distribution showed us that between the years 2009 and 2010 -- 2009 and 2010 -- 93% of all new income created in the previous year went to the top 1%. 93% of all of the new income created between 2009 and 2010, the last information we had, went to the top 1% while the bottom 99% had the privilege of enjoying the remaining 7%. in other words, the wealthy people in this country are -- wealthiest people in this country are becoming phenomenally wealthier, the middle class is disappearing and poverty is increasing. now, when we talk about an oligarchic form of government, what we're talking about is not

just a handful of families owning entire nations. we're also talking about the politics of the nation. and as a result of this disastrous citizens united decision which is now two years of age, the worst decision, one of the worst decisions ever brought about by the supreme court of this country, a decision that they just reaffirmed a few days ago with regard to montana, what the supreme court has done said to the wealthiest people in this country, okay, you own almost all the wealth of this nation -- that's great -- now we're going to give you an opportunity to own the political life of this nation. and if you're getting bored by just owning coal companies and casinos and manufacturing plants, you now have the opportunity to own the united states government.

so we have people like the coke brothers and childen anderson. coke brothers is worth $50 billion. that's what you're worth. so if you're worth $50 billion, they have said they're prepared to put $400 million into this campaign to defeat obama, to defeat candidates who are representing working families. sheldonadelson says he's only worth $20 billion. he's kind of a pauper. but he's willing to spend what it takes to buy the government. and if you look at it, it ain't a bad deal. if you're worth $50 billion and you spend a billion or two, you can buy the united states government. that's a pretty good investment. and that's what they are about to do. so on one hand we have a grossly unequal distribution of wealth and income. these guys control the economy. you have the sixth-largest financial institutions in this country that have assets equivalent to two-thirds of the g.d.p. of america.

over $ trillion. these six financial institutions write half the mortgages, two-thirds of the credit cards in america. huge impact on the economy. that's not enough for these guys. top 1% owns half of the wealth. not enough for these guys. now they have the opportunity to buy the united states government. so that's where we are. now, in my view, working families all over this country are saying, enough is enough. they want this congress to start standing for them and not just the millionaires and the billionaires who are spending unbelievable sums of money in this campaign. so it seems to me, mr. president, that what we have got to do is start listening to the needs of working families, the vast majority of our people, and not just the people who make campaign contributions. and i know that's a very radical

idea. i do know that. but, you know, it might be a good idea to try a little bit to reaffirm the faith of the american people in their democratic form of government. let them know just a little bit that maybe we are hearing their pain, their unemployment, their debt. in fact, they're losing the houses. the fact that they don't have any health care. the fact they can't afford to send their kids to college. maybe, just maybe, we might want to listen to them before we go running out to another fund-raising event with millionaires and billionaires. i do know, mr. president, that is a radical idea. so let's talk about what we can actually do for the american people. in the midst of this terrible recession, where real unemployment is closer to 15% if you include those folks who have given up looking for work and those people who are working part time when they want to work full time, we know that the fastest way to create decent

paying jobs is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. now, i don't know about minnesota, mr. president, but i do know in vermont, many of our bridges are in desperate need of repair, our roads are in need of repair, our rail system is falling further and further behind europe and china. we've got water systems that need -- desperately need repair, wastewater plants, we have schools that need repair. we can put millions of people back to work making our country more competitive, more efficient by addressing our infrastructure crisis. let's do it. it is beyond my comprehension that we can't even get a modest transportation bill. i know that chairwoman boxer and senator inhofe are working on a modest transportation bill. we can't even get that through the house. in fact, we've got to do a lot more than that. but at least they're making the effort. mr. president, at a time when we

spend some $300 billion a year importing oil from saudi arabia and other foreign countries, at a time when this planet is struggling with global warming and all of the extreme weather disturbances that we see and the billions of dollars that we are spending in response to these extreme weather disturbances, we need to move toward energy independence, we need to reverse greenhouse gas emissions. in other words, we need to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel into energy efficiency and into sustainable energies like wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. and when we do that, we also create a substantial number of decent paying jobs. and, by the way, in the midst of a very competitive global economy, what we should not be doing is laying off teachers and

child care workers. we should be investing in education, not laying off those people who are educating our kids. mr. president, i know that there is a lot of discussion on the floor with regard to the national debt, almost $16 trillion. the deficit over $1 trillion. that is a serious issue and we've got to deal with it. but my view is a little bit different than many of my colleagues in terms of how we deal with it. mr. president, i think most americans understand the causation of the deficit crisis and that is president bush went to war in iraq and he went to war in afghanistan. and, you know, he just forgot something. we all have memory lapses, don't we? go shopping and we forget to buy the milk or the bread. he had a memory lapse. he forgot to pay for them. now, a couple a trillion dollars and he forgot to pay for them.

and all of our deficit hawks out here, all of those folks that say, "got to cut food stamps, you got to cut education, you gugot to cut health care." oh, two wars, $2 trillion, $3 trillion, $4 trillion, no problem. no problem at all. and, for the first time, as i understand it, in the history of this country, we went to war -- which is an expensive proposition -- and at the same time not only did we not raise the money to pay for the war, we went the other way, we decided to give huge tax breaks, including to the wealthiest people in this country. you spend trillions going to w war, you give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country, well, that begins to add up. that's called creating a deficit. and then on top of that, because of the greed and the recklessness and illegal behavior on wall street which drove us into this recession, when you're in a recession and people are unemployed and small

businesses go under, less revenue is coming in to the federal treasury. you're spending a whole lot, less revenue is coming in, you have a deficit crisis. now, some of my republican friends -- and some democrats, i should say -- they say, well, maybe, maybe we should have paid for the war. yea, you're right. maybe we shouldn't have given those tax breaks to the rich. yeah, maybe you're right. but, be that as it may, we are where we are, and we need deficit reduction and we know how to do it. we're going to cut social security. and my friends back home, when you hear folks talking about social security reform, hold on to your wallets because they are talking about cuts in social security. nothing more, nothing less. they're talking about something -- i don't know about minnesota, mr. president. in vermont, nobody has heard of the concept called chained c.p

c.p.i. every time i go home, i ask them. people don't know.what chain c.p.i., which is what they're trying to pass here, is the idea -- and i know senior citizens back home are going to start laughing when i say thi this -- it is the belief that colas for social security are too high. and seniors back home are scratching their heads and saying wait, we just went through two years when my prescription drug costs went up, my health care costs went up and i got zero in cola and there are people in washington, republicans, some democrats, they think i got too much in cola? what world are these people living in? and that's the reality. so some of the folks here want to pass something called a chain c.p.i., which, if it were imposed -- and i will do everything i can to see that it does not get imposed -- what it would mean is between the ages of 65 and 75, you would lose about $550 a year, and then when

you are 85 and you're trying to get by off $13,000 or $14,000 a year, it would cost you about a thousand bucks a year. that's what some of our colleagues want to do. virtually all the republicans want to do it. some democrats want to do it as well. i'm going to do, as chairman of the defending social security caucus, everything that i can to prevent that. now, they also want to cut medicare and they want to cut medicaid. well, we've got 50 million people without any health insurance at all. we've got people paying huge detuctables. medicaid covering nursing home care. they want to cut medicare and medicaid. they have the brilliant idea, some of them, that maybe we should raise the retirement age for medicare from 65 to 67. mr. president, tell me about somebody in minnesota who's 66 and is diagnosed with cancer, and if we do what the republicans want us to do in the house, which is to create a voucher plan for medicare, we'd

give that person a check for, i don't know, $7,000 i think or $8,000 and say, you can go out to the private insurance company -- anyone you want -- here's your $7,000 or $8,000, you're suffering with cancer, go get your insurance. and i guess that would last you maybe one day or two days in the hospital. that's what it would do. that's the republican plan. so, mr. president, i agree that deficit reduction is a real issue and i think we have got to deal with it. but we are not, if i have anything to say about it, going to deal with it on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, the poor and the hungry. the way you deal with deficit reduction in a responsible way, in a fair way is you say to the billionaires in this country, who are doing phenomenally well, you make the point that warren buffett made, that there's something a little bit absurd that millionaires and billionaires today, in the midst of the deficit crisis, are paying the lowest tax rates that

they have paid in decades. so, yes, we're going to have to ask the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes. i saw a piece in the paper the other day. it was quite incredible. the rich people apparently are leaving america, they're giving up their citizenship, they're going abroad. these great lovers of america who made their money in this country, when you ask them to start paying their fair share of taxes, they're running abroad. we have 19-year-old kids in this country who've died in iraq and afghanistan defending this country, they went abroad not to escape taxes, they're working-class kids who died in wars and now the billionaires that want to run abroad in order to paying their fair share of taxes. what patriotism, what love of country. so, mr. president, yeah, we've got to deal with deficit reduction. but you don't cut social security, you don't cut medicare, you don't cut medicaid, you don't cut education.

you ask the wealthiest people, the millionaires and billionaires, to start paying their fair share of taxes. you enthese outrageous corporate -- you end these outrageous corporate loopholes. senator conrad showed a picture of a building in the cayman islands where there are 18,000 corporations. they're there in the cayman islands using a postal address in order to avoid paying their taxes. we're losing about a hundred billion a year. you've got large corporations making billions, paying in some cases paying nothing in taxes. that's the way you go to deficit reduction, not on the backs of people whop ar -- people who are already hurting. so, mr. president, we are in a very difficult moment in american history. we are in the process of losing the great middle class. we're seeing more of our -- more of our people being poor. we're seeing savage attacks being waged against the elderly in terms of cuts in social security and medicare, attacks

against those who get sick in terms of going after medicaid and -- and medicare. and i think what the american people are saying is enough is enough. this country, this great country, belongs to all of us. it cannot continue to be controlled by a handful of billionaires who apparently want it all. you know, i, for the love of me, i cannot understand why people who have billions of dollars are compulsively driven for more and more and more. when is enough, enough? how many children in this country have got to go hungry? how many people have got to die because they don't go to a doctor because you want to avoid paying your taxes? well, that's not what america is about. that's not what people fought and died to create. with that, we have got a fight on our hands. the job of the united states national is to represent the middle-class families of this

country, all of the people, and not just the superrich. i hope we can begin to do that. with that, i yield and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i would ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: mr. president, i rise today to make sure that congress is aware of what's happening across the american west. 32 knew people were just evacuated -- 32,000 people were just evacuated from their homes in colorado. in utah and new mexico, hundreds of homes have been destroyed or are under threat. in my state of montana, five counties are in states of emergencies as seven major fires rage across the state. we've evacuated over 200 homes in helena alone with plumes of smoke billowing behind the state capitol. signal coal mine in eastern montana has been evacuated, and

fires that threatened it have burned nearly 60,000 acres in less than a day. experts on the ground are saying that they have never seen conditions like these so early in the fire season. with wildfires burning through beetle-killed areas with increasing speed. now, these beetle-killed areas are areas that are dead due to pine bark beetle infestations. the trees are death and dry and they explode when they catch on fire. yesterday winds gusted up to 55 miles per hour, grounding aircraft and preventing them from attacking the fires early. but the conditions for these wildfires didn't happen overnight. mr. president, the problem is the dry climate, the lack of preparation, and lack of resources available to contain these fires. i first want to express my sincerest appreciation to the

brave firefighters battling these blazes. on behalf of montanans and the folks across the west, i want to thank you for all that you do. firefighters risk your lives every day for folks that you've never met. we owe you our respect and our gratitude and my thoughts and prayers are with you. mr. president, we also owe them the resources that they need to efficiently fight these fires and we owe them the policies that will best benefit the landscape that they are working so hard to protect. forest service fire officials say that there are three parts to preventing and controlling wildfires. the first is reducing hazardous fuels. especially in the wild land urban interface. the second is protecting towns with community fire plans and implementing defensible space around structures and the third is that we must provide and be ready with the resources to

fight fires once they've started. yet congress has consistently reduced the resources set aside for the forest service to proactively reduce the risk presented by fires. hazardous fuel reduction funding has declined over the past few years and this year the administration proposed to continue reducing these funds. in the house of representatives is also failing to give the forest service the tools it needs to address this growing problem by playing politics with solutions that will improve the health of the exact forests where these fires are raging in montana and colorado. for four years, i have worked to pass a forest management bill that would reduce these trees that are providing dangerous fuel for two of these fires in montana. additionally, the senate created the flame wildfire account to specifically put money aside for this exact kind of emergency situation. yet this year the president's budget reduces the flame account

by nearly a half a billion dollars. mr. president, we've been robbing this account to keep the forest service afloat, but the forest service has still lost nearly 40% of its purchasing power over the last 20 years as the number, cost, and frequence si of these fires increase. back in 2000, not that long ago, there were more than 40 forest fire fighting plants. today there are ten and nine are from a fleet of planes used during the korean war. this spring i asked the chief of the forest service if we were ready in case of a bad fire season this year. he admitted that the forest service did not have the resources to deal with an above-average fire year. mr. president, this issue won't go away when the fire season comes to an end. with large parts of the west getting hotter and drier over the past few decades, our

efforts to improve forest health and give the firefighters the resources they need cannot stop when the weather gets cold. we need to commit to providing proper resources to the firefighters today, who are protecting our communities. and we also need to provide the forest service and the bureau of land management with the tools and resources they need to prevent catastrophic wildfires in the first place. some of us have been talking about hazardous fuel reduction in western forests before today but it has fallen on deaf ears. now i ask you to heed the call and provide the necessary resources. mr. president, montanans and folks all across the west are evacuating -- evacuating their homes. firefighters are risking their lives. we need to step up and help them today. and we need to responsibly invest in resources and land management policies that will make a difference in the future. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: i understand we're in a quorum call. i ask that be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, and the senator is recognized. mr. pryor: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss the national flood insurance program and the status of the bill that's in the senate today. this is a bill that the banking committee has been working on, and we certainly appreciate the chairman and ranking member and all the members of the banking committee for working on this very important piece of legislation. i will note that when the bill came through the banking

committee, that the chairman and ranking member has asked that no amendments be offered, that those would be handled on the floor at a later time, and here we are today and it's time for us to handle those amendments and those changes to this very important piece of legislation, but unfortunately we're hearing rumors that now the house and the various negotiations going on with the transportation bill as well as the student loan bill, we now hear they are trying to include the flood insurance bill with those. i think that's a tragic mistake. i think that endangers the very high chances of those two bills passing the senate. in fact, it endangers -- what really endangers the passage is the national flood insurance bill because it needs work. we need to let the senate work on it. we need to let the senate be the senate and offer amendments and debate, and we need to bring

this bill to a final vote, but we also need the opportunity as senators to offer amendments to this very important piece of legislation. let me tell you the fundamental problem that many of us have. it's not only me, but many of us have with this very important legislation. it deals with flood insurance. insurance is a concept that should be based on risk, and flood insurance has always been based on risk. in fact, if you talk to any private insurance company, that's what they're doing, they are managing risk, they are assessing risk, they're looking at risk, they're looking at the chances of something going wrong and some damages occurring. you know the third party, the insurance company, paying for those damages and making people whole. well, flood insurance is really no different. it's never been any different. the private sector for years and years offered flood insurance.

now the federal government is the only one offering it. i think in the whole country. there may be a few isolated areas where they do offer it, but i think basically the private sector has gotten out of the flood insurance business because of the enormous cost when there is a flood, and they basically have priced themselves out of the market because the premiums don't cover the payouts now. but nonetheless, risk has always been fundamental to the whole concept of insurance. this bill changes that. this bill says that if you live behind a levee or near a dam or some other flood control structure, then you're going to have a requirement to purchase flood insurance. regardless of the risk, if you live behind a levee, near a dam or some other flood control structure and you're in the

100-year flood plain, you're going to be required to purchase flood insurance. it's not based on risk. it's a per se mandatory requirement based on your location. i'm not sure you can find anything in the insurance world equivalent to this. certainly i think it's bad public policy. there are many, many reasons why it's bad public policy, but the most important reason is we're going to be requiring millions and millions of americans to purchase flood insurance that will never flood, they will never need it. the reason they'll never need it is because they're protected by levees and dams and other flood control structures. those structures work. i want to give you an example here in a minute of the mississippi river. the mississippi river and tributary system. i want to give that you example in just a moment, but before i do, let me say that those

structures work. when the floods happen, those areas don't flood. they would flood, but this bill treats those areas as if there are no levees at all, as if there is no infrastructure there to protect people. senator durbin has told me the story of an area in illinois on the st. louis side of illinois, down in a southern area of illinois, i guess that would be southwest illinois somewhere where they have had flooding. the people there locally raised their taxes so they could build levees and design those levees and maintain those levees so that those -- that flooding will never happen again. they've done this. they have taken responsibility. they have done this. unfortunately, this bill would say they're going to pay twice. they're going to have to pay for their taxes to build and maintain those levees, but they're also -- their people are going to be required to purchase

flood insurance, flood insurance they will never need, they will never use. if you live behind a certified levee -- and there are ways for levees to be decertified. let me tell you, if a levee is not safe, if it's not up to standards, it should be decertified, but when you live behind a certified levee or dam or some other flood control structure and that is going to prevent you from flooding, the congress should recognize that fact and not require people to purchase flood insurance. mr. president, let me go to this map. some people may not realize that they have levees in their state. this map shows that there is levees in basically every state of the union -- for just visual purposes, we didn't put hawaii and alaska on this map because it would take up so much united states, but they have levees as well. every dark area you see here, the dark green are counties

where there are levees. that doesn't mean, obviously, that every single person in that county is protected by the levees but there are levees in that county. you can see there are levees basically coast to coast in this country. i don't know if all 50 states have some because there may be one or two that don't, but basically they're everywhere, they're all over the country. these levees work. now, let me talk just for a moment about the corps of engineers. mr. president, everybody here knows that i have had occasion where i have criticized the corps of engineers when i didn't agree with things that they did wrong or when they didn't do something right or when they did something i thought was dumb or whatever the case is, but on this issue, none of us should have any criticism of the u.s. army corps of engineers because they know how to do a lot of things, but one of the things they know how to do, they know how to design and build and maintain levees. and let me just show you on this map here, they have something

they call the mississippi river and tributary system. what that is is that is up and down the mississippi with some of the tributaries going up and down the mississippi. the corps of engineers designs and builds and maintains those levees. a very important point here. the m.r.t. levees have never failed, never. they have been around since 1928. zero failure. not one time have they failed. but nonetheless, this legislation that may be included in this package coming over from the house is going to require millions and millions of americans that live behind the safest levees in the world to buy flood insurance for no reason. they're never going to flood. as long as we have the m.r.t., as long as the corps of engineers is designing these, as long as they are maintaining

these, we're going to get a big return on our investment. in fact, mr. president, the return on our investment for the m.r.t. is something like 32-1. we get a huge, huge return. for every dollar we put in, we save $32 -- or excuse me, $35 based on that investment. the m.r.t. has prevented $478 billion -- with a b, $478 billion worth of property damage in this country. $478 billion in savings. and we're going to require all those people to buy flood insurance. we're going to pretend as if -- the congress is going to enter into a legal fiction. they are going to pretend as if those levees aren't even there. if you're in the 100-year flood zone, you don't get any benefit from the fact that you live

behind this levee system. let me say one more thing about the m.r.t. levee system. that is it not only is the safest in the world, it's the envy of the world. the corps of engineers travels around the world and the world travels to the united states of america to see the levee system and the lox and dams and the other flood control structures that the united states corps of engineers has built on our rivers in this country. they are the model that other countries are trying to follow. why are they the model? because they work. they design them right, they build them right, they maintain them right. again, we get 35-1. for every dollar we put in, 35-1 return on that investment. there's over 4.1 million people protected just by the m.r.t. that's just a small fraction of

what the corps of engineers does, but 4.1 million people protected by the m.r.t. over half the u.s. population lives somewhere near a levee, over half the u.s. population lives somewhere near a levee. we don't know exactly how fema will administer this law because we don't know exactly what's going to come out of the house if it does pass, but i can guarantee you what's going to happen is very simple. as soon as this takes effect, we're going to have thousands and thousands and thousands of people calling us, emailing us and writing us. they will be saying why is the congress making my mortgage payment go up? because that's how this is going to work. those lenders and the federal government are going to require that people purchase flood insurance. we don't know exactly the

numbers, again, because we don't know how this is going to be structured or how it's going to be applied just yet, but our best guestimate is on average, the average homeowner in this country is going to owe somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year, $1,000 to $2,000 a year. not a one-time deal, but $1,000 to $2,000 a year in flood insurance that they'll never need and they'll never use. so for most people, that's going to be $100 or probably more a month. of course it depends on your house. it depends on a lot of other circumstances. but that is serious money for people and we're requiring them to spend that for no good reason at all. let me just talk about the mississippi river and tributary system again just for a moment. everybody remembers that last year we had the potential of horrendously bad flooding in the midsection of the country.

i know arkansas, our levees were stressed. there's no doubt, even the mississippi river and tributary system levee was stressed last year, no question about it. there's a reason for that. in 2011 we saw the flood of record on the mississippi river. some people are saying it's actually the 500-year flood. you know, these levees can be built to withstand up to 500-year floods. some people are saying this was the 500-year flood, but certainly that hasn't been all certified yet but certainly it was a huge amount of water flowing through the mississippi river. it was -- at every station on the mississippi from cairo, illinois to natchez, mississippi, they broke the record last year, every single station. in infrastructure -- and here's the key: not one levee broke. the biggest flood we've ever had, not one levee broke.

now, the senate bill will say even though those levees don't break, even though they're the best in the world, even though they can withstand the 500 year flood, we're going to make those people buy flood insurance. wrought i don't think sthats right, i don't think that's fair. i think the people should be outraged if we make that requirement on them. that flood -- that infrastructure last year prevented $110 billion in damages in one flood, in one spring, $110 billion worth of damages. it protected ten million acres of land up and down the mississippi river. ten million acres and nearly a million structures were spared because of the mr&t, did not lose one life, no flooding where it wasn't supposed to flood. you remember last year they did blow the levee at bird's point by desire.

design. that's part of the system. they build these safety valves up and down the river. they had to use one last year. they blew the levee at byrd's point in missouri, worked exactly as it's supposed to work, the farmers weren't real happy but they understood the risk, that's been the deal up there for a long time. they blew that levee, the water spilled in there and it took pressure off the river and off the levees and that's what happened and it works. so let me show you this quick chart, mr. president, and this is sort of an artist's rendering, if you will of a levee and there's a lot of science and engineering that goes into these levees but the flood of 1927 which is so famous because it really did change everything in this country and for the first time ever the federal government took responsibility for levees up and down the mississippi river, and

took it in a national way to create a national system, and, by the way, there's a great book by john berry called "rising tide." if you haven't read it, it's worth reading about the flood of 1927. but that's the flood everybody talks about. back then you had an a very inadequate levee system. there were floods up and down the whole mississippi river valley, the whole watershed. it started raining that year, i think it started raining on christmas eve of 1926 or some mr. where in there and basically rained every day through easter. it rained and rained and rained through that area and we just didn't have the flood control to protect it. we had some levees but they weren't scientifically done and weren't engineered properly and they weren't big enough, weren't strong enough and after that flood the u.s. government took over. so the flood on -- the levee system on the mr&t goes back to

1928, the year after this 1927 flood. anyway, the way a levee works, they design most levees, the standard design is for the 100-year flood, you have a 1% chance you'll get to a certain year, once every hundred years, 1% chance. you can see the way the mr&t is built that ain't the half of it because they keep going up. they build beyond the 500-year flood and we saw in 1937, we saw a much bigger flood than the 1927 flood but guess what -- the levee system worked, they had it built and completed, it worked, it did great. so levees are very important. we may not think they're exciting, they may not make a lot of headlines but they work. you can see an example right here. here's an area, a rural area, farmland area, protected by a levee right there. you see a lot of water down here, but there's no water over

here. and that's exactly the way they're supposed to work and they do work. here again, to make the point, the senate bill would say even though you have this levee these people living over here are going to have to buy flood insurance. it's not going to floop flood, never going to flood there, we got them protected but you have to buy flood insurance. it's not fair and it's not right and we should not do that to our people. mr. president, let me just say a few other words here before i move on. this map right here i think really says a lot. this is the one i started with. we really do have levees everywhere all around the country. 881 counties have levees. 881 counties have levees. those counties contain more than 50% of the u.s.'s population. so, again, this legislation that is now trying to be attached to whatever vehicle is coming back through, this

legislation is going to adversely affect about half the u.s. population one way or the other. also, if you live in an area that has levees, you can just forget about economic development. just forget about it. once they start doing this and start saying, well, everybody has to have flood insurance to live in this floodplain even though you're not going to flood, we're still going to require that, forget about economic development. it's going to be extremely difficult for people to stay there and to have insurance in those areas. now, this bill that came out of the banking committee i think is a good bill. i think we need to do it. we need to pass it. i'm not trying to slow it down at all. in fact, i started this week thinking that we would have a chance to vote on the bill this week, that we would have a chance to debate the bill and

offer amendments to the bill. i understand now there are some nongermane, nonrelevant amendments to the legislation. i think that's fortunate. hopefully we can work through that. but i have an amendment that is very germane. in fact, i have an amendment that at one point we had to change the language because the senator from alabama wanted to do a substitute so we've changed our language. we still think we have anywhere from 13 to 15 cosponsors on my amendment, senator hoeven has joined me, many, many others have joined me, about 13 to 15 senators on that in addition in talking to offices, we have about 50 votes that we know of. i'm counting 51. we have about 20 offices that are looking at it that may be leaning to voting for it but just haven't committed to saying yes. i think it's very likely that if we allow the senate to be the senate, we will take care of the problem in this banking committee bill. i think that we can do that.

i think we can have that vote. i think the pryor-hoeven amendment carries the day, don't know that, you don't know until you debate and get in here and have a vote and see how it goes. but i think right now what we need do -- to do is let the senate be the debate, let the senate debate, let the senate argue. we fuss with each other sometimes, i know that but let's have a vote on this amendment. i think there is well over 50 votes in this chamber right now to take these provisions, the old section 107, out of this legislation, and leave in a couple of studies, we think it's fine to have studies. we think we should study this. that's good. we're not trying to slow this down, bury our head in the sand and saying that, you know, we don't think there's any risk at all but let's study it, let's look at it and see what makes sense. i tell you what doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense to

just ignore the best levee system in the world. let me also say this: that there are several levees around the country that are not done by the corps of engineers. they don't have the -- kind of the resources that the corps and the expertise that the corps can bring to building levees and and flood control. we need to acknowledge that. there are levees in this country that should be decertified. they don't meet mete the standards. they maybe weren't built correctly and/or weren't maintained correctly. you have to trim the vegetation, got to be watching for things like sand boils and structural defects, you need to go in and make adjustments from time to time. it's the reality of operating a system of levees. and honestly there are places around the country where that hasn't been done. those levees should not be certified unless they're repaired and brought up to

standards, and the people behind those levees don't have real flood protection. so maybe he should they should pay for insurance. i'm not opposed to that. i think they probably should. i think that's what these studies will help us sort out. how do we draw that line, how do we make that decision. why don't you give us a little time here to study this and try to make sure we get this policy right so we're not charging people for insurance that they'll never need. let me also say, mr. president, that we do have several others here in the senate who are for this. they've been very supportive from the very beginning. i have several colleagues i'd like to thank publicly, i think some do want to come over and talk about this development today where we may not get a chance to vote on the amendment. pretty much every -- with almost without exception, maybe one or two exceptions but almost

without exception pretty much everybody who is with the original amendment is going to stick with this amendment even though it's a little different structure because it amends a substitute and also leaves in these two studies but that's fine. we've never had a problem with the two studies. again, i think if we adopt the senate bill and the senate proposal and if it comes over from the house without us having a chance to even offer our amendment, i think we're really negating a very wise investment we've made around the country in the levees that the corps of engineers has built for us. and it just is not logical that we would not consider the actual risk involved and where people live, it's not logical that we would pretend that these levees aren't even there. it just doesn't make sense. it doesn't make any sense in any way, shape or form and that's what we're being denied today as senators. we should have a chance to look at this legislation, to open it up, to read it, to pick at

it, to find things that we don't agree with, to ask questions about it. certainly i've gone through here, you can see i've highlighted, mr. president, you can see i've highlighted this bill and have written in it and made notes in the margin and have questions about it. i'm trying to do what senators should do. we should work on legislation, be very constructive, try to get it if we have problems with it, try to get it amended, try to convince our colleagues that -- that our arguments should carry the day and that we should prevail and that we should amend legislation we all recognize that the banking committee has worked very hard on this, we appreciate the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work and all their staff, they've been great, but since the bill did not get amended in the committee, it ought to at least have chance the too be amended on the senate floor especially

when it looks like there's at least one amendment where it looks like well over 50 senators support that amendment. this would be an injustice if this proifs was included -- provision was included coming over that from the house. it endangers the passage of the surface transportation and also the student loan provision that are very popular with with people. you have plenty of votes to pass both of those but if the cost of that means and the trade-off of that means that we're going to be charging, it's mandatory, it's mandatory, they have to buy flood insurance, i don't think that's a trade-off we should make. also i was talking to someone earlier, they said we need student loans. i agree with that. i'm all for lowering the rate of student loans but i can guarantee you it's going to be less money out of pocket for people on the student loans than it is to be buying this flood insurance every year. no doubt about that. because this stuff is very

expensive. and the difference in the student loans is not really going to be a thousand to $2,000 a year. the difference in student loans is maybe a few hundreds a -- hundred dollars a year, and i want people to go to college and help that, but this is the pocketbook issue here. the fact that we're going to be requiring people to purchase insurance that they don't need. so test. so what my amendment does is my amendment removes the mandatory language in section 107. it basically says that you're not going to be required to purchase flood insurance just merely because you live behind a levee or near a dam or some other flood-control structure. like i said, right now the way the banking bill is drafted, it is a per se requirement based on location, not based on risk. it's based on location. and let me also say something about the senator from alabama. he reached an agreement with one

of the senators from mississippi and i appreciate that. that amendment does make the bill a little better. it does. because the way the bill was originally structured, it didn't matter if you lived in a 100-year floodplain or a 500-year floodplain, it didn't matter, you were going to buy that insurance. and -- and what senator cochran of mississippi was able to work out was to at least restrict it to a 1 yo 100-year floodplain. well, that's good, it's an improvement, but you're still -- the fundamental principle still applies, you're requiring people to purchase insurance they're never going to need. because they're protected by the levees. so with that, mr. chairman, i know we have some other members who want to come over and speak. and i think that i'll do right now, mr. president, is yield the floor and await my colleagues coming over. i yield the floor, mr. president.

mr. pryor: i ask unanimous consent for jesse irvin combs to have floor privileges for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: and, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, the bill to reauthorize the national flood insurance program may be included in a package that we'll consider tomorrow. the package of bills that might

include the transportation bill and the student loan bill as well. the national flood insurance program needs to be addressed and part of the new reauthorization makes significant changes and necessary improvements in the program. i do want to join my colleague, senator pryor from arkansas, in raising concerns about one particular section in the bill. it creates a burden for many people across the united states, in illinois, in arkansas, in pennsylvania and california and other places. it's called section 107. it deals with mandatory insurance coverage areas. it redefines special flood hazard areas. under section 107-b, everyone in the united states living behind a levee, near a dam or near any other flood-control structure, a so-called residual risk area, will be required to purchase

flood insurance. everyone. fema estimates that well over 50% of america's population lives near a levee. senator pryor has a very revealing map of the united states. we have a lot of waterways and a lot of levees. there are levees in 881 counties throughout the united states. as many as 800,000 people in my state of about 12 1/2 million live in these areas. many people living near a levee don't even realize it because the levees work. they've never had a flood. but under this provision, they're still required to buy insurance. the same holds true for people living near dams. there are nearly 1,400 dams in illinois alone. think of how many people live near those dams nationwide. those people would also be required to purchase flood insurance under this provision. under this section of the bill, the mandatory purchase requirement would apply to people living in residual risk areas regardless of the status of the flood-control structure.

that's where i take exception to this approach. so even in communities where levees and dams have been certified safe, in many cases by the u.s. army corps of engineers, the people living behind those levees would have to purchase flood insurance. let me give you one specific example that i think is illustrative of the unfairness. the people in these so-called residual risk areas already pay for their flood-control structures in one way or another. the metro east area, where i grew up, across the river from st. louis on the mississippi river, saint claire, monroe, and madison counties. the community agreed in that area to raise taxes on themselves to pay for improvements to the levees. in other words, they weren't pointing to washington saying, "come in and fix our levees." they said, we'll take on the responsibility and we will pay for it. thanks to the leadership of the metro east levee district,

people like lessterman with the eastern flood control provision council, allen dun isston, mark kern, board chairman, and, of course, my friend, congressman jerry costello in the house of representatives, metro east raised the money to improve its levees to ensure that they would be recertified as safe by fema. they're doing the right thing. they're accepting responsibility and they're paying for it. like people in communities across the country, they are paying to make sure their levees are sound and they won't have to worry about a flood. yet under this bill's mandatory purchase requirement, as it is written -- and as i understand it -- they also will be forced to pay flood insurance. if they had done nothing, they would still face the flood insurance premium. they did the responsible thing and they'll still being charged. not only are they paying higher taxes to strengthen their levees, they'll pay flood insurance for floods that are not likely to ever happen. precisely because of the

improvements that they're making to those levees which protect them. to add insult to injury, if these areas are mapped into a special flood hazard area, the communities will have to pass an ordnance that fema requires for participation in the flood insurance program. this ordnance will restrict land use. in many cases, these ordnances diminish property values and reduce the number of jobs in the area. my colleague, senator cochran of mississippi, worked with senator shelby of alabama and the banking committee to develop a compromise to this section. the compromise is a move in the right direction, i will concede, but it doesn't go far enough to help the people living near flood-control structures. the new section 107 strikes the language restricting land use in residual risk areas but it doesn't remove the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement. the new language only delays that requirement until fema can develop a new way to measure each levee's and dam's strength and efficiency. but then the people who live in these areas will be forced to

buy insurance. adding up to 50% of the u.s. population into the national flood insurance program simply because they near -- live near a flood-control structure i think does not take into account actual reality on the ground. wh what is being done? what has been done to keep the area safe? i support my colleague, senator pryor of arc average he wanted to strike section 107 of this bill. it is unreasonable to expand flood areas areas in which people are already paying to prevent flooding. chairman tim johnson of the senate banking committee and ranking republican, senator dick shelby, put together a strong bill with many important reform, but the residual risk title is bad for communities like metro east in illinois, and i hope that the committee will either modify or drop this provision. and let me just close my remarks by saying senator pryor has been an extraordinary leader on this issue. we've talked about it. i have been happy to join him.

i don't know whether when the final bill/package comes before us, we'll be able to vote up or down, offer the package. though it will not take place for several years, if it passes, if the bill passes with this provision, i can assure my colleagues we are not going to quit on this issue. we are going to demand basic fairness for those people across america who are struggling in this economy and now face the prospect of dramatically increasing flood insurance premiums. i think that there's a way to do this that is responsible, that recognizes when people do the right thing and families and communities step up to the responsibility, i don't believe the shelby-cochran amendment does that. so i hope that we'll have a chance to revisit this soon. i thank senator pryor for his leadership. mr. pryor: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas.

mr. pryor: let me thank my colleague and friend from illinois for his comments and his insights on this, and he's fighting hard for his people in illinois, and we have similar stories in our state. my guess is that virtually every senator that's a member of this body has a similar story where the people in these areas with levees, they're taxing themselves. they're taking on the responsibility to protect their property and their communities from floods. there's no doubt at all that these folks who live behind levees are in a better position than folks that aren't behind levees, and the flood insurance program should recognize that fact. and in listening to senator durbin a few moments, a i had a thought. and that is, if we're going to do this, if we're going to select out the people in these darker areas on this map and we're going to say, hey, just

because you live in an area that has a levee, you're going to have to pay more, that's not fair. i would prefer that if we just made everybody pay -- why don't we make every mortgage owner in the country pay for this? why don't we just say, look, if you have a mortgage, you're going to have to pay $5 a month or whatever the number is, just to help subsidize everybody else? that's a fairer way to do it. why are we singling out people that live behind levees and dams and have other flood-control infrastructure there? it makes no sense. in fact those people are more protected than other people. so, mr. president, i know that in the banking committee, you also had an amendment that you are interested in that dealt with the people who have existing mortgages. and, in effect, when you sign a mortgage, it's maybe a 30-year contract, 15-year contract --

however long your mortgage is. pretty much what you bargain for is what you bargain for. and it changes the equation right now if suddenly because you live in a certain area you're going to have to now pay an additional $100, $200 a month for flood insurance. that totally changes the equation for people. we shouldn't do that. i know that the senator from oregon offered -- or talked about an amendment in the committee to say these new laws, these new regs should not apply to folks with existing mortgages, because, you know, it's not what they bargained for. i think there's value in that. but if some of these folks get their way around here, we're not going to have a chance to have at that discussion and offer that amendment. but the pryor amendment actually covers that situation that the senator from or has been concerned about -- from oregon has been concerned about. what we do is we say, do these studies. there is etwo studie two studiee

include. give this thing some time and let us analyze and look at it and figure out the best way forward. but in the meantime we're not going to charge people with existing mortgages or trying to get mortgages today. we're not going to charge them unfairly, or single this will out merely because they -- them out merely because they happen to live in a place that has a levee or a dam or some other flood-control structure. with that, mr. president, i know we have others that are coming oveover soon to discuss this, bt with that, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized. mr. hoeven: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: so ordered. mr. hoeven: i rise to discuss national flood insurance today. flood insurance is vitally important to our nation. it is vitally important to my home state of north dakota. i know it is vitally important to our sister state of minnesota, which you represent. last year in 2011 flooding in north dakota included flooding in the red river valley which is the red river of the north. that included both sides of the border, certainly north dakota

and as you can attest to, certainly in minnesota as well. we also had flooding in the james river valley, the cheyenne river valley, the missouri river valley, also the little missouri river flooded in the very western part of our state. we had ongoing flooding in devil's lake and flooding in the souris river valley. in fact, the souris river flooded, minot flooded. it's a community of 40,000 people. it's the eighth fastest growing community under 50,000 in the country now so it's a rapidly growing community, dynamic community. but it's 40,000 to 45,000 people and last year we had to evacuate 12,000 people from their homes, more than 4,000 homes were destroyed or severely damaged. and, in fact, fema has been

helping, the third largest in history. the largest was after hurricane katrina, the second largest after hurricane ike, third largest housing effort for fema in history is in response to the flooding in minot, north dakota. so look, in my state we understand flooding. we understand the challenge. and we strongly support reauthorizing the national flood insurance legislation. no question. however, we need to get it right. we need to get it right and there's some important policy implications in the bill that is being put forward in the package that we likely will be voting on, along with the highway bill , as well as student loans. so we're looking at a package that includes reauthorization of national flood insurance, we're looking at a package that

addresses the interest rate on student loans, again, something that i absolutely believe that we need to do, and also a package that includes the highway legislation. but there's policy that's being inserted into the flood insurance bill that involves something called residual risk. residual risk and it's a new policy and we haven't carefully considered it and we haven't voted on it and we need to. we need to vote on this policy provision. in fact, the flood insurance bill that was passed in the house did not include this residual risk provision. it was not included in the house package. but now we're looking at a package including all three of these large pieces of legislation, the highway bill, student loans, and national flood reauthorization and we have this new residual risk policy in there that is not the

approach we should take and that's what i'm here to address along with my esteemed colleague, senator pryor from arkansas. i want to thank him for his leadership on this issue, and, in fact, senator pryor and myself have an amendment which would specifically address this issue. this issue is in section 107 of the national flood insurance legislation, and that is exactly what we address and i think we address at this time right way. it's very important we have opportunity to vote on this important issue. so let me talk about it in just basic straightforward commonsense terms. okay, the on cept is residual risk. what we're saying is we need to have a separate vote on residual risk. that needs to be struck from the flood insurance reauthorization. we can study it, evaluate it, and then once we've had opportunity to adequately both understand it and debate it, we

can make a determination about how 1993 best to proceed but it should not be included as part of this comprehensive legislation along with the other legislation in the package. so residual risk. let's say you have two individual homeowners, one who lives just outside the 100-year floodplain thanks to natural geography but one who lives this the floodplain but behind a levee that is designed to protect against a 100-year flood event. let me repeat that. federally certified and constructed to protect residents against the hundred-year flood event. now, under the health care -- excuse me, under the flood insurance legislation as it's currently written, one of those residents, the one behind the certified flood protection, will be required by federal law to buy flood insurance. but the one living outside the

hundred-year floodplain won't even though they have essentially identical risk. so in short form, the individual behind the certified dike or levee required to buy flood insurance, the other individual who is in essentially the same situation but natural topography or natural geography rather than certified protection, that individual is not required to purchase flood insurance. one is protected so to speak by the natural landscape, the other by good, solid engineering and an understanding of the risk involved and wait takes to protect against flooding. but only one of them has to buy flood insurance. madam president, that's not fair. first of all, homeowners and businesses are already paying for flood protection through the infrastructure they've elected to build to protect themselves and their property. so they're already paying for it when they build that certified infrastructure. nobody is more aware of their flood risks than individuals in

those situations, whether it's their home or their business. communities that have already invested in flood protection infrastructure now in essence are going to be in a situation where they're paying twice for flood protection. yet the johnson-shelby substitute would force those communities to pay essentially every year for that flood protection. they would first pay for the infrastructure that they've already paid for through their local taxes and, again, then each year through a government mandated insurance purchase of flood insurance. further, federal, state, and local governments invest billions of dollars nationwide in flood protection infrastructure. in my home state of north dakota communities like minot, bismarck, jamestown and others are all working with local, state and federal government to build and/or fortify hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of flood protection.

this substitute amendment will seek change -- will ignore that. in essence, this is not a good return on investments, on investment for the american taxpayer. and the mandatory flood insurance purchase will have a harmful effect economically on communities already contending with flood risk or worse, communities already in a flood recovery mode. a manned to buy flood insurance will discourage businesses from building or rebuilding in an area certified -- certaintyifiably protected with flood protection. that will reduce a community's revenue base and impede new opportunities to create jobs and economic activity. often in a community already struggling to recover its economic base. additionally, the substitute amendment requires both mandatory insurance purchase for people behind certified flood control infrastructure and at the same time a study on the very same policy it intends to

implement. we shouldn't be enacting a provision into law until we understand its implications and its consequences. mr. president, the pryor-hoeven amendment allows the study to move forward but it removes the mandatory insurance purchase requirement. we should determine more about how it impacts individuals and communities before this new mandate is considered. we have to keep in mind that we're talking about a policy change that affects millions of people across the country. this chart, all these dark green areas represent counties throughout this country with levees. so you're talking millions of people who are currently protected with levees. in the case that they have certified levees right now they're not required to purchase flood insurance.

but with this vote on the whole package if we don't address residual risk in the way that i've put forward, that changes. all of them become subject to purchasing flood insurance. now, i would submit to you that there's a lot of mayors, a lot of city council members, a lot of county commission members that would like to know if there's going to be a policy change where they're now going to be required to purchase flood insurance before that happens. keep in mind, keep in mind working with the federal government at the state and local level they've built flood protection. that flood protection has been certified. they've told their constituents that look, if we go out and whether they've made special assessments to do it or whether they have a tax base to do it or however they do it, they've gone out and told the people in their communities, said look, we're going to build this flood

protection, we're going to pay -- you're going to pay to build that flood protection, and we're going to do that so once constructed you're a, protected and b, you won't have to flew flood insurance along with your home mortgage. so that's what people expected. that's what's in place. and my simple point is before we change that, we better go out and talk to them. we better go out and tell them. we better go out and say hey, you know the way flood insurance works, it's going to change. and even -- when you were told that if you built that flood protection you wouldn't have to buy flood policies, that's now going to change. that, in fact, you will have to buy a policy under this residual risk. under this new approach. so my point is we've got to make sure that people understand that, and we've got to understand the ramifications and how it's going to work before we make this change. and that is why it is so important that we get a chance to vote on this amendment and

address it. and, again, as i've said, our amendment makes sure that we study the issue. we make sure that fema and the corps are in a position to actually do the analysis and determine whether or not it works or what the ramifications at least are of putting in -- putting it into place before we put a mandate like that into effect. so, again, madam president, as we go forward with this package that will include national flood insurance, that will include the highway bill, that will include reducing the rate on student loans, we've got to make sure that we have the opportunity to address this issue. it's not only basic fairness in terms of how the senate works, but it's also a fundamental issue of making sure that we are

letting our constituents know that we're letting the mayors out there, the county commissioners, the city commissioners and the citizens themselves who have counted on flood insurance working a certain way and who have built flood protection, certified flood protection, paid to build certified flood protection that, hey, there -- there may be a change coming and give them a chance to weigh in. and we've got to make sure that whatever we do, it's not only something that we've communicated to the citizens we represent on it but that it's absolutely fair, that it makes sense and that it's consistent. that it treats individuals who are in like circumstances, whether it's through natural topography or whether through its certified flood protection. but if they're in a similar or the same circumstance, they

needed to be treated consistently in order for -- for the legislation to be fair. and so that with -- and with that, madam president, i urge my colleagues to support our effort to get a vote on the pryor-hoeven amendment so that we can properly address this issue. with that, i yield the floor. i note that my colleague from the great state of pennsylvania, senator toomey, is here and at this point i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. toomey: thank you, madam president. i rise to address the same point that -- same topic that's been under discussion this afternoon by senator pryor and senator hoeven and others. and i really strongly share the concern that they have registered. i think we have seriously flawed legislation in the form of this flood insurance reauthorization bill, and i think we're kind of compounding our problem by apparently inserting this into a transportation conference report rather than doing what we ought to do in the senate, which is let's have a debate about flood insurance. i think this is -- easily qualifies as a sufficiently important and substantive topic that we ought to bring it to the floor under regular expord consider the underlying --

regular order and consider the underlying policy, including the profound change in policy that's contemplated by the underlying bill, and a very important amendment that senators pryor and hoeven have provided the leadership on, and which i'm a cosponsor of, which i think absolutely deserves a vigorous debate and i would like to see passed. one of the many concerns i have about what we're doing now is we're taking this flood insurance bill and apparently some are considering this bill to be at least a partial offset to some of the expenditures contemplated in the transportation bill. now, for the life of me, i can't understand how this could possibly be a legitimate offset for spending. if it's a legitimate offset for spending, then that means it's net new revenue. but we're told that this bill is supposed to be actuarial sound, it's supposed to be revenue neutral. the premiums being charged for this flood insurance are

supposed to just equal out the payments that will have to be made in honoring claims against this fund. so i don't understand how that nets out to a -- a source of net revenue that can be spent somewhere else. how many times can we spend the same money? the insurance premiums that are collected are supposed to be collected to honor the liabilities that the federal government's taking on by virtue of this program. so how can it also go to pay out for transportation projects? i don't understand that. i also think that there's a real fundamental problem that senators pryor and hoeven have addressed and that is this huge expansion of this mandate. we have in this underlying bill a federal mandate that forces people to buy homeowner insurance. and it forces a new category of people to buy homeowner flood insurance and the new category

are those people who live behind a levee or a dam. now, a lot of folks have contributed a lot of money over many years to building levees and dams precisely so that they would be protected from the risk of floods. and, in fact, that works every day all across america. and yet we're going to ask those people to also have to pay as though there were no levee the there. this strikes me as a profoundly flawed approach. it completely ignores the investments that these communities have made for years and in the process, it discourages future flood mitigation measures, it discourages the maintenance of existing levees and dams. it discourages the building of additional ones. i think this is -- this is a bad idea. it's -- it's bad to create these kind of incentives. and i will say candidly, this disproportionately has an adverse effect on states that

have, over the years, a long history of building levees and dams. pen certainly would be among those states. if you look at this map, it shows the counties in which there are le -- are levees and s and almost the entire commonwealth of pennsylvania is shaded in because we've got levees and dams all across the common wel. and they work and they hold. and people have invested to have that security, that protection. and, frankly, there are a lot of communities that would like to have additional levees and dams to have more protection than we have today. and what this measure would do, would say well, don't do that. you know, what good does it do? you're still going to have to pay for flood insurance. so i think this is a -- a badly flawed approach. and finally, let me just say once again, there's something very wrong with this process. this is a big deal to ask 1 million to 2 million additional pennsylvanians -- to not ask, to force them into a

program where they would be forced to buy an insurance product whether they want it or not. by the way, nothing stops them from voluntarily choosing to purchase flood insurance but that's not what this bill is about. the bill is about forcing them to buy this product. and to think that we're going to create this huge new mandate on what could be 2 million pennsylvanians alone, many more millions across the country, to do it without a full debate on the senate floor without the opportunity to consider this legislation, without the opportunity to consider and debate and vote on amendments i think is a big mistake. so i would urge my colleagues to take a look at this map and to consider strongly insisting that the transportation conference report not include this legislation and that we proceed under regular order to debate a very important measure which would be the reauthorization of the flood insurance program. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. pryor: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas is recognized. mr. pryor: thank you, madam president. i was having trouble getting through the obstacle course over here of all these charts and a all. let me just thank all my colleagues who've come here today to talk about this. it turns out we've had two democrats and two republicans. we may have more on the way. i know of at least one or two others that may be on the way. and i'd just like to say thank you to them for their assistance here but also more importantly i want to thank them for doing a great job of representing their states well. because when you look at their states and the number of levees they have in their states, the number of people who will be adversely impacted by this, this

is a very significant piece of legislation. it deserves debate. i do not like the fact that somewhere in this building behind closed doors people are trying to negotiate this legislation into a larger package. we should let the senate be the senate. we should bring the national flood insurance program bill to the floor by regular order. we should debate it. we should offer amendments. we should vote on those amendments, vote on final passage. shouldn't have any funny business with. this this is an important piece of legislation. but right now the funny business with this legislation is not the fact that there may be extraneous amendment or two that's totally unrelated to the subject matter. the funny business right now is they're trying to jam this down the throats of other senators, especially when they know that

there's an amendment that's relevant, that's germane, that's in order and that amendment would probably get well over 50 votes. they're thwarting the will of the senate if they include this in the legislation. so i would -- i would implore my colleagues who are involved in this conference effort to try to bring the surface transportation bill, which i support, and try to bring the stiewrnt loan bill, which i support, try to bring those bills to the floor, i would implore them to not include the offending language of section 107. if they do, i want to state my intention to object to that language when it comes here to the senate. and that is not a very pleasant prospect because that means the house may have to stay longer, the senate may have to stay longer. this is completely avoidable. i think that we haven't

mechanism in place where we can either take this legislation, the flood insurance legislation, up tomorrow and dependence with it and -- and pass -- and dispense with it, and pass it, i hope, or amendment it, i hope. and we we can file cloture, if there's problems with extraneous amendments, we can file cloture more or less tomorrow and then after the 4th of july recess, where we'll be back home in our home states, we can then take it up the first day or two we get back. so there's way to do this. we have to remember -- so there's ways to do this. we have to remember, madam president, that this legislation -- excuse me, this law does not expire until the end of july. we have two or threep extra thrs here. it's not going to expire this weekend. we have another month that we can do this and sometimes things in the congress take time. i understand that. i'd rather do it sooner rather than later. i'd rather get it all done tomorrow. but i do not want this included in some larger package where we do not have a chance to offer

the pryor-hoeven amendment. i yield the floor. mr. hoeven: thank you, senator pryor. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, madam presidentmenmadam preside. i'd like to join with senator pryor in this objection. we've clearly laid out a resolve the situation and that is to have a vote on the amendment that we've put forward. and we -- and there are other ways to resolve it as well. and, you know, we've made that very clear. but, look, this is a clear case where in order to make a policy change of that magnitude, it needs to be properly discussed, properly debated and certainly voted on. so this is a situation where we've clearly laid out any number of ways to resolve the issue. but this legislation, the section 107 that senator pryor referred, to should not be included in this legislation. and if it is, then i would seek

to join senator pryor in his objection. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: stphaot

quorum call: