they will gather in the chamber before proceeding to the house for president obama's state of the union address. watch live coverage on c-span beginning at 8:00 eastern. live coverage on the senate floor on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, you are always right, just and fair. we sing of your steadfast love and proclaim your faithfulness to all generations. today, inspire our lawmakers to walk in the light of your countenance. abide with them so that they will not be brought to grief, but will avoid the pitfalls that lead to ruin. lord, empower them to glorify

you in all they think, say and do. as they remember that all they have and are is a gift from you. this is the day that you have made. we will rejoice and be glad in you, the source of our hope and joy. we pray in your holy name amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the

majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1926, the flood insurance bill postcloture. the senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 today to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. mr. president, i understand that s. 1963 is at the desk and due for a second reading. the president pro tempore: the clerk will read for the second time. the clerk: s. 1963, a bill to repeal section 403 of the bipartisan budget act of 2013. mr. reid: mr. president, could i ask who the sponsors of this legislation are? who is sponsoring it? the president pro tempore: it is sponsored by senators pryor, hagan, shaheen and begich. mr. reid: thank you. i would object to any further

proceedings with respect to this bill. the president pro tempore: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, i congratulate diane skarvalo on her retirement after 20 years of dedicated service as a senate curator. every day people across this country and we who work in this great building, including students on filled trips, dignitaries, staffers alike appreciate the historic treasures stored in the hallways of this capitol. these works of fine art and craftsmanship are symbols of our democracy and for two decades diane has been the steward of these treasures. i thank her for her dedication and wish her the best in her future endeavors. i ask consent a more complete statement be made part of the record as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm gratified we were able to get

enough votes to begin debate on the flood insurance bill. senators menendez and landrieu worked closely with the republican cosponsors to get the bill this far. we have a long time -- we've been trying to get this for a long, long time. we're very close to a ask conse- we're very close to a consent agreement with the bill. we're going to move forward with a consent agreement or move forward with the bill. this bill is going to move forward this week. i hope we can work something out today to move forward. i commend senators menendez, landrieu and isakson for their hard work.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: tonight members of both parties will welcome the president to the capitol as he lays out his plans for the coming year. we look forward to hearing what he has to say. we also look forward to hearing what congresswoman rogers has to say too. she is a leader in our party with a compelling story, someone who truly understands what it means to overcome adversity, someone who is dedicated to helping every single american realize her greatest potential. the people of washington's fifth district are lucky to have her, and so are we.

as for the president's speech, this is a pivotal moment in the obama presidency. we're now entering our sixth year with president obama at the helm of our economy. the sixth year of his economic policies. and at this point we've seen just about everything in the president's toolbox. we've had a year's long clinic on the failures of liberalism, the government stimulus, the taxes, the regulations, the centralizeation, the government control. it just hasn't worked. 74% of american people say it still feels like the country is in a recession because to them, it still feels like it. as the majority leader likes to say, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer.

and ladders into the middle class have been kicked away, sawed off and literally regulated into oblivion. this is the legacy of the obama economy as we stand here at the start of 2014. but it doesn't have to be the legacy president obama leaves behind in january of 2017. and that's why tonight's address is so important. because it will give us the clearest indication yet of whether the president is ready to embrace the future or whether he'll once again take the easy route, the sort of reflective liberal route and just pivot back to the failed policies of the past. the choice the president now confronts is a pretty basic one, does he want to be a hero to the left or a champion for the middle class? can't be both.

he's got to choose. he could double down on the failed policies that brought us to this point. it would make his base pretty happy, i'm sure. but we certainly know where that path leads for the middle class. folks can try to package it any way they like, say it's a new focus on income stagnation that's gotten so much worse under this president's watch. but it's essentially the same path we've been on since he took office. the point is this, americans do not need a new message. they need a new direction. they don't need a new message. they need a new direction. the problem isn't the packaging. it never has been. it's the policies themselves. and president obama is the only person who can force that turn in direction. he's the only one who can lead it. he can reach to the center tonight and embrace change over

the broken status quo, embrace hope over steal ideology, ideology that led not just to stagnant incomes but to lower median incomes, to dramatic increases in the number of folks forced to ppaca part-time work -- forced to take part time work when they really want full-time work, to greater long-term unemployment to more poverty. he could ask members of both parties to help him make 2014 a year of real action rather than just a talking point. if he does, he's going to find he has a lot of support from republicans, because we want to work with him to get things done. and we always have. we'll be listening closely to see if he's finally prepared to meet us in the political middle so we can finally get some important things done for the middle class. and let's be honest, there's a lot that can be done.

for instance, he could call on senate democrats to stop blocking all the job creation bills the house of representatives has already passed. he could call for revenue-neutral tax reform that would abolish loopholes, lower tax rates for everyone and jump-start job creation where it counts: in the private sector. he could push his party to join republicans supporting bipartisan trade promotion legislation, something the president has said is a priority, and work aggressively to clinch the kind of job-creating trade agreements our allies in places like canada and europe and australia have already been seeking. he could work with us to reduce the debt and deficit to ensure the programs americans count on will be there when they retire. to make government smarter and leaner, to unshackle the growth, the growth potential of small business and entrepreneurs, to

address the massive dissatisfaction out there with the size and the scope of government. and if president obama wants to score an easy win for the middle class, he could simply put the politics aside and approve the keystone pipeline. the keystone pipeline is thousands of american jobs very soon. with regard to the keystone pipeline, he won't even need to use the phone. just the pen. one stroke and the keystone pipeline is approved. i know the keystone issue is difficult for him because it involves a choice between pleasing the left and helping the middle class.

but that's exactly the type of decision he needs to make. he needs to make it now. it's emblematic about the larger choices he'll need to make about the direction of our country too, because for all of this talk going around congress, he wouldn't have to if he actually tried to work with the people's elected representatives every now and then. i'm saying don't talk about using the phone. just use the phone. and please be serious when you call. take the income inequality issue we hear he'll address tonight. is this going to be all rhetoric, or is he actually serious? because he's correct to point out that the past few years have been very, very tough on the middle class. as i indicated, median household income has dropped by thousands since he took office. republicans want to work with him on this issue but only if he's serious about it.

he could show us he is by calling for more choices for underprivileged children trapped in failing schools. or he could agree to work with senator rand paul and me to implement economic freedom zones in our poorest communities. and here's something else. he could work with us to relieve the pain obamacare is causing for so many americans across the country, across all income brackets. i asked him last year to prepare americans for the consequences of this law. he didn't do it. today those consequences are plain for anyone to see. just last night i host add teletown hall meeting where kentuckians shared their stories about the stress that obamacare is causing them and their families. restricted access to doctors and hospitals, lost jobs, lower wages, fewer choices, higher costs. i assure you these folks won't be applauding when the president tries to spin this law as a

success tonight. more than a quarter million ken conditionans lost their -- more than a quart million kentuckians lost their plans they had and presumably wanted to keep despite the president's promises to the contrary. this is a law that caused premiums to increase an average of 47% in kentucky. and in some cases more than 100%. this is a law that in some parts of my state is limiting choices for health care coverage to just two companies -- two companies -- in the individual exchange market. and at what cost to the taxpayer for all of this? $253 million, that is how much washington has spent so far for these results in my state. a quarter of a billion dollars to essentially limit care, cancel plans and increase costs. kentucky's gotten more money to

set up its exchange than every state except california, new york, oregon and washington. that's a lot of money. and there is still only enrolled 30% of the people they were supposed to at this point. how in the world could that be considered a success? so president obama and governor bashear can keep telling americans to get over it if they don't like this law, but sooner or later, they're going to have to come to terms with reality. they're going to have to accept that obamacare just hasn't worked like the administration promised. in kentucky and across america, and it's time to start over with real reform. that's why tonight i hope the president will make a change. i hope he will announce his willingness to work with members of both parties to start over with real bipartisan reform that can actually lower costs and improve quality of care. that's the kind of reform kentuckians and americans really want.

and that's the way president obama can show that he is serious about having a year of action. at this time next year, we'll be able to judge if he was, because if the president is still talking about unemployment benefits next january rather than how to manage new growth, if he is still forced to address the pain of obamacare rather than touting the benefits of bipartisan health reform, if we're still trapped in these endless cul-de-sacs of keystone and trade and tax reform, then we'll know, we'll know what choice the president made. we'll know that the special interests won, that the middle class lost, but i hope we won't get there. i hope he will reach out tonight, i hope he will be serious, i hope he will help us chart a new path for the american people that both parties can support. that may sound like a fantasy to some on the hard left to think tonight is all about them, but the fact is there have always

been good ideas the two parties can agree on in washington, ideas that would make life easier, not harder, for working americans. until now, the president has mostly chosen to ignore them. here's hoping for something different tonight. mr. mcconnell: on another matter, i'd like to just say a fond farewell to the senate's long-time curator, diane

skarvarla who has been such a tremendous asset to the institution over the years and a very good friend to our office as well. all of our dealings with diane over the years have been marked by her great professionalism and her deep knowledge of and respect for the senate and its history. diane and her staff have been invaluable in the multiyear restoration of the strom thurmond room and in keeping up the rest of our historic suite. my staff has always enjoyed working with diane and her staff, and i hope we have been as gracious in return. now, for a lot of young people who wring their hands or wander around for a while after college, diane started working full time in the senate the monday after she graduated and has been here off and on ever since. she witnessed a lot of changes in the curator's office over the years. when diane started here full time in 1979, there were only three staffers in the office,

but in the years leading up to and after the nation's bicentennial when preservation really came back into vogue, there was no shortage of new work. diane went on to earn a master's degree in museum studies from george washington in 1987, and it paid off when she helped put together a major exhibit for the senate's own bicentennial in 1989. diane collaborated on the exhibit with don ritchie, and together they set a new high standard for projects of this kind. at the time, diane was associate curator and don associate historian. they would both rise through the ranks of their respective offices, so it has been a fruitful collaboration for many years. diane spent most of her early childhood in england where she first learned the sport of dressage. she gave up horses during

college at colgate in upstate new york, but went back to england in 1991 to become certified in teaching the sport. she kept up her riding after she returned to the states and came back to the senate as head curator in late 1994, replacing the widely admired jim ketcham. with jim's support and encouragement, diane learned the ropes and has doggedly pursued the legislative mandate of the senate curator's office ever since, and that mandate is to protect, preserve and educate. some of the biggest challenges diane has faced have involved dealing with disasters. in 1983, a bomb planted near the senate chamber destroyed portions of the corridor, including a portrait of daniel webster. under diane's supervision, a conservator put the pieces back together, put it back together and restored it. other projects diane has been

particularly proud of over the years include the publication of the united states senate catalog of fine art, a 481-page book that took years to complete, and the restoration of a giant portrait of henry clay from my state that was given to the senate after being discovered in the basement of a historical society. this magnificent painting of clay now hangs in the stairway off the brumidi corridor. the restoration of the old senate chamber was also a proud achievement. the entire senate family is grateful to diane for her many years of devoted service to this institution. through her work, she has helped preserve and bring to life the shared objects of our collective history as a people, precious objects that belong to all americans and to our posterity. her legacy is literally all

around us. we thank her for her work and wish her and her husband chris all the very best in the years ahead. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1926 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of calendar number 294, s. 1926, a bill to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the biggert-waters flood insurance reform act of 2012, and for other purposes. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to speak for up to ten minutes. i think we're in morning business.

the presiding officer: the senate is moving to proceed to consider motion s. 1926. ms. landrieu: wonderful. thank you. i'm going to speak on the bill that's before us, and i really appreciate the cooperation of so many members last night that voted to move forward on the debate of the fix to biggert-waters. we had a very strong, very impressive vote. i think 83 members, republicans and democrats, came together from all parts of the country, from all different areas and districts and backgrounds to vote to move forward on the debate on flood insurance, and i'm really grateful. we have been working on this for about a year and a half. it's been a tough slog because two years ago, a bill called biggert-waters was passed, named after the two cosponsors in the

house, congresswoman biggert and congresswoman waters, who passed a bill with very good intentions, thinking that they were going to strengthen the flood insurance program. the bill had wonderful intentions, but unfortunately the way it was finally drafted in the conference committee, it's had disastrous results. and some of us knew that two years ago and started working literally the moment the bill, the conference bill was passed to begin changing it. and so we have worked diligently and together and built a great coalition. i really want to thank the 200 organizations that came quickly together over the last year and a half, as quickly as any of these things could have happened in a practical sense, to really understand what went wrong in the first bill, how we could fix it so we could accomplish two really important goals for the

national flood insurance program. one, that the program could be self-sustaining, in other words, pay for itself with limited or minimal taxpayer burden, but the other equally important goal -- and you know, mr. president, representing new jersey how important this is, just like i understand this from louisiana, the other equally important goal was that the program could be affordable to middle-class families, because if it's not affordable to middle-class families, they won't participate in it and the program will go bankrupt for lack of participation. in insurance, the idea is to have a large pool to spread the risk, and that's how an insurance system works. well, what biggert-waters did, and if we don't fix it, is going to make that pool get smaller and smaller and smaller because people will not be able to afford it, the program will

collapse and the taxpayers will be saddled with debt. so the goal of our coalition which is led by menendez, senator menendez, your senior senator from new jersey who is on the banking committee, who has been one of the great spokesmen for this and leaders, senator isakson from georgia who is literally the most respected member in this whole body on issues related to real estate, because he has one of the largest -- or had one of the largest real estate companies in atlanta, knows the issues very well, is very well respected on both sides of the aisle. these two gentlemen have led this effort and have built a bipartisan coalition, so we are now ready this week -- of all weeks, this is state of the union week. we would have probably preferred another one, but it's just the way this worked -- to debate the bill on the floor of the senate. at last count when we left, there were about six or seven

relevant amendments, which is the only amendments that we're going to accept, relevant amendments to this bill. we're not going to accept amendments that are on other subjects in an effort to derail the senate, get us off topic, et cetera, et cetera. we will accept only relevant amendments to this bill, and the happy thing is we think we only have about seven or eight -- some amendments are republican, some amendments are democratic. now, we just received an amendment from one of the opponents of our bill, the good senator from pennsylvania, who has not been supportive of our bill, who has not worked with the coalition, who has not cooperated in any way. he has filed an amendment just -- we got it an hour ago. we have actually been waiting for a year and a half. last may he opposed the bill. we couldn't even get to the

debate because he wasn't happy about the direction we are going in. so that happened in may. it's now -- what is this month? january. we're in january. so he opposed the bill in may. it set us back seven months. we tried to explain to the senator from pennsylvania that 74,000 people in his state have these policies and that they, too, need help. whether he has been able to reconcile that with his constituents i don't know, but we literally after asking and asking and asking for his comments, his thoughts, his input, please let us know what we can do, we'll be happy to meet with you, the home builders will sit down, the realtors, we finally at the last hour get a draft of his amendment in the last hour. so we're literally reading it for the first time. i don't think that's cooperation, but he may have a

different definition of it. so we're reading that amendment now. i don't believe that amendment is going to help our cause. i think it is going to undermine what we're trying to do. i will have more comments about the specifics of it, but the senator from pennsylvania, for whatever reason, has just not been cooperative the whole time. we'll be happy to vote on his amendment. i think the amendment is going to do great harm to the bill, and i think i would urge our coalition at this point to vote no. but i'm going to go look at it. senator isakson has just received a copy of it in the last hour, and all i can do is ask our colleagues to be patient while we review this 13-page amendment. we are trying to get -- you know, we have 200 organizations that have been working on this. we're trying to be fair and get their input and then we will know how to proceed. but the bottom line is this -- this week we are going to pass a

flood insurance relief bill off the floor of the united states senate, and i want to put everybody here on notice that we have run out of patience. we have been working on this for a year and a half. we were told before christmas we could have a vote. then we were told we could have a vote when we got back. then we were told we could have a vote before we left. this is it. there's no more time. we're voting on this this week. we're either going to do it the easy way or the hard way. we're either going to have a few amendments that the republicans put up, democrats put up, and we get back to legislating like we should, or the leader is going to file cloture on this bill and we're going to pass it without an amendment. and if one single republican comes to this floor and sthaeus they did not -- and says that

they did not have time to discuss their amendment we will debate until the cows come home because i am not leaving this floor until every single person in america knows the games that can be played up here. i have been more than transparent. i have been more than honest. i have come here more than any senator, and i don't know if this is good or bad. it's just the only way i know how to lead, is to be forthright and honest with myself, with my constituents, and with people that really need to know what in the heck is going on up there. i just don't know how else to do it. and i'm not going to apologize. i'm not going to go read about how to do this in a book. there are no books on this. this is about leadership from the inside. and the only people that taught me this were my parents. so i'm just saying if anyone in this chamber thinks they're going to get away with trying to give some flimsy-lims kpwr* --

flimsy-limsy excuse about how they are upset with the leader they will have to go through me and i'm not moving because i've got people all over this country that are desperate. we passed the wrong bill. we should not have passed it. we must fix it, and we are going to fix it this week in the united states senate. now what the house does, what speaker boehner does, he made some negative comments about the bill last week. my comments back were the speaker has his hands full. he's been busy. i understand it. i wouldn't want his job. he's got a tough job. he's got a lot of issues to juggle. but i said, and i will say again, when this bill comes to the house -- which it will when it passes the senate this week -- he will hear from millions and millions of americans that paid their

mortgage every month, that went to work every day, who honor their families by building homes in places that have been for generations and they're about ready to take those front door keys and turn them in to the local bank and walk away from their house and speaker boehner is going to hear that. and i hope that those words, those expressions, those pictures, those letters will hit his heart the way they have hit mine and that he will have a softened heart and an open mind, and he will consider what we're trying to do. and i realize that our way may not be the most perfect way but it's a good way. and if somebody wants to improve it fine. but don't scuttle it pretending that you're helping. don't scuttle it by pretending that you are for some kind of, you know, better approach. if there was a better approach, we would have found it in the

last year and a half we've been searching. you're not going to find it in the last three minutes of this debate. so we're reviewing the toomey amendment. he has been the lead opponent of our effort. i don't believe his amendment is helpful, but until i read it, i won't be able to give a definitive. senator isakson will have to give his views on it. senator menendez will have to give his views on it, and we'll figure it out. but we are going to bring relief to the five million people that have done nothing wrong, middle-class families, many of them, some of them very poor families that have been living in places for generations. and because fema can't get its flood maps right, because fema can't get the affordability study done, they're going to be kicked out of their homes? talk about misguided regulation.

and i hope that mitch mcconnell, our leader, republican leader, talking about misguided regulation, would put a little muscle here into helping us. he's been cooperative, and i thank him. senator reid has been putting a lot of muscle into this, and i thank him. but i hope people will come to the floor and speak about the importance of this bill. we'll figure out this amendment process. all germane amendments. and get this final vote this week. but you know, this is going to get done this week. the easy way or the hard way. and we're done. and the vote's going to happen this week, and we're going to move this bill to the floor. and to the president, he put out a statement, and his administration, that they, you know, didn't have many positive things to say about this. let me just say i think their statement is misinformed. it was misguided. i'm really hoping the white

house will reconsider. the president's coming here tonight to talk about the importance of strengthening the middle class. i would think that allowing middle-class people to stay in their homes would be a good place to start. so i hope that the administration will take a second look at this and join us and help us to let middle-class families stay in their homes. colorado is a beautiful state. let me just conclude. i've been there many times. but not everybody can live in the mountains of colorado. there's some of us that have to live along rivers and streams and ports to build and to support the infrastructure that helps to make this country grow. and my people who fish every day, who harvest the oysters, who put seafood on the table, who bring those huge and magnificent barges up and down the river, they can't live in vail, colorado. i'm sorry. they don't like the snow and they couldn't afford to live there anyway.

they live in little places like venice and plaquemines and the lower ninth ward that got flooded out, every single home destroyed. they can go back if we use our science and engineering and brain and lead with our hearts and our heads, this can work. if people are playing political games, trying to score political points or if they're not working hard enough to understand the issue, then i feel sorry for them because the public needs our help. and i yield the floor. i suggest 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 oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i rise to address the homeowners flood insurance affordability act. the presiding officer: excuse me. the senate is in a quorum call. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president.

i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. mr. president, i have come to the floor to talk about the homeowners flood insurance affordability act. this bill is a bill that is designed to fix the damage that has been done by the biggert-waters act, and this damage is extensive. this bill would freeze dramatic rate hikes, and these rate hikes have several impacts. we have, of course, the impact on families that currently have flood insurance that will be paying much higher levels than they bargained for when they bought their home and may not be able to afford those much higher levels, raising questions about their ability to stay in those homes. we have the impact on commercial enterprises and the fact that now that they are paying higher rates, they may not feel that they can add onto their business in that location.

and then we have the impact, of course, on selling your property, whether you are a homeowner or you are a business because the folks who might be buying might have to jump to a full rate that would be many times in some cases ten times the price that the current owner is paying, and when that happens, the property becomes unaffordable, and therefore the value that one has in their home or business drops dramatically. so all of this is of great concern, and we need to reverse the features of biggert-waters that are causing this economic havoc. now, this bill comes out of discussions that were in my subcommittee on economic policy several months ago, and this discussion has now led -- is now led by senator menendez, and he has been ably assisted and partnered with senator mary

landrieu and senator isakson and senator vitter, and i compliment them all for being vocal advocates and instrumental in helping to move this bill forward. the biggert-waters act, while well intentioned, is creating massive burdens for our middle-class homeowners, in oregon and certainly across the nation. flooding is something of an equal opportunity disaster. for some, it's coastlines. for others, it's broad flood plains along major rivers. for others, it's narrow valleys and flash floods. but in all of these situations, the common impact is dramatic devastation. something is very strong, though, when families are more worried about dramatic spikes in their flood insurance premiums than they are worried about dramatic floods, and that's where my oregon families are right now. i want to share a letter from

kelly. she lives in tagard. she says in her own words -- quote -- "she is a middle-class single mother currently working to get her daughter through college." she bought her home 13 years ago to provide stability for her daughter. this is a goal of so many parents to have a piece of the american dream, to have the stability that goes with homeownership, to have the equity that you build up in your home as a financial reservoir with which to assist your children going forward in life. she thought about selling a few years ago but decided to stay in that house and keep that financial foundation, but now with biggert-waters going into effect, she has been caught between two bad choices. if she stays in her home, her flood insurance rates will go up precipitously, making her home

increasingly unaffordable and squeezing an already tight budget. but should she try to sell, the new owner will face annual flood insurance premiums of $15,000 or more, making her home completely unaffordable for middle-class buyers. now, keep in mind this. for every $1,000 that a buyer pays in flood insurance per year, the value of a home drops by about $20,000, so if the flood insurance is $15,000, you're talking about a value of a home dropping $300,000. and many middle-class homes in oregon, they aren't priced at $300,000. they might be $200,000 or $220,000 or $250,000, or in more rural areas $150,000 or $175,000. so you can wipe out the complete value of a home and certainly easily wipe out the equity that a homeowner has built up over a

number of years. so essentially you have to give the home away. that makes no sense. to read from kelly's letter -- quote -- -- quote -- she says here is where i see the problem. there is an old saying. you can't get blood from a stone. i know, she continues, i am not alone in my predicament of barely getting by financially. middle-class folks like me are squeezed from all sides. while living expenses rise every year, our income generally does not raise enough to make up for it. we tighten our belts. we wait for better times. so the problem here is we can't afford to pay these much higher rates. we just don't have the money. she continues in her analysis.

she says there are options, of course. we can come up with the many tens of thousands of dollars to raise our houses up and make them flood friendly. but wait, we don't have tens of thousands of dollars, and we can't sell. that's the beauty here. who will buy a small middle income type home that has a flood insurance bill of $15,000 to $30,000 a year? so, she goes forth, so what will we do? the over one million homeowners in this situation? to our utter frustration and humiliation, many of us have no choice but to walk away. whatever the attitudes about us are, most of us are good americans who believe in paying our debts. we have worked hard our entire lives and asked for little and no help along the way. this will crush us, and since we don't have the money to give, there is no benefit to be had.

that's how she concludes her letter. this will crush us. and she is right. it will crush her family, it will crush millions of families across this country, it will include foreclosures, it will include equity wiped out, it will result in families having to walk away from their home and hope that they aren't pursued by the mortgage company that will be unable to sell the home on a secondary market for the debt owed and therefore could pursue the owners. mr. president, it is wrong and counterproductive to squeeze middle-class homeowners like kelly when it will only result in more foreclosures for families trapped in their homes unable to sell. making flood insurance more solvent is a laudable goal, but it is one we have to approach in a manner that involves fairness over time. achieving solvency by putting a huge burden, a huge financial

shock on the backs of our middle-class families isn't just wrong. it's a financial disaster that is unfolding now and will continue to unfold across this country. you can't get to solvency by asking families to pay sums they simply don't have, or as kelly said, you can't get blood from a stone. we need to immediately stop these dramatic rate hikes for our homeowners and businesses while fema goes back to the drawing board to figure out how to make this program affordable and effective for our middle-class families. that is exactly what this bill does. this bill has several important provisions that help ensure affordability and fairness for our middle-class families. the first is it delays implementation of flood insurance rate increases. it does so on primary residences and on businesses until fema can complete an affordability study,

propose regulations to address the problem of affordability and give congress time to weigh in. second, unlike biggert-waters, this bill ensures that fema will truly have the funding they need to complete a comprehensive affordability study. third, this bill takes on a catch-22 in the current system which is that when homeowners face unaffordable rates that they think are inaccurate, they have to pay out of their pocket for a flood map appeal to prove that their premiums should be lower. so when someone else makes a mistake, they have to pay for that mistake, and that is wrong. the studies necessary for an appeal can cost between $500 and $2,000. it's a prohibitive cost for many families to undertake. this bill ensures that any homeowner who can successfully appeal a flood map finding will be reimbursed by fema for their

spence, making the system fair for the homeowner and giving fema an added incentive to get it right. finally, this bill does something very important in creating a flood insurance rate map advocate within fema, someone to educate and advocate for homeowners. one of the complaints my office has heard is that fema has not been responsive to homeowners concerns or questions about changes in their policy. the creation of this position, an advocate, will do several things. the advocate will educate policyholders about their flood risks and options in choosing a policy. the advocate will assist those who believe their flood map is wrong and assist them through the appeals process. the advocate will improve outreach and coordination with local officials, community leaders and congress. my colleagues, senator hoeven and senator heitkamp, have also

done great work on this bill to ensure homeowners in certain communities are not hit by unfair rules on how their basements impact a flood policy. i want to address one other issue that is not in this bill that hopefully i will be able to offer an amendment on, and that is protection for consumers whose policies are purchased by their mortgage servicer or their bank rather than by themselves. this is an issue of predatory forced place premiums. let me explain. let's say, for example, that you are notified by your servicer that they have reviewed the records and they now consider you to be in a floodplain they hadn't noticed before, and you have to get flood insurance. but that flood insurance unsubsidized is so expensive, you can't afford it. then the servicer says we're going to put on flood insurance for you, and the rate might be five to ten times the market rate.

in other words, the homeowner who already can't afford flood insurance is gouged by a predatory premiums on forced place insurance. or let's consider that perhaps you have a transition in your family. maybe you had one partner paying the bills and another partner takes it over while the first partner is sick and you missed the fact that your annual premium was due on your flood insurance. so what happens? that lapse can trigger much higher rates that you can't afford, and then suddenly you're in the situation of forced place insurance. or how about if new maps are issued, and the new maps now put you into a floodplain that you weren't in previously. it isn't that the geography changes.. it's a different set of engineers doing a different

study about what creek will swell the quickest puts you into the 100 year vlad -- floodplain. you can't afford the newly placed insurance and so your bank puts it on for you. they should put it at a fair market rate, not at a rate that is five to ten times the fair market rate that is designed to gouge. and so i have an amendment that addresses this by saying the servicer or bank cannot take fees, or as some would say kick backs, cannot take fees for replacing this insurance and therefore have an incentive to do a nonmarket race policy that is five or ten times higher than the actual market rate. this is a significant problem in forced place home insurance and certainly we don't need to add to this problem by allowing predatory premiums on forced place policies in the realm of

flood insurance. so i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a look at this issue, to support banning the anticompetitive features of the market that have led to these predatory premiums on flood insurance -- forced place flood insurance. in closing, i want to again thank my colleagues who have worked so hard on this. this is an important issue, an incredibly important issue for families across oregon. let's stop these dramatic rate hikes. let's work together for an affordable flood insurance program that will be effective and fair for all americans. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i would ask to speak in morning business for about 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: and i'll also ask permission at the end of my

remarks to insert some letters that i'll be speaking about. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: recently the obama administration has been talking a lot about income inequality and poverty. yesterday i spoke about the issue, about the war on poverty, its successes and its failures. as i said yesterday, the u.s. has spent trillions of dollars in the last 50 years fighting the so-called war on poverty. i said yesterday that the results have been marginal, in some cases successful, reducing the poverty rate down from 19% down to the 15% it is now. but a lot more needs to be done. now in the fight against the war on poverty this administration, like a lot of administrations, wants to spend more money on

more programs. some of that may be justified, but that doesn't seem to fix the problems. if you just hand this money out with no strings and no oversight, it gets diverted and misused. and that's the purpose of my speaking today on the subject of public housing. wasted money doesn't help the poor. there are a lot of people who make a nice profit from the poverty of others. and this administration has been helping a number of these profiteers while the poor suffer. i want to be clear that some of these issues that i'm talking about, their genesis go back to previous administrations as well. through my oversight work, i've seen this happen over and over again, that a few people profit

from trying to help the poor, but the money doesn't go there. the department of housing and urban development hands out $4 billion in federal money every year to local housing authorities. this money is supposed to help provide clean, affordable, safe housing for the poor. but while no one is watching, so much of the money gets spent on high salaries and perks for the people who run the housing authorities. these hougs authorities -- these housing authorities have other sources of money, but most of them, up to 90% of their total funding comes from the $4 billion contributed by the federal taxpayers. housing and urban development argues that because housing

authorities are state and local government entities, there's no reason to scrutinize them from here in washington, d.c.. now, as far as i'm concerned, h.u.d. is missing for four billion reasons -- those are dollar reasons -- taxpayer money should come to make sure that the federal authorities that tkeus -- disburse it, make sure to see that it is spent in the legal way and to help the people that need the help. i've been conducting oversight of the wasteful spending at housing authorities for almost four years. i've been urging the kpwo*epld to -- i've been urging the obama administration to look at what is happening and to take action but there is little if any interest in the oversight of these federal dollars by the

folks writing the checks here in washington, d.c.. they just want to send the check and pat themselves on the back. they don't want to talk about what actually happens to the money once it's disbursed. federal funds end up feathering the nests of local bureaucrats instead of housing for the poor. i will show you how that's done. here are some of the most egregious examples of how housing and urban development has been at policing local housing authorities. in florida, an area of the country which was hit extremely hard during the foreclosure crisis. but employees at braydenton housing authority only have to work four days a week. they get two weeks off at christmas, bonuses in june and december, and the option to cash

out up to a month of sick leave twice per year. they get free use of a car purchased by the housing authority. after 15 years of employment, they get to keep the car when they leave or take $10,000 instead. it's their choice. there are generous fringe benefits, but many housing authorities also provide very lucrative salaries. these salaries far exceed the salaries of federal employees right here in washington, d.c. who hand out the taxpayers' money to the housing authorities. the biggest salary jackpot winners that i've encountered so far are the atlanta housing authority. at least 22 employees there earn between $150,000 and $303,000 per year. the atlanta housing authority benefits from a special h.u.d.

designation called moving to work. that program exempts designated housing authorities from certain requirements, including salary justifications. this is not just an isolated example. the executive director of the raleigh, north carolina, housing authority receives about $280,000 in salary and benefits plus up to 30 vacation days. he also accumulates comptime for any hours he works or seven and a half hours per day. he's used over 20 days of comptime per year since 2009. add that to his regular vacation time, and he's out of the office nearly three months per year. nine months of work for $280,000 is an analyzed sal -- an annualized salary of $375,000 per year. very few taxpayers funded

jobs -- very few taxpayer-funded jobs pay anything close to that amount. so what's the justification? the justification for such high salaries, particularly considering the fact that they are supposed to provide safe, affordable housing for low-income people. after years of ignoring the issue, h.u.d. finally capped federal funding for executive salaries at $155,500 per employee. of course this was only after various local media and i exposed deep-rooted problems and pushed the department of housing and urban development to afpblgt but now housing authority executives have turned to creative accounting tricks to get around that limit of

$155,500 per employee. since some of their money comes from other sources, the housing authorities simply claim that any salary over the federal limit comes from one of those other sources. whereas the money from those other sources ought to be used to help low-income people have affordable, clean and safe housing. because of my oversight letters on this subject, h.u.d. recently notified the housing authorities that they must document the original source of the funding used to pay salaries over the federal limit. now that's good news. but there are still larger problems. the department is still not making this salary data public in a reasonable time frame. i'll give you an example. this administration refused to release the 2010 set of data for

almost a year. i hope we don't have to wait a year for getting the most recent data. like many of our federal agencies, some housing authorities spend large afplts money on travel -- large amounts of money on travel for conferences and training. now some of that may be legitimate, but i'm raising questions about the extent to which it's done and the amount of money that's consumed. staff and board members often attend the same conferences throughout the united states year after year. they often attend multiple conferences in a single year. in addition to travel costs, housing authorities must pay a conference fee for each attendee they send often ranging from $400 at the low end to $1,000 per employee at the higher end. that money could easily be used to improve conditions and make needed repairs in public housing facilities.

but instead it's frittered away on conferences. in other words, forget the low-income people you're supposed to be helping and spend the money someplace else. the tampa housing authority has spent more than $860,000 since 2009 for staff and board members to attend various conferences, seminars and training programs. $860,000 that could have been used to provide affordable housing for low-income people. tampa also has been spending -- sending 20 or more employees per year to conferences sponsored by the national association of housing and redevelopment officials. that alone costs more than $177,000 per year. the atlanta housing authority has spent more than $480,000 since 2009 for the employees to attend conferences and training

centers -- sessions. in fact, the housing authority paid over $68,000 in conference fees to a software company after giving them a multimillion-dollar contract for a new computer system. now, i wonder but i don't know but i think it's legitimate to question if the housing authority executive director thought to ask for a discount. many of the housing authorities with questionable spending don't limit the abuses to salaries or travel. the tampa housing authority purchased a new $7 million administrative office that includes nearly three million dollars in -- $3 million in renovations and upgrades. that could have helped hundreds if not thousands of poor people needing the housing. they are also paying nearly $800,000 in salary and benefits for a public relations department, while at the same time paying an employee another

$170,369 as a p.r. consultant. other housing authorities are also spending exorbitant amounts for outside consultants. some of these consultants are former employees of a local housing authority. in 2013, the pittsburgh housing authority retained ten law firms for a total of $3.5 million over three years. one law firm has been representing the housing authority during inquiries by the department of housing and urban development here in washington, d.c. of the office of inspector general and the city controller. now, think about that. it's bad enough that taxpayers' money meant to help the poor is wasted, but when the taxpayer also pays the lawyers to defend the very organization from scrutiny about whether the taxpayers' money was wasted is even more outrageous.

and of course that just adds insult to injury. in philadelphia, outside lawyers block the inspector general's office from assessing spending data for months, and that costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. the pittsburgh housing authority also paid outside consulting firm $1.25 million in the year 2012. the vice president at the consulting company billed the housing authority $440,000 for 2,400 hours of work. that's 48 hours a week for a year. it is more than double the $168,000 salary of the housing authority executive director. harris county, texas, is one of the most egregious examples of out-of-control spending. in 2013, the h.u.d. inspector

general questioned the mismanagement of over $27 million in the federal funding for harris county. the i.d. provided -- i.g. provided the following examples of fraud and abuse. over $1.7 million in excessive payroll expenses. $190,000 for statutes and -- statues and monuments. $66,000 for employee shirts embossed with logos. $27,000 for trophies, plaques and awards. $14,500 for a helicopter, chartered bus and golf cart rentals for a grand opening. and $18,000 for letters written by abraham lincoln. i continue to send my oversight letters to the senate appropriators and the senate banking committee, and it's these letters that i have gotten

permission to put in the record at the end of my statement. the senate appropriators and the senate banking committee members have jurisdiction over the department of housing and urban development. they have the authority to do something about these abuses. my colleagues need to know the extent of the problems and that i'm ready to work with the members of this body to address these issues. employment -- employment at public housing authorities should be -- employment at public housing authorities should be about public service. that's why we have a program serving the needs of the low income. it's supposed to be providing clean, safe, affordable housing for those in need, not helping bureaucrats live -- live high on

the hog at the taxpayers' dime. now, i said in my opening this problem didn't start with this administration, for sure. there is a culture here that had to start back a long ways away, but now bringing these problems to the attention of this administration, i hope that it will take them seriously, and if this administration is truly serious about income inequality and not just using it for political purposes, it would stop shoveling taxpayers' money out the door with practically no oversight, no controls and no limits and the waste of money that i just expressed. if president obama is truly serious about income inequality, he would take the money that high-income public housing authorities waste and give it to the benefit of low-income

patrons of the public housing to provide what the law is meant to provide these people -- safe, affordable, healthy housing. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: