Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committees on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 25, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is importing energy, exporting jobs. Can it be reversed? Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify be invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so be sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to John_Assini@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Todd Wooten at (202) 224- 3907, Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905, or John Assini (202) 224- 9313. committee on indian affairs

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the distinguished public servant and deacon, Mayor Willie Davis, Jr. Mayor Davis began his tenure as Mayor in 1992, though evidence of his service begins much sooner. During the Korean Conflict, Mayor Davis served the country he loved as a member of the United States Army. He also happily served Zion Hill Missionary Baptist Church as a diligent and hard-working deacon, treasurer, and Sunday school teacher for over 20 years. Mayor Willie Davis, Jr. devoted his career to building up his city of Farmerville and continuing to expedite its economic development. During his four terms as Mayor of Farmerville, Mayor Davis was instrumental in constructing the Farmerville Recreation Center which now bears his name. He also helped to build new police and fire complexes and led the expansion of ConAgra Poultry facilities into Farmerville. Perhaps Mayor Davis' most memorable impression came from his relationships with the constituents that he served, and even those that he did not. Mayor Davis met no strangers; he was a mentor to many, an example to others, and a friend to all. Mayor Davis' motto and the words that he lived by, ``May the work I've done, speak for me,'' became more than just his campaign slogan. Let us remember his words as we reflect on his life, the great works that filled it, and his impact on Farmerville and the entire State of Louisiana. Mayor Davis has been and continues to be an inspiration to all those who have benefitted from his 16 year career as Mayor of Farmerville and his decades of service to his church and community. It is with my heartfelt and greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me along with Mayor Willie Davis Jr.'s family in recognizing the life and many accomplishments of this incredible Mayor, mentor, and deacon, as well as his lasting impact throughout the Nation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 16, 2014, at 1 p.m., at the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, Manoa Campus, in Honolulu, Hawaii. The purpose of the hearing is to examine the successes and challenges of meeting sustainability goals in Hawaii and the Pacific, including oversight of existing activities and Federal-Island partnerships in energy, water, land use, marine resources, and other sectors. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to John_ Assini@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Al Stayman at (202) 224-7865 or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 27, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing will be to hear testimony on the following measures: S. 1419, the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act of 2013; S. 1771, the Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act of 2013; S. 1800, the Bureau of Reclamation Transparency Act; S. 1946, a bill to amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to modify the authorization of appropriations; S. 1965, a bill to amend the East Bench Irrigation District Water Contract Extension Act to permit the Secretary of the Interior to extend the contract for certain water services; S. 2010 and H.R. 1963, the Bureau of Reclamation Conduit Hydropower Development Equity and Jobs Act; S. 2019, SECURE Water Amendments Act of 2014; and, S. 2034, the Reclamation Title Transfer Act of 2014. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to John_Assini@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224-6224 or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jeanne Hulit, who is leaving her position as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration tomorrow. Ms. Hulit is returning to the private sector after more than 4 years of service to her country at SBA. She stepped up last year when former Administrator Karen Mills stepped down, staying on for longer than anticipated to ensure that the government agency responsible for helping America's nearly 28 million small businesses had the leadership it needed. We should thank her for honoring her commitment to America's entrepreneurs. Prior to assuming the role of Acting Administrator, Ms. Hulit served as Associate Administrator for SBA's Office of Capital Access since February 2012, where she was responsible for advising SBA Administrator Karen Mills and overseeing the agency's loan programs. During her tenure at SBA, the agency saw its two highest years of small business lending on record. Ms. Hulit's service at SBA began in 2009 when she was appointed to serve as SBA's New England Regional Administrator. As Regional Administrator, she was responsible for carrying out SBA's core mission of assisting small businesses with the ``three C's''--capital, contracting and counseling--in six New England States. Prior to joining SBA, Ms. Hulit spent 18 years in banking, serving as senior vice president for commercial lending at Citizens Bank, vice president and middle market lender at KeyBank, and manager of KeyBank's International Banking Division. Prior to that, she served as deputy director of the International Division at the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development. Ms. Hulit has also held a number of civic and economic leadership roles, including her tenure as a founder and chair of the Maine International Trade Center and her service as chair for the University of Southern Maine Board of Visitors. Ms. Hulit's experience in both the public and private sector and her expertise in lending gave her unique insight into the importance of getting capital into the hands of entrepreneurs. This came across clearly in her success at SBA. During her time at SBA, the agency supported more than $126 billion in lending to more than 260,000 small businesses and entrepreneurs. This includes two record years of delivering more than $30 billion annually in loans in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 and more than $29 billion in 2013. Later this month, Ms. Hulit will be moving back home to Maine and taking a job at Northeast Bank. While it is tough to see the SBA lose such a talented and loyal public servant and America's small businesses lose a tireless advocate, I am happy to see her get to return home to pursue this great opportunity. I wish her all the best in this and future endeavors, and I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking her for her loyal and dedicated service at SBA.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, due to my flight being canceled, I regret having missed a vote on February 3, 2014. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion to invoke cloture on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2642, a bill to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand Senator Toomey and Senator Menendez will be coming to the floor to have the last 10 minutes of this debate, so I wish to take a moment to come to the floor to thank all of my colleagues who helped so much, particularly in the early days--a year and a half ago--to help make this bill possible today. This truly was a team effort, and I really appreciate the compliments from my colleagues about the leadership I provided, and I am happy to do so. Believe me, this never would have happened without a great team that was built to spread the word about the disastrous consequences of a law that had good intentions but with horrific ramifications on people all over the country. Because this is not just a coastal issue that affects New Jersey, the State of the Presiding Officer, and my State of Louisiana, we had some extraordinary Senators step up, such as Senator Heitkamp, such as Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia--not an ocean around or in sight. We had other Senators step up who do not have coastlines but who have States and subdivisions and communities and cities and rural areas that are in desperate need of a strong, good, solid, affordable, and sustainable flood insurance package for this country--a flood insurance program. Some people thought that is what we were getting with Biggert-Waters, but it soon became clear, literally before the ink was dry, that it wasn't going to work. Sometimes mistakes are made and when they are, we have to step up and fix them as quickly as possible. It has taken us longer than it should have because some Senators have not had an open mind or an open heart. They have not dealt in the best of faith, but despite all of that, we are here today because a number of Senators stood up. I wish to read their names into the Record: Senator Thad Cochran from Mississippi, Senator Jeff Merkley from Oregon, Senator John Hoeven from North Dakota, Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina, Senator Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota, Senator Roger Wicker from Mississippi, Senator Vitter from Louisiana, Senator Chuck Schumer was a particularly strong leader, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, Senator Ed Markey from Massachusetts, as well as Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, who were early supporters of this bill; Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, Senator Rubio of Florida--and particularly Senator Nelson who got on this bill early and began educating people not only in Florida but around the country; Senator Al Franken from Minnesota, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, another Senator who has no ocean, but Pennsylvania has I think the most new FEMA maps of any State in the Union. The people of Pennsylvania would really be affected if our bill doesn't pass. Even the amendment that is being offered by one of the Senators does not solve their problem and it is unfortunate, and I hope people will vote strongly against the Toomey amendment; Senator Kay Hagan from North Carolina; of course, yours truly in the Chair, Senator Cory Booker, who came on early and was a huge supporter as soon as he got here. I think this was one of the first bills he cosponsored and I couldn't be more grateful, and I know the people of New Jersey are grateful for his leadership; Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon, Senator Susan Collins from Maine, and Senator Debbie Stabenow from Michigan; obviously, Senator Menendez has been our leader on the Democratic side, and we would not be where we are today without his leadership. We would not be where we are today without the commitment of Senator Harry Reid who recognizes he has a flooding problem as well and that this is not just a coastal issue. He stood up early to tell us that if we could build a strong coalition, if we could build 60-plus votes, he would help us get to a point where we could actually have a debate on amendments, vote them up or down, and then move this bill, with the strongest vote possible, to the House of Representatives, where I am proud to say there are 131 cosponsors on this bill. That number is growing every day. As people hear about what is happening and begin to understand, as they get notices from their insurance companies--which, by the way, are taking 30 percent of every policy off the top and assuming virtually no risk, which is an issue we have to address; it is not addressed in this bill--but as people begin to understand, they are going to be clamoring for real change. They will want something that helps taxpayers for it to be sustainable, that addresses the climate issues that are affecting this program, that helps middle-class homeowners be able, as Senator Schumer said, to stay in their homes and not lose all the equity they have literally worked for not only their entire lives but potentially for two generations of work which has gone into building equity--sometimes three generations of work have gone into building equity in homes--just for a misguided piece of legislation to swipe away from them, in the blink of an eye, their homes' value. So I hope people will vote strongly against the Toomey amendment. A vote for the Toomey amendment will signal a vote against our efforts for reform. He will say his efforts are to reform, that it will only allow raises of 25 percent a year. There is no cap on his bill. There are no requirements for an affordability study. There are no requirements for accurate FEMA mapping. His bill is a red herring and a distraction from what we are trying to do. Senator Johnny Isakson on the Republican side deserves so much credit for organizing his team. I also recognize the minority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for his help in getting us to this point, and I thank him. I also want to thank a very important group which is GNO, Inc.-- Greater New Orleans, Inc.--which is a 16-parish economic coalition in our State, made up of parish presidents and elected officials and university presidents, that really focuses on the economic vitality of our region. Michael Hetch is the executive director--an extremely talented young leader. They recognized immediately, as I brought to their attention the problems with Biggert-Waters, the disaster it would be to the 16 parishes they represent. Not only did they step up and help us organize all of our 16 parishes, but they began immediately to reach out to New Jersey and to New York and to Pennsylvania and to California and to Oregon--to reach out to the bankers and the realtors. That began an extraordinary development of a very strong coalition. I thank them for their leadership. I thank the National Association of Realtors and the National Homebuilders Association, NACo. The president of NACo--the National Association of Counties--was in my office on several occasions working very hard with elected officials all over the country to raise the flag about this issue and to say it is time to take a pause on Biggert- Waters--not a complete repeal; not moving back on our reforms, but to take a pause to get it right. It is important to get this right. There are too many homes that will be lost, too many families impacted, too many businesses hurt, too many communities that will see a downward spiral from a housing market that is just now recovering after a very difficult national recession. I thank the National League of Cities, the American Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America. I really want to thank them. There are hundreds of other smaller organizations--neighborhood groups, I am sure, from New Jersey to New York, including Louisiana homeowners groups, that have spoken and are educating people about this challenge. But in a Congress where it is hard to come to a consensus on singing happy birthday to one of our Members, which is unfortunate today, this is a real accomplishment for such a broad, deep, and strong coalition--bipartisan, bicoastal--to come together and pass a bill that will bring relief to millions and millions of families. This will be a great victory today. I believe we will have a strong vote in the Senate. I am confident of that. But we have work to do. This bill has to go to the House. Maxine Waters and Congressman Grimm from New York are leading this effort. We need all the Senators to talk with their delegations in the House and get them to really step up. We need a lot of communication to the Speaker to say: Mr. Speaker, this cannot wait. There is already too much time, too much anxiety, too many real estate agents being put out of business, too many for-sale signs coming down, too many people making decisions because they have lost equity in their home. It is time to fix this problem now, and we can. I thank Senator Merkley, who will be the subcommittee chair as this sort of new reform is written. And finally, I thank again Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson for their extraordinary knowledge of this subject, their leadership, and helping us get to the point where we are. I do not see any other colleagues on the floor. When I do, I will yield the floor. I understand Senator Toomey and Senator Menendez are going to come to close out this debate. But I do want to say again that the Biggert-Waters bill was built backwards and upside down. It authorized immediate rate increases on responsible homeowners without any understanding of how it would impact their individual policies. I want to also say this, Mr. President--and I think you have heard me speak about this both publicly and we have talked privately--the people in Louisiana who have been the victims and survivors of massive hurricanes and storms and levee breaks are well aware of the weather changes. We accept it as a reality. We are building our levees as fast as we can, with very little help over time. Now, after emergencies, the Federal Government comes in with a lot of money, but year in and year out we are having a very hard time getting any infrastructure from the Corps of Engineers budget, which is woefully underfunded for the whole country. And the Presiding Officer knows that because his communities suffer as well. We are building levees as fast as we can with a lot of our own money and a lot of our own tax dollars. We are raising our homes as fast as we can, elevating them. We are putting in new zoning, and people are very mindful of not developing low-lying areas. But we have to have policies that are well thought out and well balanced to accommodate communities that have literally been here for 300 years. New Orleans will be celebrating its 300th birthday in just a few years from now, in 2018. This is not about a group of people who went down there 20 years ago for Sun and for vacation. This is about people who came 300 years ago to secure the mouth of the greatest river system in North America and one of the greatest river systems in the world. This is not fun and games. This is work and empowerment and wealth building and opportunity that the President talked about the other day. That is what this bill is about. We need to start with building a flood program, partnershipped with the private sector, that works for average, middle-class families. We do not have that, and we are going to get the first step toward that today. I see my colleagues on the floor, so I am going to yield the floor. I know the time has been set aside. When we vote on the Toomey amendment, please vote a strong no. When we vote on final passage, please vote a strong yes. There are a few other amendments Senators Isakson and Menendez will speak to more directly, as we wrap up this debate today. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I understand Senator Reed has been waiting to speak about his amendment and the unanimous consent agreement allows for that. I would like 30 seconds to respond to the Coburn amendment. I see the Senator from Tennessee, and I am not sure what brings him to the floor, but if I can have 30 seconds to respond to the Coburn amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I want to underscore what the Senator from New Jersey just said. If our efforts were to repeal the Biggert-Waters bill, we would have drafted one to do so. This is not repealing Biggert-Waters. This is an honest, good-faith attempt to make the flood insurance program work. So we are insisting the affordability study be done first, we are insisting the maps be accurate, and we are insisting that FEMA recognize levees that taxpayers have built with their own money. Is that too much to ask? I mean, think about that: An affordability study, to recognize levees that are built, and to make sure people can afford these rates. I know my 30 seconds is up. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Coburn point of order and to help us move this important bill to the House of Representatives with a strong vote.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know we are scheduled to take the final votes on this bill tomorrow morning and final passage at 2. I just wish to thank all of the colleagues who were so cooperative today discussing and moving through these amendments. I appreciate the cooperation--bipartisan cooperation, open debate process. I think it has been very helpful. I think we are building a better flood insurance program for the country, which is our aim. I thank Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson for their leadership today. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to speak for up to 10 minutes. I think we are in morning business.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Wonderful. I thank the Presiding Officer. I will then speak on the bill that is before us. I appreciate the cooperation of so many Members who voted last night to move forward on the debate of the fix to Biggert-Waters. We had a very strong and very impressive vote. I think 83 Members, Republicans and Democrats, came together from all parts of the country, from all different areas and districts and backgrounds to vote to move forward on the debate on flood insurance. I am grateful. We have been working on this for about a year and a half. It has been a tough slog because 2 years ago a bill called Biggert-Waters was passed, named after the two cosponsors in the House, Congresswoman Biggert and Congresswoman Waters. They passed a bill with very good intentions. They were thinking they were going to strengthen the flood insurance program. The bill had wonderful intentions, but unfortunately, the way it was drafted in the conference committee has resulted in disastrous results. Some of us knew that 2 years ago and started working literally the moment the conference bill was passed to begin changing it. So we have worked diligently and together and built a great coalition. I thank the 200 organizations that quickly came together over the last year and a half--as quickly as any of these things can happen in a practical sense--to understand what went wrong in the first bill and how we could fix it so we could accomplish two important goals for the National Flood Insurance Program: first, that the program could be self- sustaining. In other words, it could pay for itself with limited or minimal taxpayer burden. The other equally important goal--and the Presiding Officer, who represents New Jersey, knows, as I do, how important this is--is that the program would be affordable to middle-class families. If it is not affordable to middle-class families, they will not participate in it and the program will go bankrupt due to lack of participation. The idea of insurance is to have a large pool to spread the risk, and that is how an insurance system works. If we don't fix it, it is going to make that pool get smaller and smaller and smaller. Because people will not be able to afford it, the program will collapse and the taxpayers will be saddled with debt. The goal of our coalition--led by Senator Menendez, the senior Senator from New Jersey who is on the Banking Committee and has been one of the great spokesmen and leaders for this bill, and Senator Isakson from Georgia, who is literally the most respected Member in this whole body on issues related to real estate because he had one of the largest real estate companies in Atlanta and knows the issue well. He is very respected on both sides of the aisle. These two gentlemen have led this effort and have built a bipartisan coalition. So we are now ready this week, of all weeks. It is the State of the Union week. We would have probably preferred another week, but that is how this worked out. We are ready to debate the bill on the floor of the Senate. At last count, when we left, there were about six or seven relevant amendments. We are only going to accept relevant amendments to this bill. We are not going to accept amendments on other subjects by Members who are attempting to derail the Senate, get us off topic, et cetera, et cetera. We will only accept relevant amendments to this bill. The happy thing is we think we only have about seven or eight amendments. Some amendments are Republican, some amendments are Democratic. We just received an amendment from one of the opponents of our bill, the good Senator from Pennsylvania, who has not been supportive of our bill and has not worked with the coalition and has not cooperated in any way. We got his amendment an hour ago. We have been actually waiting for a year and a half. Last May he opposed the bill, and we couldn't even get to the debate because he wasn't happy with the direction we were going. So that happened in May. What is this month? It is January. We are now in the month of January, and he opposed the bill in May. It set us back 7 months. We tried to explain to the Senator from Pennsylvania that 74,000 people in his State have these policies and they too need help. Whether he has been able to reconcile that with his constituents I don't know, but we literally asked him to please let us know what we could do. We told him we would be happy to meet with him. The homebuilders and the realtors were willing to sit down and speak to him. We finally got a draft of his amendment in the last hour. We are literally reading it for the first time. I don't think that is cooperation, but he may have a different definition of it. We are reading that amendment now. I don't believe this amendment is going to help our cause. I think it is going to undermine what we are trying to do. I will have more comments about the specifics of it, but the Senator from Pennsylvania, for whatever reason, has not been cooperative the whole time. We will be happy to vote on his amendment. I think the amendment is going to do great harm to the bill, and I think I would urge our coalition at this point to vote no, but I am going to look at it. Senator Isakson has just received a copy of it in the last hour, and all I can do is ask our colleagues to be patient while we review his 13-page amendment. We have 200 organizations that have been working on this. We are trying to be fair and get their input, and then we will know how to proceed. The bottom line is this: This week we are going to pass a flood insurance relief bill off the floor of the Senate. I wish to put everybody on notice that we have run out of patience. We have been working on this for a year and a half. We were told before Christmas we could have a vote, and then we were told we could have a vote when we got back. Then we were told we could have a vote before we left. This is it. There is no more time. We are voting on this legislation this week. We are either going to do it the easy way or the hard way. We are either going to have a few amendments the Republicans put up, the Democrats put up, and we get back to legislating as we should or the leader is going to file cloture on this bill and we are going to pass it without an amendment. If one single Republican comes to this floor and says they did not have time to discuss their amendment, we will debate until the cows come home because I am not leaving this floor until every single person in America knows the games that can be played here. I have been more than transparent. I have been more than honest. I have come here more than any Senator. I don't know if this is good or bad; it is the only way I know how to lead, which is to be forthright and honest with myself, with my constituents, and with people who need to know what in the heck is going on. I don't know how else to do it. I am not going to apologize. I am not going to read about how to do this in a book. There are no books on this. This is about leadership from the inside, and the only people who taught me this were my parents. I am just saying, if anyone in this Chamber thinks they are going to get away with trying to give some flimsy-limsy excuse about how they didn't get their amendment considered, how they are upset with the leader, they will have to go through me, and I am not moving because I have people all over this country who are desperate. We passed the wrong bill. We should not have passed it. We must fix it, and we are going to fix it this week in the Senate. What the House does, what Speaker Boehner does--he made some negative comments about the bill last week. My comments back were the Speaker has his hands full. He has been busy. I understand it. I wouldn't want his job. He has a tough job with a lot of issues to juggle. But I said, and I will say again, when this bill goes to the House, which it will after it passes the Senate this week, he will hear from millions and millions of Americans who paid their mortgage every month, who went to work every day, who honor their family by building homes in places they have been for generations, and they are about ready to take those front-door keys and turn them in to the local bank and walk away from their house. Speaker Boehner is going to hear that. I hope those words, those expressions, those pictures, those letters will hit his heart the way they have hit mine and that he will have a softened heart and an open mind and he will consider what we are trying to do. I realize our way may not be the most perfect way, but it is a good way, and if somebody wants to improve it, fine. But don't scuttle it, pretending to be helping. Don't scuttle it by pretending to be for some kind of better approach. If there was a better approach, we would have found it in the last year and a half we have been searching. We are not going to find it in the last 3 minutes of this debate. We are reviewing the Toomey amendment. He has been the lead opponent of our effort. I don't believe his amendment is helpful, but until I read it, I will not be able to give a definitive assessment. Senator Isakson will have to give his views on it, as will Senator Menendez, and we will figure it out. But we are going to bring relief to the 5 million people who have done nothing wrong--middle-class families, some of them very poor families--who have been living in these places for generations, and because FEMA can't get its flood maps right, because FEMA can't get the affordability study done, they are going to be kicked out of their homes. Talk about misguided regulation. I hope Mitch McConnell, our Republican leader, talking about misguided regulation, will put a little muscle into helping us. He has been cooperative, and I thank him. Senator Reid has been putting a lot of muscle into this, and I thank him. I hope people will come to the floor and speak about the importance of this bill. We will figure out this amendment process--all germane amendments--and get the final vote this week. This is going to get done this week, the easy way or the hard way, and we are done. The vote is going to happen this week. We are going to move this bill from the floor to the President, who put out a statement--and his administration--they didn't have many positive things to say about this. Let me just say I think their statement is misinformed. It is misguided. I am hoping the White House will reconsider. The President is coming here tonight to speak about the importance of strengthening the middle class. I would think that allowing middle-class people to stay in their homes would be a good place to start. So I hope the administration will take a second look and join us and help us to let middle-class families stay in their homes. Let me conclude. Colorado is a beautiful State. I have been there many times. However, not everybody can live in the mountains of Colorado. There are some of us who have to live along rivers and streams and ports to build and to support the infrastructure that helps to make this country grow. My people who fish every day, who harvest the oysters, who put seafood on the table, who bring those huge and magnificent barges up and down the river, can't live in Vail, CO. I am sorry. They don't like the snow and they couldn't afford to live there anyway. They live in little places such as Burris and Venice and Plackman, and the lower ninth ward that got flooded out, every single home destroyed. They can go back if we use our science, our engineering, our brains, and lead with our hearts and our heads. This can work. But if people are playing political games, if they are trying to score political points or if they are not working hard enough to understand the issue, then I feel sorry for them because the public needs our help. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call and to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, at 5:30 today the Senate is going to cast a very important vote to people in many States, not just the State of Louisiana, which I have had the honor and the privilege of representing now for almost 18 years, but to States from one end of this country to the other, including coastal States and interior States, on an issue that is very important to homeowners and business owners alike. The vote we are going to cast is a vote to begin debating a Menendez-Isakson bill that will fix the many urgent problems that have presented themselves in a recently passed bill called Biggert- Waters. Biggert-Waters is a bill that had wonderful intentions, which were to strengthen the flood insurance program and to make it self-sustainable. It is a program many people depend on. It is a public-private partnership that provides affordable flood insurance for the middle class. But the bill was built backward and upside down. The bill had good intentions, but it has had very detrimental consequences. So the bill we are going to vote to go to debate on--the Menendez-Isakson bill--is really a good-faith attempt to correct some of the problems with Biggert-Waters and to lead us in a direction to a place where this country can have a public-private partnership for flood insurance that actually works for the taxpayer, for the millions and millions of people--5 million plus--who are going to have to have flood insurance, whether they have had it in the past or not. There are new maps that are coming and millions and millions of people will be required by the law to have flood insurance if they have a mortgage on their home, and most people have mortgages. Most people are unable to pay cash for their homes. Some people are fortunate to do so, but I would say 95 percent of the people have mortgages on their homes. So if people have mortgages, they are going to be required to have flood insurance, and if they are required to have flood insurance they will have Biggert- Waters, unless we can postpone it and instead get Menendez-Isakson. Many of the critics who are not supporting the reform effort we have underway say we are trying to protect mansions on the beach. So I pulled some random pictures from the Web page I set up called ``My Home My Story.'' This is in St. Amant, LA, Walker, Belle Chasse, Chalmette, Pointe Coupee, Mandeville--these are a variety of neighborhoods-- Independence, LA; New Orleans--there is no beach within miles of this home. There is no beach within miles of Independence. This is very far inland. We can see this is a home where there is water all around here, but this house is raised probably 13 to 17 feet, which is now the required elevation in many parts of Louisiana and the gulf coast. But except for this home, which looks like a beautiful old mansion, none of these are mansions and none of them are on a beach. What is happening all over America is that these flood maps are being put into place, not just on the coast of California or Louisiana or Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, but I call the attention of my colleagues particularly to inland States such as Pennsylvania. We have had a lot of criticism from some of the representatives from Pennsylvania about what we are doing. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statistics about States that are not coastal States such as Pennsylvania. We just got some new material which I will submit for the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am pleased to come to the floor today to follow-up on the very eloquent remarks by the Senator from New Hampshire and the ranking member and chairwoman. I am here today to offer a few comments about the appropriations bill. But before I do, I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for really being a great inspiration to all of us. Amidst all of the controversy and dustups and toxic atmosphere and nonpartisanship going on--or lack of cooperation going on--it is wonderful to see the two of them working so closely together on a bill that is so important to the country. As the great Senator from New Hampshire said: This is a bill for the people, for jobs, and for our economy. It sends very positive signals across a breadth of industries where the Federal Government is stepping up to be a more reliable partner in these public-private partnerships that are represented in the funding of this bill--whether it is building our highways, building our space programs, funding our Department of Defense, sending money to cities and counties that are doing all sorts of innovative and remarkable things with community development block grant funding with a lot of private partners. Contrary to popular belief and contrary to some things you might hear on the radio and on television these days, the Federal budget does a lot more than fund the government. It does a lot more than funding government employees. It is sending out literally millions of green lights to small business contractors and to large businesses saying, Let's go. The yellow light was blinking a few days ago; the red light has been on for the last couple of years. This bill literally sends out millions of blinking green lights saying: Get to work. Let's go to business. Let's build highways. Let's build levees. Let's build a space program. Let's invest in the middle class. In addition, I wish to say how proud I am that under the leadership of Senator Mikulski, she has managed to do this within budget constraints. This is not a free spending bill; this is a smart spending bill within constraints so we are also mindful of reducing our debt over time, mindful about paying down our bills. That is what is so remarkable about this and why I am so proud to support it. I hope we can get as strong a vote as the House did on this bill to show strong bipartisan support, because while it does address our debt and our deficit, it does so in a smart way with investments in what we have agreed to that make a difference to the private sector. I can tell my colleagues that in Louisiana this is going to have immediate positive effects, and I wish to highlight a few of those now in terms of the Homeland Security bill. I am proud and happy to be the chairwoman of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. I have worked very closely with my colleague Senator Carper, who is chair of the authorizing committee, and our ranking members, Senator Coburn and Senator Coats, as we authorize stronger parts of Homeland Security and then fund some of these initiatives. I will hit the highlights of just three or four. One of them is the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is in our Homeland Security bill. It is a very important component of our government. It is one of the most popular components of our government--popular broadly with business and with people. It is, of course, very popular with the people the Coast Guard has saved from drowning or from wrecks in our open seas, but also for the hundreds of companies and businesses that have contracts with the Coast Guard to provide some real cutting- edge shipbuilding that needs to go on in this country. The Senator from Alabama knows this, the Senators from Mississippi know this, the Senators from Maine, the Senators from Louisiana. We have lost a great deal of shipbuilding in our country to other countries. It is important that we keep as much shipbuilding here through the Homeland Security bill and through the Defense bill here in America--ships that are made in America, ships serving Americans, providing good, solid jobs. I am proud to support this, along with the tremendous support of Senator Cochran, who is a member of my committee, and particularly Senator Begich, from Alaska, who fought very hard for a good outcome on the Coast Guard budget, which is above the administration's request and has a modest increase and will be supporting so many important projects for our Coast Guard and the men and women of our Coast Guard. It provides $10.2 billion overall, which is a significant increase, and we did so within our budget constraints. Another piece I wish to highlight is our enforcement of Immigration and Customs laws. We are in a big debate about immigration reform and the importance of finding common ground on immigration reform for the benefit of our businesses and our economy here in America that demand clear rules of the road, clear processes for people to become citizens and to pay their taxes, who have come here legally, and for people who are here without the current legal papers to give them a path to citizenship once taxes are paid, once they get in line behind people who have come here legally. Protecting our borders is an important component of that as well. In our bill we have put the resources necessary behind enforcing those tough immigration standards and requirements. We are protecting our border, providing resources for the bill, and that is important to many people in this country as well as people in Louisiana, to have an immigration system that makes sense as well as to provide appropriate jobs and labor to come in and help with so many of the jobs we have in Louisiana today. We also had a focus in our bill--I think the chairwoman will be happy to hear this--about stepping up an additional 2,000 Customs officers at our airports. We have an international airport in New Orleans. We get a lot of international travel. We may be a little city, but we fight way above our weight, as does our State, when it comes to international travel. We are a very sought-after destination and we are very happy about that. But there are other States such as New York and Nevada and Chicago that have international travel. Even the State of the Presiding Officer, North Dakota, which is a smaller State--there is a tremendous amount of business coming into the State of North Dakota, both domestic and international, because of their oil and gas jobs and their energy sector jobs. What a howdy-do it is, arriving at our airport or to work with businesses here, or to partner with businesses here to create jobs, and one has to wait in line in Customs for 5 hours. That is no way to greet business men and women bearing gifts of investment and money for our country. I have taken a strong leadership position on this with the travel and trade organizations, both in hospitality and in international business. I wish to thank their coalition for fighting hard to make sure this bill reflects the fact that business is global, it is international. Our business people are out and in all the time, building wealth for America and, hopefully, the world, but for America, and business people come here to help create wealth and help our middle class to grow. Having Customs agents who operate, making lines shorter, will certainly help that, while keeping our country safe, but also keeping it open for business. Louisiana is a trading State and we are a big port State. We understand trade, we understand international business, and I am happy to be able to fight hard for those priorities. I wish to mention two other issues. Many committees are working on cyber security. Homeland Security does not take the lead on cyber overall; the Department of Defense and National Security Agency do. But when it comes to securing our government and our government private sector partners, Homeland Security does take the lead. We have stepped up some investments in cyber security. As the Senator from Alabama most certainly understands in his leadership role, this is a real threat not only to our government, to the Department of Defense, to our government as a whole, but to many businesses in America--private, large businesses, and medium and small. They are feeling the effects of these saboteurs and attackers. The government has to stay focused and well invested, working with the private sector, to make sure our defenses and our security are up, and our bill recognizes that. Finally, something close to my heart and close to my home is the funding for disaster relief. I hope no one ever has to go through what we went through along the gulf coast for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I know everybody has had terrible storms and floods. But there has never been a storm or a disaster such as this, and I pray to the Lord there will never be another one after it. The damage that was done in dollar amounts, the damage that was done across a vast stretch of land, from Alabama to Texas, the devastation it caused in terms of numbers of homes and businesses lost is unparalleled. Sandy was a terrible superstorm, and because the northeast is more dense than we are down South, they lost more homes technically than we did, because the dollar damage is still far exceeding in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita. But whether it is Sandy in the east or whether it is floods in North Dakota, which they have had their share of, or Colorado or whether it is storms on the gulf coast, we have to be ready with money to send immediately when people need help. I am going to say this because it has been a matter of argument between some here: When a disaster strikes, I am not going to look for an offset. I am going to look for the Coast Guard and FEMA to show up with the equipment they have to help people who are either drowning, on their roofs, or watching their houses burn to the ground. I am not going to look for an offset. So as long as I am chairman of this bill, we will have money in this bill to use on an emergency basis when emergencies occur, as they do fairly regularly, unfortunately, in the States we represent down in the gulf coast. Because we are right in the middle of that hurricane alley, these storms are getting bigger and more fierce, and we have to be at the ready. We have helped Maryland. We have money in for Sandy recovery and there is money in here still for the ongoing recovery. It is phasing out now in the gulf coast, but there are still some projects that have ongoing work, even 9 years after Katrina and Rita. Let me say it has been a pleasure to work with my colleagues. I wish to thank the members of my committee, particularly my ranking member Dan Coats from Indiana, and I really want to thank Senators Begich and Cochran for their great work with the Coast Guard and helping me negotiate this through the process. Again, I think these are just some of the highlights of our bill. Nothing would have been possible without Senator Mikulski and her determination to get the green light on, because people in my town, in my State are tired of yellow and red. They want to work. They want to go to work. They want to build buildings and build roads and get projects underway. We have lots of permits pending that the money in this bill will allow to be released. So I am proud to vote for it. This is all about jobs, economic competitiveness for America, and good jobs for Louisiana. I am sure every Senator, or almost every Senator, will say the same about this bill, because it was well done. It is a job well done. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, before the Senator from Wyoming leaves the floor, I wish to comment about some of the things he said about PILT and assure him that should the ambassadorship go forward for China, should Ron Wyden become the chair of the Finance Committee, I will become the chair of the Energy Committee, and he has my commitment now to help him work on that. I am very well aware, having served on that committee for 10 years, how important PILT is--payment in lieu of taxes--to some of the States in the West, primarily less populated States. Their tax base is very affected by the fact that the Federal Government owns a great deal of land. The Senator knows only 2.5 percent of my State is Federal land. Through the Chair, I would like to ask the Senator what percent of his State is Federal land.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. If I could be recognized.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I want to commit to work with the Senator. I am very sympathetic and understand his position, and we will be talking to the leadership on both sides to see what we can do. It is very hard for that money to come away at such an abrupt time, and there are some issues that I know are pending before the committee where that could potentially get resolved. So I just wish to offer my help and support at the appropriate time. (The further remarks of Ms. Landrieu are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to speak for just a minute in honor of National Mentoring Month. Senator Isakson and I have submitted a Senate resolution to pay tribute to the millions of men and women whose lives are enriched every day by mentoring in our country. I know we are going to get right back on the discussion on the Appropriations bill, but I want to take just a point of personal privilege for 2 or 3 minutes to talk about the fact that this is the 13th anniversary of National Mentoring Month, and today is Thank Your Mentor Day. With heartfelt gratitude, I would like to thank all of the mentors who serve in communities across Louisiana and all those who serve across the nation. I wish to acknowledge and I am very grateful to the following Senators: Senator Baldwin, Senator Brown, Senator Carper, Senator Cochran, Senator Durbin, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Rubio, Senator Schumer, Senator Scott, Senator Warren, and Senator Wyden, who cosponsored our mentor resolution and have been real leaders in the mentorship movement. In situations in which a young person is missing a caring, consistent presence, there is one simple intervention that can make all the difference: a good mentor. Research shows that mentoring improves academic achievement, self-esteem, social skills, and career development in children. The U.S. has strong mentoring programs, but more are needed. More than 4.5 million young people in the U.S. are in formal mentoring relationships; however, there are a growing number of young people who need mentors but do not have them. More than one in three young people, about 16 million Americans, are in need of a mentor. More than half of those who are without a mentor are at-risk youth. There is a particular need for an increase in mentors for foster youth who perhaps more than anyone else could benefit from a steady, dependable mentor. Because foster youth tend to move from home to home and school to school, they often lack the consistent academic guidance and emotional support they need to succeed. We need more caring mentors for these at-risk youth. We can all identify hundreds of young people or people of all different ages who are stepping up and doing an act of support and mentoring for a young person and who is making a real difference in their lives. I wish to just point out four in Louisiana today. One, as shown in this picture, is Lorita. She is serving 20 hours a week as a foster grandparent, working with special needs children at the James Ward Elementary School in Lake Charles, LA. With Lorita's loving guidance, her student mentee went from a 47- percent skill mastery in math to 80 percent. That is a pretty significant jump. That is a life-changing improvement for that child and opens a real opportunity for future mentorship work. One of my favorite mentor programs is the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program, which started in Louisiana in 1993. The program opens its doors to young people between the ages of 16 and 18 who have dropped out of school, in many instances have dropped out of their families. Their families have given up on them and they have given up on their families and in many instances they are headed nowhere but to either prison or to a homeless shelter or worse. Our National Guard steps up and helps; doing all the amazing things our National Guard does here at home in peacetime and in war, they have also mentored over 15,000 young people in Louisiana in the last 20 years. We graduate from our three programs in Louisiana about 1,400 kids a year, each one with a mentor. So I wish to give a shout out to the National Guard and the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program. Of course, a program we all support on both sides of the aisle is Big Brothers Big Sisters. There are three Big Brothers Big Sisters agencies, serving 871 at-risk youth in the State of Louisiana. These are youth who include children of single parent families, those with a parent who currently may be incarcerated or children who have been involved in the juvenile justice system. We have a wonderful Big Brother Big Sister mentor here. Urmie is an outstanding Big Sister serving in Jennings, LA, who proudly says her most rewarding aspect of serving as a mentor is: Knowing I am making a difference in a young person's life. Finally, our Big Buddy Program. Big Buddy is a leading community program in Baton Rouge, LA. It is national as well, supported broadly by Members of Congress and local officials. We in our program serve 700 disadvantaged youth each week. One of their most dedicated mentors, John, has served since 2008 and is a product of mentoring. John's father wasn't a presence in his life, so by his own admission, he lacked guidance growing up. However, he was blessed with some caring adults--his coach, teacher, and pastor--who stepped in to make sure he did not fall through the cracks. Once into adulthood and established in his career, John felt the need to reconnect and give back to children who face adversity. John is now the proud mentor of two mentees: Bobby and Charles. I encourage all Americans to seek out opportunities in their community to serve as a mentor, and I urge the public and private sectors to come together and create partnerships to close the mentoring gap. With an increase in dedicated mentors like Lorita, Michael, Urmie, and John we can ensure that more young Americans are better prepared for school, work, and life. Once again, please join me in celebrating January 2014 as National Mentoring Month and in honoring the millions of Americans who guide our youngest citizens towards achieving their dreams. Now I am going to end. But I do want to particularly say how proud I am of the Million Women Mentors which I find very exciting as a woman leader. I know the Presiding Officer will be thrilled to see the number of extraordinary businesses and organizations that are trying to identify 1 million mentors for girls in America to go into the field of science, technology, engineering, and math, which is a game changer for little girls and young women to think about careers such as science, technology, engineering, and math. There is often a need in our country for that skilled labor, so mentors are stepping up and filling in the gap. I want everyone to be proud that today is a celebration of mentorship month. I thank Senator Isakson for joining me in supporting this effort.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to talk about another very important bill. There was an hour exchange about unemployment, which is extremely important for the Nation. I think people got to hear arguments on both sides. They can continue to try to process that. I came to the floor this morning to talk about another very important piece of legislation that we do have very deep and very genuine bipartisan support for; that is, the flood insurance provision, the Homeowner Affordability Act, which will correct some of the more egregious provisions of a bill that passed a year-and-a-half ago called Biggert-Waters. The bill, Biggert-Waters, that was passed, named for the two Members of the House who led that effort, was well intentioned. In fact, I have had many wonderful conversations with Maxine Waters, the absolutely distinguished Congresswoman from California whose name is carried on that bill. She had wonderful intentions because California, like Louisiana, depends on a program to work that is sustainable and affordable, but she even recognized and has been so gracious with her time to come to Louisiana to say we intended for this to fix the problem, but I admit we made it worse; the way FEMA has interpreted some of the things we have done has made it worse and the fact that the Federal Government continues, despite our efforts, to recognize levees people have built. So she has agreed to help lead our effort to reform a bill she and Congresswoman Judy Biggert passed a year-and-a-half ago. I wish to start by commending the leadership. In the House, the effort is being led by Congresswoman Waters and Congressman Grimm. There are chairs of standing committees, working with them as we speak, to figure out how to move forward in the House. But in the Senate we have been working so well together. Despite all of the commotion and adversarial positions on other issues, we put together a very excellent coalition of about 200 organizations. I am going to read those names in just a minute--200 organizations that have been working with us to fashion a reform bill that meets these objectives. The Presiding Officer has spoken on the floor of the Senate now at least a half dozen times that I have listened to her speak on the floor, so she knows all this that I am going to say because she said it even better than I can. But the provisions that are in our reform bill for flood insurance meet important goals. First of all, it is affordable to the middle-class people who are required to have it. That is the most important thing about flood insurance, that it be affordable to the people required to have it. Yes, there are some very wealthy families who live in mansions on beaches that are required to have it. They will have no problem paying a substantial premium. But there are millions of middle-class families--many of them in Louisiana--who do not live anywhere near the water and they most certainly do not live in mansions on the beach. They live in middle-class, blue-collar, working neighborhoods far from lakes, a distance from rivers, and nowhere near the ocean. They have found themselves caught up in paying premiums they cannot afford. If we do not fix this, the premiums coming into the program will be less and less. People will be defaulting on homes. Banks, communities will take a downward economic spiral and the program itself will collapse. We cannot have this program collapse. So even though our critics--and this has been in the newspapers--are saying we are trying to saddle taxpayers with a huge debt, nothing could be further from the truth. We are trying to save taxpayers from a big bailout by reforming a program that needs to be reformed and fixed so middle-class people can afford it, banks can operate well with it, homebuilders can build homes with it, realtors can sell the homes with the program, which they are not able to do now. Everyone can get back to work, anxiety can be reduced and give us some time to figure out how to reach those two important goals: so the taxpayers do not have to bail us out and homeowners and businesses can afford it. Is that too much to ask? I don't think so. Happily, Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson, two veteran leaders of the Senate, have put a very good bill together. We are ready to vote. We are ready to vote. We could vote, actually, right now if we could just get a few matters worked out. I would like to talk about what those few matters are publicly so people can start working them out because I think the more things that are transparent around here the better off we all are and things that are done in secret are usually problematic. Let me say to the many people following this that the base bill is still basically in the order that everyone understands it to be. It is printed. It has been visible, public, for weeks now. That bill that is the basic essence of the compromises worked out by Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson and, I might say, with Senator Merkley's extraordinary leadership as a subcommittee chair, that is the base bill. There are amendments that Senators want to offer. Happily they are all related to flood. To my knowledge--and Senator Isakson has worked through this, as I have, and Senator Menendez--there is a Hagan provision about escrow requirements that we think we should vote on. We are not sure how that vote will turn out, but we are happy to vote on it. There is a Blunt amendment the National Association of Home Builders has suggested we have an amendment on. We could vote on that as well. There is a Crapo amendment that is in the works. Some of these amendments have been filed and have language. Some of them are just in theory form. There is a Crapo amendment that would adjust the rate increases in the underlying bill. We could vote on that. There is a Reed amendment, Senator Reed of Rhode Island. This would require FEMA to conduct a study on the viability of offering community-based flood insurance policies. My notes say there is broad support for that. There is a Coburn amendment, which is an alternative to the NARAB. That amendment will probably not receive the votes required, but we are happy to talk about his amendment and have him offer it. There is a Merkley amendment that will subject NFIB policyholders to force-placed insurance policies if they let their policies lapse--it is a technical amendment--and also a Rubio-Nelson amendment that is being discussed. Those are the only amendments we know about. If there is anybody else who has an amendment on flood who would like to offer it or have it considered, the next couple of hours would be the last opportunity to get those amendments in. I know everybody is busy. I cleared my calendar. I had meeting. I cleared my calendar to do this today because it is very important that we not just get so busy with other things that we leave this place and not get this done. We are working transparently, openly, so there are no games to be played by either side. Again, I wish to repeat, there is a Hagan amendment pending--not pending but that we know of--a Rubio-Nelson, a Reed of Rhode Island, a Coburn, a Merkley, a Blunt, and then Toomey, who was just on the floor, the Senator from Pennsylvania, has indicated he wants to offer a substitute to what we are proposing. I am not the manager of this bill so it is not my authority to make these definitive statements. Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson will ultimately decide the strategy. But as far as I understand, because we have all been working very hard together to move this bill to final passage--as far as I understand, these are the only amendments people would like to offer and there does not seem to be any objection to offering them. In addition, if people want 51 votes or if they want 60 votes, we are very open to that as well. We could pass the bill with 51 votes, we could pass the bill with 60 votes, so we are open. That is the game that is played here. You say we want 60, no, we want 51 or 51 and 60-- we can take it in any arithmetic anyone wants to give us. You want 51 votes, we can deliver them. You want 60 votes, we can deliver 60 votes because we have done the homework on this bill, working with coalitions, working with homeowners and businesses from South Dakota and North Dakota to New Jersey and New York, Mississippi, Louisiana, California, and Oregon. There is no disagreement. Well, there is some disagreement, but there is not enough disagreement to overcome the great coalition which was put together, which was evidenced by an extraordinary press conference a couple of days ago, where almost 20 Senators showed up, or they were represented by their staffs, saying we are ready to go. My message on the floor--I don't know how many more minutes I have.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like another 5; I ask unanimous consent.

Ms. LANDRIEU. What was evidenced earlier--and the coalition knows this--there is broad consensus. There are a few Senators who want to vote against this bill. There are a few Senators who want to offer amendments. Fine. Let the record show these amendments could be offered--these amendments, germane to this bill and any that would come to us in the next hour or so that are germane to this bill, we can take these amendments and have a 51-vote, a 60-vote requirement, and final passage on 51 or 60. Let's just get this done. There should be no confusion at all. I am glad no one on the opposite side is here debating me on this. That is a good sign for us that there truly is only one side to this story and this is the side. I am trying to be as fair as I can. I have named the people who have amendments, to our knowledge. We, the Democrats, have said we have no objection to them offering those amendments. If they want 51 or 60 votes, just let us know. I feel confident that our coalition can hold against any amendments that would try to gut this bill. We will let people know what those amendments are and who has offered them because we think this is absolutely right for the country, for the States we represent, and for the taxpayer. Give us a little time to work together to figure out how to strengthen the National Flood Insurance Program without bankrupting 5 million families. If we don't stop this train that has already left the station--we have to stop it, reverse it, and put it back in the train barn because it is going down the track pretty fast. This is not a good place to be. As I said, we probably should have never passed this bill, but it was put in a conference committee report that was unamendable and some provisions of it were indecipherable at the time. That is a little strong of a word, but they were not well understood. It wasn't that it was indecipherable; it was not well understood. After the bill was read and implemented, people thought, oh, my gosh, what have we done? This is not going to work. And they were right. I am going to stay on the floor this morning. If anyone on the Republican side wants to come down and disagree and challenge what I have presented, please do so because I want this to be a very open process. There is nothing for us to hide from, and that is what a democracy is about. There are some people who want to vote against our bill. Fine. Go ahead and vote against it. We have the votes to pass it. As I said, we have 60 votes. We may even have more than 60 votes. If we don't have the votes, all I can say is we tried our level best and we don't have the votes to correct it. I don't think that is the case. I am not going to allow the smoke and confusion and all the hot air around here to confuse the coalition that has worked too hard, and they need to hear my voice very clearly, which is why I am here. There is clarity. There is no opposition on the Democratic side to this bill. We are waiting for a few clarifications from the Republican side. We hope to get those clarifications. The only Democrats who have amendments that I know of are Senator Hagan, Senator Reed from Rhode Island, and Senator Merkley. We have no objection on the Democratic side for this bill and there are only three Members who have amendments, and we are happy to have a vote on those amendments. They are not controversial. Somebody might have a problem with them and might vote no. Fine, but they don't gut the bill. There is no problem with the bill. We are waiting on the Republican side for clarity. Again, I know how busy everyone is. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania is working very hard. He was just here speaking about unemployment insurance, and I know that is a very important issue to the people he represents, and to Louisiana. If he could get a little time to work on the amendment that we think he wants to offer on flood whenever he can, we are happy to have his amendment, and we will vote on it. Senators Isakson and Menendez will decide when and how and what the number is--51 or 60. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter. If his intention is to gut the bill, the bill will not be gutted. If his intention is to strengthen the bill, then that is a definite possibility. People are desperate to get an answer from Congress now. We should have done this 4 months ago before these rate increases. Escrow accounts are being collected. Some people were paying $500 a year and now they are paying $5,000. According to the Biggert-Waters law, the banks have to get that $5,000 and put it in the bank now to pay that insurance. That is a real hardship on people. We need to stop that and figure this out. Madam President, I ask for 1 additional minute. I think I have extended my time already.