Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, is there any objection to add to that list the Landrieu amendments Nos. 414 and 479?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I would like to add after that vote Senator Landrieu would be allowed to take up amendments Nos. 414 and 479.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 414.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be recognized for 1 minute.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am glad I was able to accommodate our colleague. At this time I send a modification to amendment No. 414 to the desk and ask unanimous consent that we discuss this slightly modified version.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we continue to discuss the supplemental bill, it is not the largest bill in terms of dollar amounts that we have talked about on the Senate floor. Of course, we manage to move through 13 appropriations bills most years. That is billions and billions of dollars in priorities that we are trying to reflect on behalf of our constituents in our States and around the Nation. One of the important components of this $80 billion supplemental bill is about $1 billion for relief for tsunami victims. We remember all too vividly and dramatically and traumatically when on Sunday, December 26, a wave of about 50 feet hit several countries in the Indian Ocean, primarily Indonesia, and within a few hours or a few days, 120,000 people were dead, some of them children who were simply unable to get out of the way of the wave; there was no warning. The Senators who have forwarded this supplemental are very aware of the needs. I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Craig and myself because part of the effort to reconstruct this region is to help not only rebuild the roads, rebuild the houses, rebuild the schools, reinvest in the health and education infrastructure. I argue that it is most important for us to rebuild the families. We talk about nation rebuilding. We talk about building nations. We talk about reconstruction. All of that is wonderful and terrific, but I don't know if people are understanding that nations are built, communities are built, cities are built on families. When I read through the many pages of this very well put together bill, one of the problems was there was not a mention under the title for USAID of this Government's efforts to reunite orphans and parents, to establish strong programs or initiatives to help reunite children with parents who are still alive or with extended family relatives so that those family units can be strong. I can tell you, I know from experience--and I think every Republican and Democrat on this floor would agree with me--you can build the strongest buildings in the world. You can build the mightiest interstate systems. You could have the finest school buildings and the finest universities. But if you don't have strong families, the nation, the community, is not going to thrive, and there will be no future. The future is passed from parent to child, from grandparent to grandchild, not from a bureaucratic government. Governments do a lot of things well, but let me stand here on behalf of the Coalition on Adoption, which represents 180 Members of Congress, to say, governments do a lot of things well. Raising children is not one of them. Parents raise children. Senator Craig and I--and I see the Senator on the floor, and I would like him to add his insights--want to strongly go on the record saying that if we are going to spend a billion dollars to help tsunami victims, certainly we can carve out of that money, not adding money to this, $25 million for the express purpose of strengthening families, identifying those children who have been orphaned, working to see if some relative would adopt them. If that relative who wants to adopt has lost their fishing boat and is no longer able to provide for their surviving children and the orphans of the sister or brother who was lost next to them in the wave, then these programs we are establishing could help to reunite that family and keep them together and not pull these children out of these family units and send them to be raised in an orphanage or in a boarding school and give them food. They need more than food. They need emotional support. They need spiritual support. They need care. I could go on and on for hours, which I won't do, to give you documents that are alarming to me from people whose salaries we pay saying that this is not important. I want to say to the Members--and all of us feel it is quite important--it is a real problem when these pages do not reflect that principle and that priority. I know Senator Craig's time may be short. Let me yield at the moment to him. He may want to add a word. I am hoping we can get this adopted without a vote.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his insight and his addition to the record. Let me make two additional points. As we know, President Bush has asked former President Bush and former President Clinton to head up an international private sector effort, so the money that we lay down, the $1 billion, is sort of a guide to the private dollars being raised. This Congress cannot, with the power that we have, let this budget go out without a mention or a specific dedication or at least an underscore that we in the Congress think families are important, we would like to send that message out to private donors saying: Please, let's rebuild the highways, let's rebuild the schools, let's rebuild the hospitals. But while we are doing that, let's respect the family. Let's honor the family. Let's try to keep children within families through extended kinship adoption, through adoption domestically and, if not, through international adoption with all the proper safeguards. Second, we have spent a lot of time coming up with new rules and regulations about child trafficking, child exploitation. It is terrible to see children sold into the sex trade, and many of these children are sold into the sex trade because they don't have parents who are watching them and protecting them. Yet in some cultures it is unfortunate that even children have children and the parents are not strong enough, either economically or in a strong enough physical position, to protect these children from these exploitations. So I say to my friends in this room, if we want to protect children from exploitation, if we want to protect children from child trafficking, then, heavens, help them find a parent. Parents do a lot better job of protecting children than any army in the world. Nobody could get my children out from underneath my watchful eye. So I know. We all hover around our children and protect them. The least our Government can do is honor the work parents in the United States of America do in trying to protect their children, and when their parents are killed or separated from them, move them to adoptive parents who will protect them and keep them away from the traffickers. So I say to the leaders, the managers of the bill, we are not adding money to the bill; $25 million is not that much money when you are talking about continents and nations and hundreds of thousands of families that could benefit. Please consider accepting this amendment. If not, you can understand why Senator Craig and I would have to ask for a vote. We are not asking for any more money. We have mentioned everything in this bill--physical disabilities, mental illness, loss of fishing boats, highways, houses, schools. I have read every page of it, and I am on the Appropriations Committee. I cannot find a mention in here about the U.S. Government--after many of us have traveled to the region and taken pictures with orphans and with the families and promised aid, I don't see why we cannot earmark and set as a priority $25 million, which is a small amount of money, to this end. That is basically the argument. I hope the leadership will accept it. I thank the chairman, the Senator from Mississippi, for his great help and support. I know it is a difficult bill to move through. Whether he wants to vote now or if he wants to stack it for later, I am open to that.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, last year the Internal Revenue Service hit my State like a Category 4 hurricane when it determined that disaster mitigation benefits from the Federal Emergency Management Agency are taxable. We get hurricane warnings when a storm is coming, we can track their paths as they come out of the Carribean and into the Gulf of Mexico. We didn't get any kind of ``tax warning'' from the IRS, but the financial toll on many of my constituents was devastating. Let me explain what happened. In June of last year, the IRS chief counsel issued an advice letter that determined that FEMA disaster mitigation benefits were taxable as a matter of law. This ruling applied to a variety mitigation grant programs, covering a wide range of natural disasters. The main disasters that concern us in Louisiana are hurricanes and flooding. They are as much a part of life as crawfish boils and Mardi Gras. The key to our peace of mind is the National Flood Insurance program administered by FEMA. In Louisiana, 377,000 property owners participate in the National Flood Insurance program. It is a real Godsend to the people of my state. The National Flood Insurance program also provides funding for property owners to flood-proof their homes through the flood mitigation grant program. FEMA distributes these grant funds to the States which then pass them along to local communities. The local communities select properties for mitigation and contract for the mitigation services. Communities use these funds to put homes on stilts, improve drainage on property, and to acquire flood proofing materials. These mitigation grants encourage property owners to take responsible steps to lessen the potential for loss of life and property damage due to future flooding. The grants also have the added benefit of saving money in the long term for the flood insurance program. But the IRS has turned this valuable disaster preparedness and prevention program into a financial disaster for responsible property owners by making these payments taxable. This tax is unfair, unexpected, and an unfortunate policy decision--unfair and unexpected because no one told my constituents that they would be taxed for accepting FEMA disaster mitigation assistance. The local officials in their parish were just as surprised. This tax is unfortunate policy because in the long term, the IRS will undercut the effectiveness of using mitigation as a means of decreasing future costs to the flood insurance program. It will force people to take risks that they will not be hit by a disaster. I was pleased that the House of Representatives passed a bill, H.R. 1134, to correct this problem. It says that going forward, disaster mitigation benefits are not taxable. But this legislation is not retroactive. It offers no relief to people who are facing a huge tax bill this Friday, April 15, for mitigation funding received in 2004 or earlier years. Virtually every constituent who has written or called my office about this issue received their grant in 2004. This bill will do nothing for them. I understand that the sponsors of H.R. 1134 and its Senate version S. 586 claim that once it has been passed, the Department of the Treasury will issue some sort of notice to IRS field personnel essentially making the effect of this bill retroactive. Treasury officials, however, cannot cite a legal justification for issuing such a notice. They claim that they can rely on the floor statements of the chairs and ranking members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee as a basis for issuing the notice. Mr. President, we cannot legislate on a wink and a nod. The right way to make this relief retroactive is to pass the Baucus-Grassley amendment to H.R. 1134 and send it back to the House. This amendment will extend the tax relief in this bill to all recipients of FEMA disaster mitigation assistance past, present, and future. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for their leadership in bringing this matter to the floor. April 15th is 2 days away. I urge the other body to take up and pass H.R. 1134 as amended by the Senate, and send it to the President for his signature. This bill will bring peace of mind to thousands of responsible property owners who face an unfair tax burden. We should not allow April 15th to pass without giving these people relief.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, every session in Congress, we spend a large amount of time discussing education in this country. Debates range from accountability to school construction to teacher recruitment. While our discussions are of the utmost importance, it is the implementation of our decisions by individuals within the education system that changes how our children learn. Today, I honor an elementary school in Paradis, LA that has served as an example of a great school that is achieving the goals we set forth in these halls. R.J. Vial Elementary School will turn 30 years old this Friday, April 8th. There will be festivities and celebrations for students, alumni, teachers, administrators, and parents. But I would like to take a minute to talk about the real celebration of this school. In the past 5 years, R.J. Vial Elementary School has steadily increased the number of students passing the LEAP 21 test in all four areas that the test covers. R.J. Vial is clearly meeting its mission of developing respectful, lifelong learners. That is what I would like to celebrate today in the United States Senate. In the April 2005 Community Newsletter of R.J. Vial Elementary School, Principal Frederick A. Treuting wrote, ``Our greatest and perhaps only truly effective discipline tool is a strong relationship that bonds us to our children.'' Principal Treuting could not be more correct. If we are to succeed in educating our children to the best of our ability, we must reach out to them and work to raise academic achievement in our public schools by putting the priority on performance instead of process, delivering results instead of developing rules, and on actively encouraging bold reform instead of passively tolerating failure. At 510 Louisiana Street in Paradis, LA, R.J. Vial Elementary School is already doing these things and because of that, has become one of the finest schools in the state of Louisiana. There is no greater investment we can in our future than in the education of our children. I commend the hard work of all the people who have and currently work at and with R.J. Vial Elementary School; you are giving the best gift you can to our youth. It has been said that it takes a village to raise a child, so we must all work together to see that we educate our children to the best of our ability. And to the students, both past and present, of R.J. Vial, I offer my congratulations. Because of your efforts in the classroom for the past thirty years, R.J. Vial Elementary School has become the beacon of success that it is today. Happy Birthday, R.J. Vial Elementary School! My heartfelt congratulations to all involved with the school, and best wishes to another great 30 years.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kathleen Strottman be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the budget resolution.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor to lay down an amendment to provide a place in this budget for the men and women who are placing their lives on the line for us. A couple of months ago, before we went on our break in December and January, I had the great privilege, actually, of holding this body in a filibuster for 3 days. It was not something that was planned, but it was something that evolved after I found out that the last huge FSC-ETI bill that we passed in the Senate managed to find tax relief, tax cuts, special tax considerations for seemingly everyone in America except for the men and women in uniform fighting for us. I know people listening tonight will really not believe what I am saying is true. But they can go to Web sites on this budget to look at the record, or talk to their Guard and National Reserve to see that what I am saying is actually true. We have passed trillions and trillions of dollars in tax cuts since 2001. It would be one thing if we were taking money out of the budget to do that, but we are actually borrowing money to give tax cuts. We are not just taking money that is just sitting there sort of waiting for us to decide how to use it and then giving it to tax cuts based on some reason about who would need it the most. We are borrowing money, charging it to our children and our grandchildren, and then giving tax cuts to people who arguably do not need it. Many Democrats have come to the Senate floor and tried to make that case over and over again, and I hope that some of this is getting through. But whether they are a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, or whether they were for the war in Iraq; whether they think the troops should stay there or come home; or whether they believe there were weapons of mass destruction and we went in for the right reasons or there were not and we went in for the wrong reasons, I think universally in America people believe, no matter what their political persuasion, that if we are going to continue to give tax cuts the first people who should get them are the people who are fighting to protect us. But in this budget, on page 21, proposed by the President of the United States, in small print, which I am sorry cannot be picked up by the camera, it says: The Committee-reported resolution assumes on-budget revenues are reduced by $70.2 billion over five years. The resolution instructs the Senate Finance Committee to basically give out $70 billion in taxes. So if this budget passes the way it is now, $70 billion is going to have to be given out in taxes, in addition to the $2 trillion we have already passed--these numbers are just mind- boggling; it is impossible for me to describe how much money that is. But this President is intent basically on emptying the Treasury for tax cuts. So I have argued that is not what we should do. I believe we should balance the budget. I was one of 50 Senators today who voted on the only amendment that actually would have gotten us there, which was the pay-go amendment. We lost by one vote. So I am not going to make that argument tonight again. I believe that if we are going to give $70 billion in tax cuts, which is what this budget instructs us to do, please, Mr. President, could we please give a tax cut to the men and women in uniform? They are the ones who have left their homes in Louisiana, North Dakota, Tennessee, all over the country, and gone to the front lines to fight for us. The sad thing about this is that 40 percent of those men and women who go from the Guard and Reserve take a pay cut to fight for us. It is inconceivable to me that this administration, or anybody in the Senate, would stand here tonight and argue for a budget that gives $70 billion in additional tax cuts to people who may or may not need them and yet at the same time ask our soldiers to go to the front line and take a pay cut. When we come to the floor and go to the Finance Committee and beg and plead on their behalf, could they give them a few pennies, could they give them a few dollars, we are told over and over again, I am sorry, we cannot afford it. The last ``military tax relief'' the Congress passed was a $1.2 billion bill. I wish I could show how tiny that is. I mean, $1.2 billion is a lot of money, but relative to what we are giving out to everybody else in tax cuts, it is so small. When we did that bill, I went to them and said: Look, can we do better? Our men and women need this tax break. Their employers are trying to keep their paychecks whole. If we give a tax cut to their employers who are voluntarily continuing to pay their active duty Guard and Reserve employees' salaries, perhaps they could at least keep their paycheck. We are not talking about extra money; we are just talking about letting them get their paycheck that they got when they were firemen, policemen, an architect, a doctor, or a lawyer. Let them keep that paycheck. This is not even really for the soldiers, because these guys and gals are making the sacrifice. This is to keep their wives, their spouses, and their children in their homes, in their automobiles, getting them to the doctor. For some reason--I do not know why--this Senate, particularly the Republican leadership, refuses to give a tax credit to the Guard and Reserve. So the last time a bill came through, I asked: Could you please attach this amendment to it? Sorry, Senator Landrieu, we cannot afford it. We cannot possibly give the Guard and Reserve a tax cut. Do you not understand, we do not have any money. I do not know what they are talking about, because this budget is going to give another $70 billion in tax cuts. So please do not even argue with me on the point. I am not going to listen. There is $70 billion given away in this budget again, and I am going to ask for the $1.2 billion out of $70 billion--pennies, pennies--for the Guard and Reserve. Let me tell you how this affects Guard and Reserve families. This is a letter from Kansas, the State of Senators Brownback and Roberts: After 9/11 [my husband] was activated . . . His pay was significantly decreased, his health care was in jeopardy, and I was pregnant. Here was my family, making so many sacrifices for our country and our country wasn't taking care of us at all. How could this be happening?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Continuing: Luckily, our country may not have been taking care of us under the circumstances, but [my husband's company] was. [They] sent us a check to make up the difference in pay for my husband's entire activation. They deserve to be recognized as a great supporter of our military by receiving this tax credit. This tax credit would go to businesses that are doing the patriotic thing, helping the Guard and Reserve on the front line, keeping them and their families out of bankruptcy, not having to mortgage their house, not having to give up the car while they are fighting for us. This tax credit is going to benefit the thousands of Guard and Reserve in Louisiana and thousands of Guard and Reserve in our country. It is unconscionable that the Senate Finance Committee, or this budget, would contemplate yet more tax cuts for everybody in America and leave out the men and women in uniform. What is worse about it is every picture we are in is taken with men and women in uniform, with that flag flying, but when it comes to putting them in the budget--we can put them in our campaign pictures, all right, but we cannot put them in the budget. That is what my amendment does. We are going to vote on it tomorrow. It does not add one penny. It just says to the Finance Committee, go ahead and give away $70 billion again, but the first $1.2 billion is going to be given to the men and women in uniform. They deserve it. Shame on us if we do not put them in. So we are not going to vote on this tonight, but for the Guard and Reserve in my State, for the Guard and Reserve in New Hampshire, for the Guard and Reserve in South Carolina, North Dakota, and South Dakota, I hope we will get 100 percent of the Senators to vote on this. If anybody wants to debate it, I will stay here all night and debate it as long as anybody wants, but I think my time has been limited.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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 that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the anniversary of the death of a young woman whose courage and willingness to help others should inspire us all. Fern Holland, who was murdered near the Iraqi city of Karbala at the age of 33 a year ago today, lived her life to create the most equal and just global society obtainable. In light of International Women's Day, which was yesterday, I think it is only fitting that we honor the life of someone who led the fight to protect women throughout the world. Fern Holland realized the importance of helping others early in her life, which is exemplified by the path she chose. There are hundreds of people whose lives have been touched by Fern Holland and I believe her legacy will live long beyond her years on Earth. In the January before her death Holland wrote in an e-mail to her former boss, Tulsa lawyer Stephen Rodolf. ``I love the work and if I die, know that I'm doing precisely what I want to be doing--working to organize and educate human rights activists and women's groups. I urge my colleagues to remember Fern Holland when they have lost the strength to continue to work for the good of all people. We must diligently work to sustain the passion Fern Holland possessed. As a living memorial to her, I challenge each of my colleagues to continue to work for a better future for all people, particularly those without their own voice. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to her family who are feeling this loss more than anyone else. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and use this day as a time to remember Fern Holland's extraordinary life and to use her example to recommit ourselves to the better good of all people.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, tax day is right around the corner; just over a month away. For most Americans, April 15 is rather routine. You spend several days or weeks determining the amount you owe and you pay it. But for Christina and Raymond F., two of my constituents--I will not use their last name to maintain their privacy--of Avondale, LA, this upcoming tax day is going to be anything but routine. Earlier this year, Christina and Raymond received a letter from their parish government informing them that they must add $45,000 to their gross income this year. You see, Christina and Raymond's home is located in a flood zone. That is not unusual in Louisiana. Twenty percent of the coastal zone of my state lies below sea level, including 80 percent of our largest city New Orleans. In order to protect their home from rising waters, they applied to their local parish to get flood mitigation assistance to raise their home above the base flood elevation in their area. To qualify, they had to raise $20,000, which they did by refinancing their home, and the parish paid the remaining $45,000 through FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program. What Christina and Raymond did not realize was that at the very same time that they were having this work done on their home, the Internal Revenue Service had decided that FEMA disaster mitigation assistance should be taxable. So now, this couple is going to have to pay taxes on $45,000 even though they never saw a dime of this money. This news hit this family like a Category 4 hurricane. When Christina called my office she thought she said she would have to sell her house in order pay the IRS. This is a family with modest means, living in a neighborhood that they describe as working class. Her husband's medical costs are astronomical--$1,400 per month for his medication alone. The house is worth about $100,000 and the mitigation work did not add a significant amount to its value according to an appraisal they received. You can imagine that under these circumstances, the taxes on an additional $45,000 would wipe them out. In a place like Louisiana where hurricanes and floods are as much a part of life as crawfish boils and Mardi Gras, the key to our peace of mind is the National Flood Insurance Program administered by FEMA. In Louisiana, 377,000 property owners participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. It is a real Godsend to the people of my state. In addition, the National Flood Insurance Program provides funding for property owners to flood-proof their homes through the flood mitigation grant program. FEMA distributes these grant funds to the states which then pass them along to local communities. The local communities select properties for mitigation and contract for the mitigation services. Communities use these funds to put homes on stilts, improve drainage on property, and to acquire flood proofing materials. These mitigation grants encourage property owners to take responsible steps to lessen the potential for loss of life and property damage due to future flooding. The grants also have the added benefit of saving money in the long term for the Flood Insurance program. But the IRS has turned this valuable disaster preparedness and prevention program into a financial disaster for responsible property owners by making these payments taxable. The first time Christina and Raymond learned that this funding was taxable was when their local community sent them a letter at the beginning of this year. All the people in my state ask for is a warning and an opportunity to protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones from these disasters. Through the state-of-the-art systems developed by the National Weather Service, we can get a warning about a hurricane. We have sophisticated radar to track these storms as they move through the Gulf of Mexico, or up the East Coast. When a Category 4 is coming we can prepare and pray. The IRS is making us prepare and pay. This tax is unfair, unexpected, and an unfortunate policy decision. Unfair and unexpected because no one told Christina and Raymond that they would be taxed for accepting FEMA disaster mitigation assistance. The local officials in their parish were just as surprised as the property owners were. It is unfortunate policy because in the long term, the IRS will undercut the effectiveness of using mitigation as a means of decreasing future costs to the flood insurance program. It will force people to take risks that they will not be hit by a disaster. Today, I am introducing legislation to protect these responsible property owners from this unfair tax. My bill excludes disaster mitigation assistance from gross income. I have made it retroactive to last year in order to protect those property owners who received assistance in 2004. I understand that a companion measure has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Mark Foley of Florida. It is supported by a number of House members from states with high incidents of flooding and other natural disasters, many from Louisiana. I applaud their efforts. But this is not a regional, special-interest bill. FEMA makes mitigation grants for a variety of hazards in addition to flooding: fire, tornadoes, earthquakes, thunderstorms, dam failures, and a host of others. This is not a problem just for properties that flood. So if your citizens have used a federal disaster mitigation program to help make their properties safer, the tax man will come for them too. It is essential that the Congress consider this legislation and pass it as soon as possible. As I said at the start of my remarks, tax day is coming. We need to act to protect responsible property owners from paying this unfair tax.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, tax day is right around the corner; just over a month away. For most Americans, April 15 is rather routine. You spend several days or weeks determining the amount you owe and you pay it. But for Christina and Raymond F., two of my constituents--I will not use their last name to maintain their privacy--of Avondale, LA, this upcoming tax day is going to be anything but routine. Earlier this year, Christina and Raymond received a letter from their parish government informing them that they must add $45,000 to their gross income this year. You see, Christina and Raymond's home is located in a flood zone. That is not unusual in Louisiana. Twenty percent of the coastal zone of my state lies below sea level, including 80 percent of our largest city New Orleans. In order to protect their home from rising waters, they applied to their local parish to get flood mitigation assistance to raise their home above the base flood elevation in their area. To qualify, they had to raise $20,000, which they did by refinancing their home, and the parish paid the remaining $45,000 through FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program. What Christina and Raymond did not realize was that at the very same time that they were having this work done on their home, the Internal Revenue Service had decided that FEMA disaster mitigation assistance should be taxable. So now, this couple is going to have to pay taxes on $45,000 even though they never saw a dime of this money. This news hit this family like a Category 4 hurricane. When Christina called my office she thought she said she would have to sell her house in order pay the IRS. This is a family with modest means, living in a neighborhood that they describe as working class. Her husband's medical costs are astronomical--$1,400 per month for his medication alone. The house is worth about $100,000 and the mitigation work did not add a significant amount to its value according to an appraisal they received. You can imagine that under these circumstances, the taxes on an additional $45,000 would wipe them out. In a place like Louisiana where hurricanes and floods are as much a part of life as crawfish boils and Mardi Gras, the key to our peace of mind is the National Flood Insurance Program administered by FEMA. In Louisiana, 377,000 property owners participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. It is a real Godsend to the people of my state. In addition, the National Flood Insurance Program provides funding for property owners to flood-proof their homes through the flood mitigation grant program. FEMA distributes these grant funds to the states which then pass them along to local communities. The local communities select properties for mitigation and contract for the mitigation services. Communities use these funds to put homes on stilts, improve drainage on property, and to acquire flood proofing materials. These mitigation grants encourage property owners to take responsible steps to lessen the potential for loss of life and property damage due to future flooding. The grants also have the added benefit of saving money in the long term for the Flood Insurance program. But the IRS has turned this valuable disaster preparedness and prevention program into a financial disaster for responsible property owners by making these payments taxable. The first time Christina and Raymond learned that this funding was taxable was when their local community sent them a letter at the beginning of this year. All the people in my state ask for is a warning and an opportunity to protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones from these disasters. Through the state-of-the-art systems developed by the National Weather Service, we can get a warning about a hurricane. We have sophisticated radar to track these storms as they move through the Gulf of Mexico, or up the East Coast. When a Category 4 is coming we can prepare and pray. The IRS is making us prepare and pay. This tax is unfair, unexpected, and an unfortunate policy decision. Unfair and unexpected because no one told Christina and Raymond that they would be taxed for accepting FEMA disaster mitigation assistance. The local officials in their parish were just as surprised as the property owners were. It is unfortunate policy because in the long term, the IRS will undercut the effectiveness of using mitigation as a means of decreasing future costs to the flood insurance program. It will force people to take risks that they will not be hit by a disaster. Today, I am introducing legislation to protect these responsible property owners from this unfair tax. My bill excludes disaster mitigation assistance from gross income. I have made it retroactive to last year in order to protect those property owners who received assistance in 2004. I understand that a companion measure has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Mark Foley of Florida. It is supported by a number of House members from states with high incidents of flooding and other natural disasters, many from Louisiana. I applaud their efforts. But this is not a regional, special-interest bill. FEMA makes mitigation grants for a variety of hazards in addition to flooding: fire, tornadoes, earthquakes, thunderstorms, dam failures, and a host of others. This is not a problem just for properties that flood. So if your citizens have used a federal disaster mitigation program to help make their properties safer, the tax man will come for them too. It is essential that the Congress consider this legislation and pass it as soon as possible. As I said at the start of my remarks, tax day is coming. We need to act to protect responsible property owners from paying this unfair tax.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Mr. John ``Red'' Bourg, who passed away last October. Red Bourg served his family, his State and his country well, and deserves the recognition of this body. Red was a devout Christian, and he made a wonderful home in Baton Rouge with his wife Mildred and their two children, Brenda and Ronnie. Red loved and cared for the people of the State of Louisiana and the United States, and worked to improve their quality of life until the day he died. In addition to being a great family man, Red Bourg served our country in peace and in war. As a young man, he joined the United States Marine Corps and fought in the Korean War, serving with honor and distinction. Years after returning, Red was selected to become the Louisiana State Commander of the Marine Corps League, an impressive honor, for an equally impressive person. However, Red was best known for his work with the Louisiana AFL-CIO. He worked his way up the union ladder, beginning as a member of the Local 995 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and climbing all the way to become the president of the Louisiana AFL-CIO. Red joined the staff at the AFL-CIO in 1967, becoming the assistant to the president and in 1997, some 30 years later, he became President of that great organization. I think that says a lot about the hard work and determination of the man. I once again honor my friend, Mr. John ``Red'' Bourg, for his efforts on Louisiana's behalf. I knew Red my entire adult life and can attest that he is truly missed. I know I speak for many others when I say that Red Bourg will always be fondly remembered for the outstanding service he has rendered to his State and his Nation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the service of Sibal Holt, who is the first female and the first African American to serve as the President of the Louisiana AFL-CIO. Firsts like these have become commonplace for this barrier-breaking woman. She has long been a trailblazer in the State of Louisiana. She became the first African American to be hired into the Bell System and also the first registered lobbyist in the State of Louisiana, both remarkable achievements given the climate of the times. Sibal Holt has been a selfless steward of her community. She formerly served as the president of the Louisiana American Red Cross, as well as other charitable organizations, such as Volunteer Baton Rouge and the Baton Rouge Women's Resource Center. Sibal is probably most recognized for her pioneering efforts in voter registration. Holt once led a statewide voter registration drive, resulting in an astounding 70,000 new voters for Louisiana. But it is the AFL-CIO where she has left her biggest imprint. Sibal began her work at the AFL-CIO in 1975, not surprisingly becoming the first minority selected to join the Executive Board of any State's AFL- CIO. Twenty-two years later, in 1997, she became the union's Secretary/ Treasurer, serving in that capacity until she was elected president of the Louisiana AFL-CIO in November 2004, replacing John ``Red'' Bourg after his untimely death. I once again congratulate my friend, Sibal Holt, for her groundbreaking accomplishments on behalf of the working class in the State of Louisiana. It is people such as Sibal that continue to make Louisiana such a dynamic State.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. I rise to say a few words to congratulate my colleague, a gentleman I have known for many years and so many in Louisiana and around the Nation have come to admire and respect for his energy and commitment. I can only say the only disappointment in his maiden speech is that he did not call for the Mardi Gras to be a national holiday. The two of us are going to join forces and continue to work on that. I think most of our colleagues would readily sign that resolution, so we will see. But let me in seriousness thank him for joining the effort and putting his shoulder to the wheel to lower prescription drug costs for the people of Louisiana and our Nation. There are many critically important and urgent issues before the Congress but that ranks among the top. I believe his expertise in that area is going to be called on often in the next few months as this debate continues. Also, I would need to mention that I thank him for his efforts in mentioning and fighting for, both in his time in the House and the Louisiana Legislature, the issue of coastal erosion. I see our good friend, the Senator from Arkansas, in the Chamber, and I was joking with his colleague, Senator Lincoln, last night, saying if we are not successful in our efforts against coastal erosion, they, too, will have the great benefit of representing a coastal State because Louisiana may not be there if we do not address this issue. On accountability in education, this Congress has made remarkable progress, and our State, you may not realize but as Senator Vitter knows, is leading the Nation in both accountability and also requirements in those new standards, and on transportation. I look forward to working with him. He has two excellent committee assignments on Commerce and EPA. He will follow in the great footsteps of Senator John Breaux who served so ably on the Committee on Commerce in the area of fisheries as well as coastal issues on that committee, and on Transportation. So I say to Senator Vitter, welcome to the Senate. Your energy, your enthusiasm, and your vision are going to mean a great deal to strengthen this already august body. Thank you and God bless you in your term.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to National Girls and Women in Sports Day. Tomorrow evening the Louisiana State University women's basketball team, which is currently ranked No. 1 in the Nation, will take on the fifth ranked University of Tennessee's Lady Volunteers. On Friday, LSU's lady gymnastics team, ranked third in the Nation, will face the women of the University of Georgia, ranked seventh nationally. While I mention these two sporting events to highlight the achievements of the lady Tigers, I am also citing them to show how far women's sports have come in the past 35 years. Girls and women in sports today are leading our high schools, our colleges and universities, and our society. Seimone Augustus, the 6' 1" guard for LSU's women's basketball team, is now a candidate to receive the Player of the Year Award for 2005. Last year, Carly Patterson of Baton Rouge, LA, became the first American woman since Mary Lou Retton to win the women's all-around competition for gymnastics. In an age in which one in six girls are obese and heart disease is the number one cause of death among American women, it is important that we encourage our girls to participate in athletics and other physical activities. And the benefits that girls receive from participating in sports are far more than physical. Through sports, young girls learn leadership, self confidence, teamwork, and a host of other skills that they will use through their entire life. It is important that we, as a society, support these girls and women in their athletic endeavors. Aside from just praising the fine women sports teams of Louisiana, I would like to offer special thanks to the organizations that are members of the coalition for National Girls and Women in Sports Day: the American Association of University Women, Girl Scouts of the USA, Girls Incorporated, the National Association for Girls and Women in Sports, the National Women's Law Center, the Women's Sports Foundation, and the YWCA USA. Introducing our young women to athletics and encouraging their active participation in such events, is an important task, and one I look forward to doing with my own daughter. Today I commend the achievements of all girls and women throughout this country that participate in sports, and ask that my colleagues join me in honoring the National Girls and Women in Sports Day.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, the junior senator from Virginia, to resubmit our resolution of apology for the Senate's failure to pass anti-lynching legislation. We brought this legislation to the Senate's attention in the closing days of the 108th Congress, and indicated then that we would return in February, Black History Month, and seek its adoption his body. When submitting the resolution earlier, I provided a narrative that described the horrors lynching. It is not necessary to review those facts at this time. The focus of my comments today concerns a critique of the need for this bill. As with many historical errors, there are those who suggest that we are looking at history with twenty-twenty vision. They assert we cannot pass judgment on people living in another context; everyone is blind to their own prejudices, while seeing those of the past clearly. That is a critique that has a lot of merit in some cases. Societal morays evolve. In fact, our nation's entire history may be viewed as a giant experiment. Viewed from this perspective we find a slow, evolutionary understanding of the meanings of justice, liberty and democracy. However, Senator Allen and I remain confident in what we are seeking to do. The reason is that the Senate's failure to pass anti- lynching legislation is not merely a tragedy now, it was a tragedy then. Socrates taught us that ``the greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.'' The Senate filibusters that blocked anti-lynching legislation on three separate occasions besmirched the honor of this institution. We style ourselves the greatest deliberative body in the world, yet we showed little real deliberation on those days. We think of ourselves as the ``saucer'' that cools the passions of the House of Representatives. Yet the passions that needed cooling were found in this chamber. We argue that the Senate is the institution that protects the grand traditions of our nation, yet it was the traditions of the Declaration of Independence that we trampled over on those occasions. In short, when we consider the Senate's role in anti- lynching legislation, we simply were not what we pretend to be. There is other contextual evidence that the Senate was out of step with justice and morality even when viewed at the time. In 1918, in the midst of the First World War, President Woodrow Wilson pleaded for the enactment of anti-lynching legislation. He stated: There have been many lynchings and every one of them has been a blow at the heart of ordered law and humane justice. No man who loves America, no man who really cares for her fame and honor and character, or who is truly loyal to her institutions, can justify mob action while the courts of justice are open and the Governments of the States and the Nation are ready and able to do their duty . . . We proudly claim to be the champions of democracy. If we really are in deed and in truth, let us see to it that we do not discredit our own. I say, plainly, that every American who takes part in the action of a mob or gives any sort of countenance is no true son of this great democracy, but its betrayer, and does more to discredit her by that single disloyalty to her standards of law and right than the words or her statesmen or the sacrifices of her heroic boys in the trenches can do to make suffering peoples believe her to be their savior. There are two remarkable things about this quote. First, it is an indication of just how much lynching was impacting our country's reputation. In the middle of an enormous military effort that allied the forces of democracy against the great autocratic empires, the President had to take to reprimand his own countrymen. Furthermore, historians have long noted that President Wilson did not hold particularly progressive views of African Americans. Nevertheless, here he is taking his countrymen to task. Why? Because the injustice of our actions was clear to him, and were being laid bare--rather embarrassingly--before the whole world. While we struggled to demonstrate the strength and righteousness of democracy, we were belying our own story with lynchings. Once again, we simply were not being what we pretended to be. Finally, I know in my heart that the people of the South were aware of the injustice that they were inflicting on African Americans. I know because I understand how deeply important religion and Christianity are to the people of the South. It pervades every aspect of our culture and history. But it was surely lost on no one in the South that the greatest victim of mob violence was Jesus. When looking at James Allen's book ``Without Sanctuary'' I think people will get a sense of God's suffering. You will also see the tragedy of humanity in the faces of the crowds. You quickly realize that man's inhumanity to man is an ancient question that still plagues us today. Yet in the helpless nobility of the victims, we are also reminded that God intends true peace and justice to come in the next world and not this one. We have an opportunity today to teach, an opportunity to express remorse, and most importantly an opportunity to be what we pretend to be. In so doing, I hope we may return some of the lost honor of this Chamber. Mr. President, it has been said that ``ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.'' Sadly, this great body, in which I am so proud to serve, once allied its power with ignorance. In so doing, it condoned unspeakable injustice that diminished the role of the Senate, and heaped untold suffering on Americans sorely in need of our protection. I am referring to the Senate's role in the decades long campaign to end lynching in this country. On three separate occasions, our colleagues in the House of Representatives passed anti- lynching legislation with overwhelming majorities. On all three of those occasions members of this Chamber blocked, or filibustered the consideration of that legislation. Between 1882, when records first began to be collected, and 1968 4,742 Americans lost their lives to lynch mobs. The experts believe that undocumented cases might double that figure. The vast majority of those killed --3,445 Americans--were African American. Sadly, a disproportionate number of those deaths occurred within my home region of the South, but 46 of the 50 States experienced these atrocities. Lynching was truly a national problem deserving the attention of the national legislative bodies. Frederick Douglas seems to have captured the real reason for this dark period of our national history. These acts of terrorism were not so much an admission of African Americans' weakness, but of their perseverance, and indomitable spirit. Douglas wrote: It is proof that the Negro is not standing still. He is not dead, but alive and active. He is not drifting with the current, but manfully resisting it . . . A ship rotting at anchor meets with no resistance, but when she sails on the sea, she has to buffet opposing billows. The enemies of the Negro see that he is making progress and they naturally wish to stop him and keep him in just what they consider his proper place. It was, in short, the ability of African Americans to overcome Jim Crow laws, to overcome share-cropping, to overcome second-class citizenship that provoked such savagery. Its an old story that repeats itself throughout human history. Whether it was the Israelites in Egypt, the colonial empires in Africa or America's own history of Apartheid, rulers that assume superiority inevitably prove themselves models of mankind's basest instincts. It should also be noted that this was not only an outrage committed against African Americans. The effort to dehumanize people on the basis of race or ethnicity did not limit itself to black Americans. In fact, the single largest incident of lynching occurred in my home State, in my home town of New Orleans. Yet, the victims were not black. They were Italians. On March 14, 1891, 11 Italian immigrants were lynched in the city of New Orleans. These immigrants too were thought to be less than human, and were simply rounded up as a group of the ``usual suspects'' following the murder of Police Superintendent David Hennessy. Already edgy from a media prompted Mafia scare, a mob surrounded the prison and eventually battered down the doors. An armed group of 25 men overtook the guards and summarily riddled the bodies of the 11 Italian prisoners with bullets. Their bodies were hung on lampposts outside the prison. Eyewitnesses described the cheering of the crowd as deafening. Of course, the attacks on that day are an example of mob justice and its irrational prejudices. However, in nearly 25 percent of all lynchings the motivations of the attackers came down to a bald attempt to maintain a caste system in this country. The NAACP cataloged the reported motivations for these forms of attack. They included: using disrespectful, insulting, slanderous, boastful, threatening or incendiary language; insubordination, impertinence, or improper demeanor, a sarcastic grin, laughing at the wrong place, a prolonged silence; refusing to take off one's hat to a white person or to give the right-of-way when encountering a white on the sidewalk; resisting assault by whites; being troublesome generally; disorderly conduct, petty theft or drunkenness; writing an improper letter to a white person; paying undue or improper attention to a white female; accusing a white man of writing love letters to a black woman; or living or keeping company with a white woman; turning or refusing to turn State's evidence; testifying or bringing suit against a white person; being related to a person accused of a crime and already lynched; political activities; union organizing; conjuring; discussing a lynching; gambling; operating a house of ill fame; a personal debt; refusing to accept an employment offer; vagrancy; refusing to give up one's farm; conspicuously displaying one's wealth or property; and trying to act like a white man. In many instances, lynchings were little more than a way to remove an economic competitor and confiscate his property. This was true in a number of cases in Mississippi involving successful African American landowners, and in one notorious Hawaiian case involving a Japanese immigrant competing with established white businessmen. Many of my colleagues might wonder why now? After all, some of these incidents are over a century old. There are two reasons. First, this aspect of American history is not well known or understood. As reconstruction concluded in the South, a very ugly struggle to reassert the social structure that preceded the Civil War took place. A great deal of it occurred with the tacit consent of the Federal Government, and the most part, the media either shared in the common prejudice, or simply ignored what was occurring. Fortunately, we have the publication of the book ``Without Sanctuary'' by James Allen, Hilton Als, Congressman John Lewis, and Leon F. Litwak to serve as a focal point for our attention to this neglected history. This is a difficult book to examine. It serves as a catalog of inhuman crime perpetrated by very ordinary citizens. Looking at anything so tragic as the victims of these crimes would be disturbing, but that is not what will leave a lasting impression. It is the festive attitude, the smiles and smirks on the crowd gathered around the victim. They clearly take a perverse pride in this act. Hannah Arendt, the famous political philosopher, subtitled her book on Adolph Eichman's war crimes trials ``A Report on the Banality of Evil.'' When you look at the expressions on the faces of the murders in these photos, that is all you can think about. These are not crazed killers, these are rational people going about their every day lives, and committing unspeakable acts in the process. Photos like these serve to remind us that a healthy society is not something that is built up over time, and then like a great monument, exists for centuries. Rather, a healthy society is a thin levee that must be constantly improved and maintained to hold back the worst instincts of mankind. I think the horrible pictures that came from Abu Gharib prison served as a reminder of this lesson. This book is even greater testimony that atrocities are not events that only occur in far off places. They can and have occurred here in the United States. The only way to maintain a healthy society is to acknowledge and discuss our mistakes. No one would defend the Senate's filibuster of anti-lynching legislation today. I would like to think that any Senator who did so would quickly be looking for another line of work. However, despite the change of attitude we have taken no action to remedy our wrong. That is the purpose of this resolution today. I would like to extend my deep thanks to my courageous colleague, the Junion Senator from Virginia. He seemed to instantly understand the significance of this effort, and I believe it was vitally important to proceed with this resolution in a bipartisan manner. His input and drive have made this effort much more successful than it otherwise would have been. It is our intention to introduce this legislation today, and use the recess period to confer with our colleagues about it. When we reconvene next year, we will re-introduce this resolution, and at that time, we hope to have the co-sponsorship of every member of this body. Then, we endeavor to enact the resolution to commemorate Black History month. I said ignorance allied with power is justice's most ferocious enemy. Yet imagine what truth allied with power can bring. For over 50 years, African American achievement was seen as a threat to the majority of people in this nation. It is time to close the book on that tragic period and begin to celebrate the achievements of black Americans as accomplishments that have bettered us all. I believe that this resolution of apology will be an important symbolic step in this process of healing and growth.