hold up the other chart next to this one so people may see. We are talking about the mortgage crisis, 4.9 percent in Michigan and 4.9 percent in Stockton, CA. Next to it is the actual numbers. So 41,273 households in the Detroit area are in some part of the foreclosure process; down in Miami, FL, 2.7 percent. That doesn't sound like a big percentage, but it is 25,000 families. That is a lot of families. But let me show you on the Gulf Coast what has happened to us over the last 2 years. In St. Bernard Parish--this is major and severe damage. This is the percentage of homes that were unlivable, 78.4 percent; in Cameron Parish, which is a small parish in the Southwest, 71.8 percent; in Hancock County, MS, 69.8 percent; in Plaquemines Parish, LA, 57.5 percent; Orleans Parish, 55.9 percent; Harrison County, MS, 34 percent; Jackson County, MS, 34 percent; St. Tammany Parish, 25 percent; Jefferson Parish, 19 percent; and Vermilion Parish, 13 percent. There are no other percentages like this anywhere in the country. My point is that while I am glad address the foreclosure crisis for the country and am proud to help other regions--and I most certainly understand the disaster associated with foreclosures, particularly if they are not really of your making. You took out the right kind of loan, you put your money down, but you lost your job or your child got into an accident, and because you don't have health insurance, you have to file for bankruptcy, and people are taking your home. And that is the last thing people should be doing. We should be helping pay medical bills and getting people jobs and not taking their homes. I am not here to bail out reckless behavior. But I most certainly think Congress should step up and help middle-class families struggling to keep their homes. But for comparison's sake, I want people to get their eyes on what we are still going through on the Gulf Coast. We have parishes where 78 percent of the homes are unlivable and people are struggling to keep these homes. What the Federal Government has done has been substantial, but it is not adequate and not enough. While we have sent Community Development Block Grant funding down to many of these families, some of them still haven't seen a penny. Some of them had to deduct their insurance from that. We still don't have tax relief for individuals who took a casualty loss deduction and are now being taxed on their Community Development Block Grants. So people, in addition to not receiving their full complement, not getting their full insurance money, are now being pushed to a higher tax bracket because this Congress has failed yet to give them tax relief that they desperately need. So as we put this housing relief package together for the Nation, let's think about what can be done in Mississippi, Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, where, in some places, 50 percent of families or more have lost their homes. Some people are back. Some people are struggling. But you might have a neighborhood, let's say, in St. Bernard--I was there last week--where there is one home that is fixed and inhabited. Every other home on that block is vacant. Think about that. This person is happy to be back in their house. But when you ask them what was the value of that house before the storm, it used to be $450,000. Today that is a very interesting question. What is the value of a three- bedroom brick home on a block where every other home is empty? That is how badly people want to live in their neighborhoods and communities. These are not communities necessarily below sea level. Some of these places I describe are above sea level. If the Senate continues to consider the Foreclosure Prevention Act, I have some specific suggestions as to how we can make the bill more relevant for families struggling on the Gulf Coast. First, we need tax relief for Road Home grant recipients. We need it for the people who have lost their homes. We also need to craft the legislation so that families can use the bonds allocated in the bill to purchase or refinance a home that was destroyed in the 2005 hurricanes. Also, the Community Development Block grant funding formula in the legislation should account for communities that have lost significant numbers of homes in the 2005 hurricanes. Finally, the bill provides a unique opportunity for us to increase home ownership in hurricane-impacted areas. I wish the Presiding Officer the best in helping one of her communities. But please don't forget us. I don't have Alabama numbers, but the hurricane did hit Alabama. We do have those numbers on another chart. But for those of us on the Gulf Coast, this is critical. And, yes, another hurricane season is starting this spring. Let's get some help to these people and fashion a bill that we can pass that will bring real relief to American homeowners everywhere. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Second World War will probably be known as one of the greatest achievements in American history. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the uncommon valor of American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry which supplied our fighting men on two distant fronts. As the generation that faced this challenge comes to a close, it is important that we take the time to honor them for the many sacrifices they made. It was the gallantry of American troops abroad and the tireless devotion of workers at home that brought the end of this Great War. I come to the floor today, to honor all of the 16 million World War II veterans and their families for the many sacrifices they made. Today, along with eight of my colleagues, I would like to introduce America's National World War II Museum Expansion Act. On June 6, 2000, the 56th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, the National D-Day Museum, operated in New Orleans, LA, opened their doors. The museum is the only museum in the U.S. that exists for the exclusive purpose of accounting for the American experience during World War II, both on the battlefront and at home. The museum educates on all of the branches of the Armed Forces and the Merchant Marine. The museum was founded by the late World War II historian Stephen Ambrose. The museum and the decision to locate it in New Orleans was the result of a conversation Mr. Ambrose had with President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was said in the conversation that President Eisenhower and former Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe, credited Andrew Jackson Higgins, the man behind Higgins Industries in New Orleans, as the ``man who won the war for us''. Higgins designed and produced amphibious landing crafts that became known as the Higgins Boats. These boats were used in every major amphibious operation of World War II, including D-Day, and responsible for transporting the men from the ship to the shore. The museum is a premier educational institution, which educates diverse audiences through its collection of artifacts, photographs, letters, documents, and personal testimonies of participants in the war and on the home front. It is important that we continue preserving, maintaining, and interpreting the artifacts, documents, images, and history collected by the museum. For these reasons, in 2003 Congress designated the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans as America's National World War II Museum. Since the designation, the Museum Board has embarked on an extraordinary expansion, with plans to quadruple its size. The museum will account for all service branches and campaigns of the war, including the war on the home front. This bill is a one time permanent $50 million authorization for the expansion of the National World War II Museum in New Orleans. Specifically, the $50 million authorization would provide funding for the U.S. Freedom Pavilion, which is part of the museum's expansion. The U.S. Freedom Pavilion will be the main entrance building to the main theatre, exhibit halls, and other pavilions. Among its major exhibits, the Freedom Pavilion will contain an interactive exhibition honoring all of the World War II veterans who have also served the nation as President, or as a member of the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives between the years of 1941 and 1945. A combination of State, local, and private funding, totaling $240 million, will match the $50 million Federal authorization. To date, the State of Louisiana has already dedicated $33 million toward the expansion, and has pledged additional funds up to $50 million to match dollar for dollar the $50 million Federal authorization, if approved by Congress. The private sector support has already surpassed $40 million, and the remaining balance of the expansion will be raised privately. A House companion bill, H.R. 2923, has been introduced by Chairman Dingell and is cosponsored by 11 other members, including all members of the Louisiana U.S. House of Representatives Delegation. In closing, I want to give many thanks to Senators Inouye, Stevens, Lautenberg, Vitter, Dole, Alexander, Cochran and Graham, for joining me in helping to preserve an important piece of our history. I would like to give special thanks to Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and Senator Lautenberg. This museum is a tribute to you and your fellow servicemen. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Second World War will probably be known as one of the greatest achievements in American history. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the uncommon valor of American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry which supplied our fighting men on two distant fronts. As the generation that faced this challenge comes to a close, it is important that we take the time to honor them for the many sacrifices they made. It was the gallantry of American troops abroad and the tireless devotion of workers at home that brought the end of this Great War. I come to the floor today, to honor all of the 16 million World War II veterans and their families for the many sacrifices they made. Today, along with eight of my colleagues, I would like to introduce America's National World War II Museum Expansion Act. On June 6, 2000, the 56th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, the National D-Day Museum, operated in New Orleans, LA, opened their doors. The museum is the only museum in the U.S. that exists for the exclusive purpose of accounting for the American experience during World War II, both on the battlefront and at home. The museum educates on all of the branches of the Armed Forces and the Merchant Marine. The museum was founded by the late World War II historian Stephen Ambrose. The museum and the decision to locate it in New Orleans was the result of a conversation Mr. Ambrose had with President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was said in the conversation that President Eisenhower and former Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe, credited Andrew Jackson Higgins, the man behind Higgins Industries in New Orleans, as the ``man who won the war for us''. Higgins designed and produced amphibious landing crafts that became known as the Higgins Boats. These boats were used in every major amphibious operation of World War II, including D-Day, and responsible for transporting the men from the ship to the shore. The museum is a premier educational institution, which educates diverse audiences through its collection of artifacts, photographs, letters, documents, and personal testimonies of participants in the war and on the home front. It is important that we continue preserving, maintaining, and interpreting the artifacts, documents, images, and history collected by the museum. For these reasons, in 2003 Congress designated the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans as America's National World War II Museum. Since the designation, the Museum Board has embarked on an extraordinary expansion, with plans to quadruple its size. The museum will account for all service branches and campaigns of the war, including the war on the home front. This bill is a one time permanent $50 million authorization for the expansion of the National World War II Museum in New Orleans. Specifically, the $50 million authorization would provide funding for the U.S. Freedom Pavilion, which is part of the museum's expansion. The U.S. Freedom Pavilion will be the main entrance building to the main theatre, exhibit halls, and other pavilions. Among its major exhibits, the Freedom Pavilion will contain an interactive exhibition honoring all of the World War II veterans who have also served the nation as President, or as a member of the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives between the years of 1941 and 1945. A combination of State, local, and private funding, totaling $240 million, will match the $50 million Federal authorization. To date, the State of Louisiana has already dedicated $33 million toward the expansion, and has pledged additional funds up to $50 million to match dollar for dollar the $50 million Federal authorization, if approved by Congress. The private sector support has already surpassed $40 million, and the remaining balance of the expansion will be raised privately. A House companion bill, H.R. 2923, has been introduced by Chairman Dingell and is cosponsored by 11 other members, including all members of the Louisiana U.S. House of Representatives Delegation. In closing, I want to give many thanks to Senators Inouye, Stevens, Lautenberg, Vitter, Dole, Alexander, Cochran and Graham, for joining me in helping to preserve an important piece of our history. I would like to give special thanks to Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and Senator Lautenberg. This museum is a tribute to you and your fellow servicemen. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a very important Louisianan, and really a great leader of our Nation, who passed away recently. I come to the floor in her memory, to pause for just a moment and to remember this great lady. Thursday, January 24, Louisiana and the Nation lost a powerful advocate for justice, equality, and opportunity. Rupert Florence Richardson was truly a heroine of the civil rights movement, who battled throughout her life not only to realize the dream of equal opportunity and a colorblind society, but she fought every day that I knew her for decent jobs, adequate health care, quality health care, and equal opportunities in education for all children. During more than half a century of work and devotion to the civil rights movement, and to public service generally, Rupert Richardson rose into national prominence as one of the longest serving board members of the NAACP, serving from 1992 to 1995 as national head. Prior to that, she served that prestigious organization for 7 years as vice president and also 16 years as the president of the Louisiana chapter. Rupert Richardson was a mother, a teacher, a nurse, a sought-after speaker, and a leader always. She had an extraordinary voice and presence, a really big and wonderful heart, she was a great intellect, and she had a passion for people. She was fondly known as the grand dame of the NAACP and was beloved by many in the NAACP civil rights family. To us at home, you could always see Rupert coming because of her hats of various shapes, sizes and colors--quite decorative--which was her signature trademark. She was a vibrant spirit, always busy, working, and always generous to those around her. Rupert served many years in Baton Rouge and was no stranger to our Nation's Capital. She was born in Texas and moved to Lake Charles, LA, as an infant. That is where she will be buried tomorrow. For more than 30 years, Rupert served Louisiana in many spheres of influence, and she will be fondly remembered and respectfully remembered. It was truly a life of service. Her family, her friends, her sorority sisters, and particularly the civil rights family in America owe a great deal to this great heroine of civil rights. I am happy to come to the floor of the Senate to remember Rupert Richardson, to speak of her, and to remind all of us of her great contribution. She will be missed very much. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my colleague, Senator Johnny Isakson, the Cytology Proficiency Improvement Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation enhances women's health by establishing an annual continuing medical education, CME, proficiency requirement for pathologists and laboratory professionals who read Pap tests to screen for cervical cancer. The legislation would enhance our fight against this disease by giving women confidence in their Pap test results. Women in my State of Louisiana and across the country deserve no less. Specifically, our legislation would require individuals who examine Pap test slides to participate annually in an outcome-based CME program to evaluate their interpretative skills. This educational testing program would keep pace with cutting edge advances in science and technology. Health professionals would be challenged with complex, difficult cases and would learn through constructive feedback. The bill would also require that laboratory directors utilize the CME testing results to help assess the performance of their laboratory personnel and take corrective action as appropriate. Finally, the bill would require that the CME results be reviewed by accrediting organizations as part of federally mandated inspections of laboratories to evaluate Pap test quality. In 1988, Congress requested that a cytology, Pap test, proficiency program be established as part of The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, CLIA. However, the program lay dormant until 2005 when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, CMS, finally implemented a program. Unfortunately, the program was implemented using 1992 regulations--now 15 years old--and no longer relevant to real world practice. The bill we are introducing today would modernize and replace the current program so we can help raise the bar of quality in diagnosing cervical cancer. It would compliment the already extensive Federal quality control standards for Pap tests under CLIA. Without a doubt, regular Pap tests save women's lives. We need to make sure that the Federal Government's efforts to combat cervical cancer are the most effective they can be. This bill helps to do just that. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this women's health issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my colleague, Senator Johnny Isakson, the Cytology Proficiency Improvement Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation enhances women's health by establishing an annual continuing medical education, CME, proficiency requirement for pathologists and laboratory professionals who read Pap tests to screen for cervical cancer. The legislation would enhance our fight against this disease by giving women confidence in their Pap test results. Women in my State of Louisiana and across the country deserve no less. Specifically, our legislation would require individuals who examine Pap test slides to participate annually in an outcome-based CME program to evaluate their interpretative skills. This educational testing program would keep pace with cutting edge advances in science and technology. Health professionals would be challenged with complex, difficult cases and would learn through constructive feedback. The bill would also require that laboratory directors utilize the CME testing results to help assess the performance of their laboratory personnel and take corrective action as appropriate. Finally, the bill would require that the CME results be reviewed by accrediting organizations as part of federally mandated inspections of laboratories to evaluate Pap test quality. In 1988, Congress requested that a cytology, Pap test, proficiency program be established as part of The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, CLIA. However, the program lay dormant until 2005 when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, CMS, finally implemented a program. Unfortunately, the program was implemented using 1992 regulations--now 15 years old--and no longer relevant to real world practice. The bill we are introducing today would modernize and replace the current program so we can help raise the bar of quality in diagnosing cervical cancer. It would compliment the already extensive Federal quality control standards for Pap tests under CLIA. Without a doubt, regular Pap tests save women's lives. We need to make sure that the Federal Government's efforts to combat cervical cancer are the most effective they can be. This bill helps to do just that. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this women's health issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today to join my colleagues, the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Arkansas, in a strong appeal to our colleagues to vote against the Grassley-Dorgan amendment. As Senator Lincoln so eloquently stated, this underlying bill is the single largest reform to the farm program practically in the last two decades, if not forever. We have made significant underlying reforms to try to limit and streamline subsidies and to make it fair. But as the Senator from Alabama said, our rural areas, particularly in the South and Southeast, need this bill to continue to grow and prosper. There are parts of the country that are doing very well. But in rural America, there are still difficulties. We have over 200,000 farmers in Louisiana. I respect the two Senators offering this amendment. They truly are two of the most respected in this Chamber. But I have to say, perhaps it would be easy for me to support an amendment such as this if the crop in my State was getting two or three times the price it once did. The fact is, rice and cotton are not in the best shape. We are being pressed by imports. We have different rules and subsidies. With all due respect to other Senators, corn has done very well lately. A couple of years ago it was selling on the market for $2.10 a bushel. Today the commodities rate is $4.33. So people growing corn are doing very well. I have some of them in my State as well. But because of the ethanol subsidies, because of what we have done on the fuel business, corn is doing well. We are happy for that. But rice, soybeans, and cotton fighting for markets, fighting against unfair trade practices. This amendment will do them great harm. Senator Lincoln has done an excellent job representing Southern farming on the Agriculture Committee. She has, with our support, put forward some reforms to reduce the cost to taxpayers. But we can't do anymore. Asking us to do it is not right. For Georgia and for Alabama and for Louisiana and parts of Texas, this is as far as we can go. I am saying to our farm guys, we help you with subsidies for ethanol. We know farmers growing corn are making a boatload of money. We are happy for that. But we cannot accept this amendment. I urge our colleagues to reject it. Let's move forward together on reform for the taxpayers and for our rural areas. On another note, our sugar farmers have not had a loan increase in 25 years. Now with this administration supporting huge imports from Mexico, we are at a great transitional time for sugar. This is not the time to cut them anymore. For rice farmers, which Senator Lincoln spoke about--she is from a rice farming family herself; she most certainly knows what it means to walk the rice rows--the current this amendment would unfairly penalizes producers of rice. Any further cuts to our rice industry would be detrimental. I am pleased that with Senator Lincoln's assistance, we were able to put in extra help for some of our specialty crops. Sweet potatoes we grow a lot of, and we are proud of that crop and others. But this is not insignificant business. This is billion-dollar business. It is important to Louisiana. We need to hold the line with the reform. I urge my colleagues to vote no on Dorgan-Grassley. We have given enough from our region. We want to support reforms. We have supported reforms. But enough is enough. I am happy corn is now at $4.33 a bushel. I wish my sugarcane farmers and rice farmers were getting two or three times what they were getting a couple years ago, but they are not. Let's hold the line and vote no on the Grassley-Dorgan amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. If I may, I will add a comment to what the chairman said. I voted against cloture this morning, but I am most certainly willing to come to a compromise on some of the issues and get an agreement between the two sides, and I look forward to working over the weekend to that end.