specifically of the measure would delay full insurance rate increases for four years. debate on a series of amendments with votes on those amendments expected this afternoon. the pass final passage vote would follow later this evening. live to the senate floor on c-span2. l come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, ultimate judge of the universe, you have been our dwelling place in all generations, and we are sustained by your steadfast love. today surround our senators with the shield of your favor as they labor to keep america strong.

lord, teach them to be obedient to your commands, doing your good will as your presence fills them with joy. manifest your power through their labors so that this nation will be exalted by righteousness. help our senators to put their trust in you and to recapture their trust in one another as your angels guard them in all their ways. we pray in your strong name. amen. the presiding officer: 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. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., january 29, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable edward markey, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 297, s. 1950. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 297, s. 1950, a bill to improve the provision of medical services and benefits to veterans and for other purposes.

mr. reid: mr. president, i was happy to move on behalf of chairman sanders who's put together this bill. it's supported by 25 different service organizations. following my remarks this morning and those of the republican leader, the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour with the majority controlling the first half, republicans the final half. following that morning business the senate will begin consideration of s. 1926, the flood insurance legislation. we were able to reach an agreement for several amendments to be considered to the flood insurance bill. all amendments must be offered by 3:00 p.m. today. other roll call votes are possible later today. senators will be notified when these votes are scheduled. mr. president, for the last 45 months america's private sector added more than eight million jobs. we heard that from the president last night. the stock market soared. productivity has never in the history of our country been higher and americans have even

started building and buying homes again. but while the economy is gaining momentum, for far too many americans the hopeful headlines don't match the grim reality. for the last few decades middle-class americans have seen their paychecks shrink even at corporate, as corporate profits climb and the wealthy are doing better and better. mr. president, as the president said last night, there's nothing wrong with people making money, and we're all happy they're doing well. but the average c.e.o.'s income multiplied 250 times. the people who work for that c.e.o. is making less and less every year. that's happened during the last 30 years. the richest 1% have had their wealth increased by three times while during that same period of time middle class' earning capacity dropped 10%.

average americans are working longer and harder than they were 30 years ago and doing less in the way of remuneration. the difference is this, their hard work isn't paying off the way it used to. we must change that, and we can change that. it's not too late to ensure that americans success are determined by the strength of their spirits instead of the the size of their bank accounts. 50 years ago in his first state of the union address lyndon johnson declared unconditional war on poverty. we've seen a lot of news accounts on that anniversary during the last month or so. but here's what lyndon johnson said 50 years ago -- quote -- "unfortunately many americans live on the outskirts of hope because of their poverty. our task is to help replace their despair with opportunity." end of quote. thanks to these innovative programs created five decades ago including medicare and school lunch programs, the poverty rate has fallen 40%

since the 1960's. mr. president, there's so much work to do. the 67 richest americans, their net worth increased $2 billion on average last year, every one of them. you know what happened? during that same time a million more american children dropped into poverty. so there's much more to do. too many american families still live on the outskirts of hope, struggling to survive and falling well short of the american dream. last night president obama laid out a plan to breathe new life into this country's struggling middle class. the president charted a course to build on the economic progress we made over the last 45 months and to guarantee progress is felt by every hardworking american. he challenged us, congress, to work with him to replace despair with opportunity. president obama called for commonsense investments in our future, investments that have been deferred for too long.

if america hopes to rebuild and maintain a world-class economy, we must build the 21st century infrastructure to support that economy and a cutting edge energy supply of power. we must prepare today's students for tomorrow's jobs by ensuring a higher education is within reach of every promising student. we must give small businesses and manufacturers the support they need to drive. and we must ensure every american earns a living wage during their working years and the opportunity to retire comfortably. i support the president's action to raise the wage for private contractors who work for the government. janitors, food servers, dishwashers, construction workers. no american working a full-time job should live in poverty and congress must act to raise the minimum wage for all of our nation's workers. a strong middle class and an opportunity for every american to enter the middle class is the key to this nation's prosperity. last night the president also asked us to renew our commitment

to the principles upon which this country was founded. the principle that made this country great: fairness, basic fairness. and make certain every american regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or income has the opportunity to a full, equal participant in the workforce. there are no guarantees in life. not everyone succeeds, but every american deserves a fair shot at that success. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader.

mr. mcconnell: i'd like to say a word this morning about the president's state of the union speech. let me say that i think congresswoman mcmorris rogers did a great job representing our party and the people of washington state's fifth district last n.i.h. frankly, i wish the president had -- last night. frankly i wish the president laid out an agenda half as hopeful as the one she did because the state of the union address is always an important moment for our country. it's an opportunity for the two parties to come together with the president, members of the supreme court and other government officials to show a kind of unity even in the midst of the great debates that we have here every single day. it's a worthy tradition. and last night the president had a real chance to unite the nation around a forward-looking agenda. he had a huge opportunity to reach to the middle and chart a

new path at a time when nearly 77% of americans say the country is either stagnant or worse off now than when the president took office, that we're on the wrong path. it could have been a legacy-making moment. instead it was the same tired boilerplate we hear year after year after year. and when you peel back all the anecdotes, all the platitudes and nods to the left, what remain for the middle class? largely the same tired policies that led us to this point. the same failed agenda with its legacy of stagnant unemployment, lower incomes, growing inequality and crumbling pathways to the future.

the only difference is that now the president wants to keep on doing the same old thing just as elected representatives in congress. basically all the same policies, less of that pesky democratic accountability. because the president didn't talk about embracing a positive new agenda last night. he didn't talk about reforming our tax code in a way that would drive private-sector growth and job creation. he didn't talk about finding serious ways to start reducing a massive $17 trillion debt that threatens to suffocate our economy and crush the dreams of our children. he didn't talk about saving social security and medicare or about streamlining and slimming the size of government or about setting america's entrepreneurs and small businesses free to dream and to succeed. as for energy, the president's plan seems to boil down to more

regulation and new taxes on energy production. for all of his talk of phones and pens, he didn't even mention using his pen to sign off on the keystone pipeline. it's the single simplest action he could have taken to create jobs soon. and it's a project that wouldn't have created -- it's actually a project, as i indicated, that would create jobs right away. and it still can. if the president will just lead. unions support it. powerful members of his own party support it. the american people overwhelmingly support it. but there's one small group that doesn't support it: special interests on the far left. well, the special interests on the far left won last night and the middle class lost. and you know, there's another big issue where the president turned his back on the middle class, and that, of course, is

obamacare. the state of the union was the president's opportunity to finally admit his mistakes and the painful consequences that have affected so many in kentucky and around the country. it was a chance to call for a fresh bipartisan beginning, to start over with true health reform that could really help middle-class families. instead he simply doubled down on failed policies. i know he tried to paint a rosy picture of life under this law in his speech, and i suppose that's natural. but he must know that it's not a picture that reflects reality. he must know that americans suffering under this law aren't going to buy the spin. and he must know that trying to sell kentucky's obamacare bureaucracy as some kind of success story is to the thousands and thousands of kentuckians being hurt by it, well, it's, frankly, insulting. it's insulting to the quarter

million kentuckians who had their plans canceled because of this law. it's insulting to the families struggling to afford premiums that have on average increased by almost half across kentucky. and it's insulting to taxpayers who have been forced to subsidize to the tune of about $250 million in kentucky alone, obamacare's restricted access to doctors and hospitals, its crushing effect on families and its skyrocketing costs. so look, it's clear premised the mark last night. on some issues he actually said the right things. like on trade promotion authority, that's a place where we can work together to create more american jobs as long as the president can convince his own party to work constructively with us to do that. because what he didn't say last night is that the only thing stopping us from creating more trade jobs is his own party. so we'll see if he actually

follows through on trade. but overall, the president mostly refused to budge from his failed policies. he refused to reach across the aisle in a way that would lead to immediate job growth opportunities. that's distressing news for our country. it's especially disheartening for the middle class, and it's disappointing for those of us who actually want to get big things done for our constituents. for those who really do want to work with the president, who want to collaborate on smart bipartisan policies that can finally, finally get americans back to work after years of this failed obama economy but we can't do it without president obama. he has to lead on trade, jobs, energy, the economy, whatever the issue. so we're not going to give up. we're not going to stop trying to help him see that americans are calling for a new direction, for a forward-leaning agenda that actually puts the middle class first and leaves tired

left-wing ideas where they belong in the history books. and when the president is ready to work with us, he should know that we'll be here, waiting for him. we've always been here, actually. and many members of his party with other helpful ideas have been here, too, waiting for him. democrats with smart ideas the president hasn't been willing to consider so far. all he needs to do, all he needs to do is pick up the phone. and if he's willing to actually work in a serious way with members of both parties, we'll send him some things to sign with that pen, too. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between

the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half. mr. mcconnell: i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that patrick miller bartly, kyle brewster and daniel corley of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, earlier this month, we commemorated the 50th anniversary of president johnson's declaration of

unconditional war on poverty. that war on poverty was a massively successful initiative. it helped tens of millions of americans lift themselves out of poverty, reduced hardship, empowered people to build new opportunities for themselves and their future, and we see some of the residue of this. today, food stamps ensure that children don't go to bed hungry at night. the elementary and secondary education act insists that all children, regardless of background, can learn and have an equal opportunity for education. legal services help people with limited resources seek protection from exploitation. low-income families fight poverty in their own communities by helping to lead community action agencies. the war on poverty and the great society encompassed a tremendous list of achievements that i can't even begin to do justice to today. however, we know we still have more work to do. too many of those successful programs and policies have been

reduced or rolled back under subsequent presidents and congresses. what's more, our economy has changed in fundamental ways, with decades of wage stagnation and rising income inequality. so now we must urgently return our attention to policies that will ensure that working families can still get ahead in america. we must recognize that tens of millions of working americans struggle to put food on the table, a roof over their head, pay their bills every month. this is a mutombo failing of our economy. it's something that we not only have a moral obligation to fix but we have the ability to fix. we can do so first by raising the minimum wage. one of our nation's simplest and most effective means of lifting working families, working families out of poverty. i am so pleased that president obama has taken the first step

in this effort. last night at the state of the union, he announced that he would issue an executive order that will require future federal contracts to provide wages of at least $10.10 an hour to our nation's contract workers for the federal government. i applaud president obama's bold step to ensure that the federal government is a leader in promoting good jobs that pay fair wages. i think most americans would agree that taxpayer dollars should not support company that pay poverty wages. this executive order is a strong step in the right direction, but now we in the congress have work to do to raise the minimum wage for the rest of american workers. and again, i am so grateful for president obama taking a strong leadership position as he did

last night in calling for congress to expeditiously work to increase the minimum wage. you know, we used to agree in this country that if you worked hard and played by the rules, you could earn enough money to support your family, keep a roof over your head, put some money away for a rainy day, have a secure retirement. the minimum wage played a critical role in doing that, which is why presidents and elected leaders from both parties in the past have supported fair increases in the minimum wage. from time to time, we adjusted the minimum wage on a bipartisan basis to help working families keep up with inflation and the changing economy. but recently, we've heard a new and disturbing set of talking points from our friends on the other side of the aisle. they claim that raising the minimum wage doesn't actually reduce poverty. they argue that the minimum wage workers don't really come from poor families or that no one stays in a minimum wage job long enough to be trapped in poverty.

those all sound good on the talk shows, but the facts simply prove that those statements are not true. the fact is a majority of people who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage come from low-income households. many of them have been trapped in jobs at or near the minimum wage for years and years at a time. indeed, when you listen more closely, the offensive underlying premise of all these arguments is that anyone can rise out of poverty if they just work harder. tell that to nireta castro of des moines. she and her husband both work minimum wage jobs in the fast food and construction industries. they have five children to support, but nireta says they live day to day because of their bills and expenses. she says her family has to limit so many things to give to our

kids not only to make rent but to cover basic expenses. we have to limit everything. a raise, she said, in the minimum wage would allow her to -- quote -- "live a life where i don't feel like i'm drowning." tell that tale about well, you have just got to work harder to nancy selgado, a 27-year-old single mother with two kids, ages 2 and 7. she has worked at mcdonald's for the past ten careers but makes just $8.25 an hour. that's the minimum wage in her own state of illinois. she struggles to be able to pay for necessities such as milk and shoes for her kids. she recently confronted the president of mcdonald's u.s.a. , saying -- quote -- "i'm a single mother of two. it's really hard for me to feed my two kids and struggle day to day. do you think this is fair that i have to be making $8.25 an hour when i have been working at mcdonald's for ten years?"

well, for senators and representatives sitting comfortably here in washington to preach to working mothers like nancy, struggling hard to get ahead, working ten years at mcdonald's, to tell them they're just not working hard enough, that is just beyond offensive. now, no one disputes that hard work is a big part of the path out of poverty, which also need a basic foundation of economic security to start building that better life. how are you supposed to pay for a community college course on on $7.25 an hour? how are you supposed to find a better job? when you're standing in line at a food bank because your wages won't cover all your household expenses, and neither will your food stamps? how are you supposed to build a better life for your kids when you can't even find them safe childcare while you're at work?

you just can't get ahead if your job traps you in poverty. it hasn't always been this way. we used to agree that minimum-wage workers, people who perform some of the most difficult and essential jobs in our society, should not have to live in poverty. the minimum wage kept families above poverty line in the 1960's and 1970's. in today's dollars a minimum-wage worker in 1968, when the minimum wage was 120% of the poverty line, the worker took home $10.71 an hour in today's, in today's dollars. or $22,000 a year working full time. but since the 1980's, since starting right in here, just about in here, the minimum wage

has not kept up. and today the minimum wage is about 80% of the level of poverty. so this is how far we've come down. same family working minimum wage in 1968, look at where they are today. way below the poverty line. it's no wonder that working people have to turn to the safety net for food stamps and all kinds of things to help them get by. a recent study found that our taxpayers have to pick up the tab for millions of working families to the tune of about $240 billion a year. food stamps, medicaid, chip, earned-income tax credit, temporary assistance to needy families. now, i want to make it clear, these are not people sitting at home watching tv. these are people who work.

but they're making minimum wage. we're picking up the tab, $240 billion a year. that's what our taxpayers are doing. but what we want and what they want is not to have the tkpwofpt and taxpayers pick up the tab. they want to be able to support themselves with the jobs that they have. so we have to rectify this by legislation, the minimum wage fairness act introduced along with minority leader reid here, congressman george miller on the house side, will raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour in three annual steps and get it above the poverty line by 2016 for the first time in over 20 years. so that's really what we're talking about is getting this minimum wage up. i look forward to working with my colleagues here in the senate on both sides of the aisle sometime soon to bring this bill forward. and i hope that we can do it on

a bipartisan basis and recognize that it is indeed time to get families, working families out of poverty by paying them a decent minimum wage in this country. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. madam president, last night president obama laid out an optimistic vision for a great nation that must never stop working to become even greater. when the president gave his first state of the union in february of 2009, our economy was losing over 700,000 jobs a month. wall street firms had collapsed and taken main street businesses with them and economists were not sure how deep it would go or if it would tip from a great recession into a true depression. families across the country were huddled around kitchen tables

talking late into the night trying to figure out how they were going to stay in their homes or send their kids to college or even put food on their table. people who had gone to work every single day of their adult lives, who hadn't had to update their resume in 20 years, didn't know how they were going to pull their lives together if they got that pink slip. workers who had jobs they thought were secure were panicking knowing if things continued to go wrong nobody was truly safe. madam president, a lot has changed in five years. it has not been perfect. it certainly hasn't been smooth. we weren't able to do nearly enough, and we still need to do far more. but last night president obama was able to talk about the progress we have made since he inherited the greatest economic crisis since the great depression. he was able to talk about the 46

months straight of private-sector growth, about an unemployment rate that has come down from dangerous heights. he talked about the work that still remains to help millions of workers still trying to get back on the job. and he articulated a vision not just for bolstering our still fragile economic recovery, but also for continuing the great american tradition of leaving our children a stronger nation than the one we inherited from our parents. a vision of a country that makes sure every child has an opportunity to work hard, contribute to her community and succeed to the best of her ability. a country that doesn't just have economic growth at the top that may or may not trickle down, but that has broad based prosperity built from the middle out. and a vision of a country that offers workers and families the stability and security they

expect when they put in a lifetime of hard work. madam president, president obama talked about ways he is going to make this year a year of action, and i know that's what the american people are expecting. some of that will come through executive action and public-private partnerships, but a lot of what we need to do depends on us here in congress. over the past few years congress has been lurching, as we all know, from crisis to crisis, stumbling from one artificial deadline to the next, and too often engaging in petty partisan bickering instead of solving problems for the families that we all represent. but at the end of last year house budget committee chairman paul ryan and i worked together to show the american people it didn't have to be this way. when we sat down together in a budget conference democrats had been trying to start for seven months, we faced an awful lot of

skepticism. many people were hoping that we could reach a deal and avoid another crisis. however, they were far more confident that this budget group would succeed -- would not succeed where so many others had failed. but chairman ryan and i decided to listen to each other. we searched for common ground, and we made some compromise. we knew we were never going to agree on everything, but we didn't think that should mean that you couldn't agree on anything. we wanted a deal, not a fight, and we were able to put partisanship aside to do the right thing for the american people. madam president, our two-year budget deal was a step in the right direction. we proved that bipartisanship was possible in this divided government, that democrats and republicans could break through the bitterness and rancor and work together and reach an agreement. that deal rolled back the damaging across-the-board cuts and prevented a government shutdown.

it moved our country forward. but we can't stop now because the vast majority of americans understand that our economy simply isn't working the way it needs for people like them. and we need to do more to expand economic opportunities for the families and small business owners and communities across the country who are looking to us to get this right. they see the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations continue to take advantage of an unfair tax code filled with special interest loopholes and giveaways. they see fewer and fewer opportunities for workers to find a job or earn enough for a stable middle-class life or send their kids to college. they watch as their government cuts back on critical investments in long-term and broad-based economic growth and they want more than partisan bickering from their elected representatives. they want real action. madam president, we will spend a lot of time here over the next

few months talking about many of the policies that president obama talked about last night, but i want to focus today on a few he mentioned that impact women and their economic opportunities in particular. we need to face up to the reality that working women across the country and working moms in particular are struggling to find work that pays a living wage at a time when they're balancing being both the breadwinner and the caretaker in so many families. so when we talk about creating opportunity in america, we need to focus on the fact that women continue to be paid 77 cents for every $1 a man earns, and they make up two-thirds of all minimum-wage workers. so we need policy changes that focus on all workers, but also help women catch up if we're truly going to create economic opportunity that expand the

middle class and strengthen all of our families. so, madam president, i was very glad to hear president obama announce last night that he will be raising the minimum wage for federal contractors. we here need to build on that to give millions more women and men access in this country to a raise and make sure that working hard and having a job is rewarded. this is something we will be moving on here in congress in the near future. and i am really hoping that republicans decide to put politics aside on this and work with us to get this done. madam president, i was also very glad to hear president obama double down on his commitment to a national preschool initiative that would not only help our youngest children and pay dividends in future economic growth, but would empower millions of women who would be able to go to work and give back to their communities. this isn't just a policy for me. it is personal. it's what got me into politics in the first place, and it's

something that has driven me ever since. as a former preschool teacher, i saw in my own classroom that when young children get the attention they need early, they will be miles ahead of their peers on the path to success. i saw the students i had who had been taught to simply raise their hand to ask a question or stand in line to go to recess, they were the ones who were more prepared to tackle a full curriculum when they got to school. but it's not just my personal experience. study after study after study has made it clear that beginning to educate our children at an early age means they will be less likely to be held back, less likely to require special education, less likely to engage in criminal activity and ultimately they will be more likely to graduate from high school and earn more. so investing in preschool is

overwhelmingly supported and supported by the american people. in fact, most recent polls show that over 80% of americans believe we should pursue this across the country. and, madam president, it is strongly supported by the many people who truly understand the impact it would have on the ground. i have talked to law enforcement officials who said they believe that early education is key to reducing crime as well as business leaders and innovation and education leaders who all see the long-term impact that investing in early education has on our children and on our communities. we have got to make these investments in our children and our future. and congress needs to act. and every day we wait is another opportunity lost. madam president, these are just a few of the policies president obama talked about that i'm ready to get to work on. the president also talked about the clear need to reform our

immigration system, to support our veterans and our wounded warriors, to reform our bloated and unfair tax code, and invest in our nation's infrastructure priorities. the american people are now expecting their elected officials to work together to tackle those issues and many more over the coming months and years. so, madam president, i'm at the table. i'm ready to build on that bipartisan foundation we laid with the budget deal. but i'm very worried that while the president and many of us here in congress are talking about working together to move the country forward, we have some republicans who are already now talking about dragging us backward into another needless crisis. that is absurd. we went through this just a couple months ago. there is no reason for republicans to put this country through this again. republican leaders proved at the end of last year that they weren't going to actually follow the tea party off the cliff and

let the government default. and after a lot of drama and partisan posturing and economic pain for millions of families, republicans dropped their demands and joined democrats to reopen the government and avoid a default. republican leaders have said they aren't going to let the country default this time either, but they seem unable now to stop playing games with this issue to make the tea party happy. so let me be very clear on the floor today. democrats are not going to negotiate over whether or not the government should pay its bills. and if the republicans continue down this path of empty threats and taking hostages and dangerous demands, they will get exactly what they got last time they tried to play politics with our economic recovery: nothing. so i call on my republican colleagues to stop working on a wish list of debt limit demands

and hostages and stop thinking about the new threats they're going to make to our economy and to the american people and join us at the table to work on the real issues that we need to address. madam president, democrats want to work with republicans to tackle our challenges fairly and responsibly. that is what the president talked about last night, it's what we're here to talk about today. but as chairman ryan and i showed just a few months ago, the way for both sides to get what they want is to compromise -- is through compromise and negotiation, not hostage taking and not threats. the american people expect us to work together. they want more deals and fewer fights, and i know that democrats are ready to get to work. i'm hopeful republicans will work with us to make this year of action in congress a reality. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor.

mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, i was privileged to be in the -- in our capital city of des moines on monday, january 27, two days ago, and privileged to visit a lot of my friends in the iowa legislature, so i was in the iowa house on monday morning when a resolution was brought up by representative dan mulbauer and read and adopted unanimously. it was a resolution requesting the united states congress to immediately enact a new federal, food, farm and jobs bill. i won't read it all. i'm going to ask consent to put this in the record, but basically pointing out in the resolution how much a farm bill means to our fellow iowans. they said -- "be it resolved by

the house of representatives" -- that is the iowa house of representatives --" that with the reconvening of the united states congress after its holiday recess, the united states house of representatives and the united states senate should enact a new food, farm and jobs bill with all possible speed but no later than january january 31 of 2014." well, i guess the good news i have now for representative mulbauer and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle in iowa legislature is that we heard him under the great leadership of senator stabenow, we now have a farm bill ready to come to the floor. after the house passes it, i hope sometime today, we hope to have it up maybe as early as tomorrow. if not, the first of the week and get the job done. i think everybody signed off on it. it's a good farm bill. it's taken a long time, a lot of hard work to get there, but a lot of good people worked together on both sides of the

aisle and both in the senate and the house to get it done. so i just want to thank representative mulbauer and his colleagues for holding our feet to the fire and sending us this resolution. so, madam president, i ask consent to put the house resolution number 102 at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: thank you. i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, someone who has practiced medicine in wyoming for about a quarter of a century and is the medical director of the wyoming health fairs to bring low cost blood screenings to people around wyoming have been very involved in the health care issue and actually helping to provide health care for people, and it was ironic last night during the state of the union to listen to the president talk about health care as if he

had some understanding of how it all worked and it became evident to me, sadly, that the president put forth some bold proposals and then came out with a 2,700-page bill that i think many people who voted for never read, didn't understand, didn't know the harm it was going to do to american families, and then the president last night is talking about it during his state of the union in ways that he thinks it's actually helping people, and it may be helping some but it is hurting many, many more. and it's not just the web site. the web site is just the tip of the iceberg. huge damage being done to families. i bring a letter today from a family in wyoming that just came in to -- to talk about how much this is harming this person's individual family, a man from upton, wyoming, a small community, somebody who tries to get up every day, go to work,

take care of his family, put food on the table and yet is -- his whole family is being harmed by this law that the president has put into place, forced down the throats of the american people on party-line votes. so let me just start -- start with a letter, and he talks about opening up my insurance letter today has led me to write you this letter. he says i'm usually the type of person that just keeps trudging along. and i think all of us have constituents who are like this. just keep trudging along he says and take things as they come. he says i am a long-time resident of this beautiful state and graduated from the university of wyoming, as so many people who live in wyoming have done. he said i'm married. i have four young kids from ages 9 to 3. four young kids, ages 9 to 3. he says we're a healthy and active family, nonsmokers. go to the doctors for emergency care only. go to the chiropractor and

dentist regularly. he said i have a high-deductible insurance plan. $10,000 is what he has had in his insurance plan, a $10,000 deductible, which is high, and he said he is paying for that $584 a month. you know, i really wish the president of the united states would get letters like this and read them and understand the impact that he is having on the lives and how much his plan is hurting american families. so justin writes, he said now due to the current health care climate, i'm going to have to pay $945 a month. so he's paying a lot more. he was paying $584, now $945 a month, and he says and they have conveniently raised my deductible to $11,000, so he had a $10,000 deductible, which is high. they have raised that and they have raised his premiums from $584 to $945 a month. he said how does obama expect the middle class to stretch their budgets every month to get

health care coverage? that's what middle-class americans want to know. how does this president expect the middle class to stretch their budgets every month to get health care coverage? he goes on, how can we get rid of obamacare? that's a question that i was asked repeatedly around the state of wyoming last week. this gentleman goes on to say every chance you get, please vote to repeal obamacare. now, the president last night ridiculed people like justin, ridiculed him, saying well, sure, vote over and over and over again. this man from wyoming is saying every chance you get, vote to repeal obamacare. he also said every chance you get, please help the middle class. every chance you get, please help the middle class. we're not seeing that from this president, this administration and those who supported these policies which have hurt the middle class. he said thank you, and i appreciate your leadership for

the state of wyoming. he said now i'll go back to working hard to pay my insurance bill, and probably some for the people that obama is trying to help. he finally says obama stated to the public that our premiums were not going to rise. thanks for listening to me rant. well, i don't consider what we're hearing from my friend justin from upton, wyoming, a rant. i hear it as a cry for help from a health care law that the president and democrats have forced down the throats of the american people against their will. many people who voted for it never read it, didn't understand it, and i really have strong doubts that the president himself understands the health care law, what's in it and the damage it continues to do to middle-class americans and families all across this country. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri.

mr. blunt: madam president, last night at the state of the union message, the president looked at the congress again and said you need to be for my plan unless you have another plan and suggested once again that we have never had other plans. i don't know in a handful of minutes i can do justice to the other plans that were out there, but i can tell you that there were other alternatives, they were filed in legislation, they were debated in 2009, and clearly today's experiences like have just been shared from a family from wyoming would be different experiences if we would have looked at those other plans. let me just very quickly in responding to the president what are your ideas, remind him again of what the ideas were that were out there that were proposed by people who thought we had the best health care system in the world but thought it could be improved, thought there were people who did not have the access they needed, rules that could be changed to make a difference. here's what some of them are. one, to allow small business health plans. most people get their insurance

at work and they like what they have. 85% of the people that had insurance last year got insurance at work, and well over 90% of them thought what they had at work was really good and met their needs. we have for years talked about ways to try to expand that so people, whether their association is the farm bureau or some other group that they are associated with where they can -- in small business or associated health plans get their health care that way, so they, too, become members of a bigger group that competes for health care insurance as part of that group. expanded coverage for young adults. the president said last night that -- he said three million of the people have been added, of the he thought maybe 12 million. i haven't seen that figure yet. a few days ago, senator reid said it was nine million and a third of the people that had been added had been added by just saying let people stay on their parents' health care a little bit longer. that was the most uninsured

group. the only person that filed that legislation in the house as the principal sponsor was me, to let people stay on their insurance. we said 25 not 26, so i suppose the president added that one year or two, whoever wrote the affordable care act, but if that's right, i got the bill out the other day here on the floor, it was three pages and four lines. if three pages have solved 25% to 33% of the problem, i guess maybe our side should have come up with 12 pages of legislation and just solved the whole problem. this was not something that took 2,600 pages that nobody really understood. madam president, if we had that debate today, it would be a much better debate because people have to begin to understand just how dangerous it is to deal with the health care of individuals and families. medical liability reform makes a big difference in how -- how costs of insurance is impacted and how health care is done.

increased insurance flexibility. let people buy insurance across state lines. this is something that was out there as a significant idea that didn't minimize the choices people have. it maximized the places people could look to find out what their family needed. preexisting conditions. we had a system that was dealing with that pretty effectively if you could get into it, the state high-risk pools. we talked about ways to expand those. now, why would that be better than where we are now? if you're an insurance company, if you're a government, if some way you're making that high-risk pool work better, you know you're dealing with a group of individuals that had a preexisting condition. you don't have to try to structure everybody else's costs so that they pay a lot more just in case people with a preexisting condition become an unreasonable part of your insurance group that you're trying to provide for. these programs have been closed as of december 31 in most states, and in every case that

we have been contacted on, people that had preexisting conditions were in a high-risk pool, are paying more for insurance with less coverage and in many cases can't get the doctor, and these are people who had a preexisting condition so who their doctor was mattered to them. in many cases, they no longer can have that doctor. clearly, i don't have time today to respond fully to the president, but whether it was high-risk pools that work better, wellness programs, preventing insurance companies, being able to cancel policies, that didn't require millions of taxpayer dollars. it just required a rule that said you can't cancel a policy because somebody gets sick. the same as limits on coverage, encourage health savings accounts. the affordable care act eliminates one of the real tools that was working for families. more transparency, how do health care providers do and how much do they charge to do it? what are their results and what are their costs?

and income tax treatment so that everybody who buys insurance buys that with dollars that are treated the same way. if the biggest company in america can buy an insurance policy and have it nontaxed, have it tax deductible, so should the individual that has to get insurance on their own. madam president, there are a lot of alternatives out there, there have been. they would work better, not nearly as complicated, not nearly as expensive. the president needs to at least understand that there are plenty of competing ideas. his ideas on this are not the only ideas that would make this system work better, and i yield back. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, madam president. surprisingly, the president didn't talk much about obamacare, his -- quote -- signature achievement. the people of arkansas, the people of america certainly are talking a great deal about it

and are writing a great deal about it also. the reason being is that they are so concerned that health care has become an absolute mess. the president talked about a single mom that was able to resolve the problem of her preexisting conditions, and i think that we all agree that that's something that was desperately needed. i'm an opt w terrorist, an -- an optomotrist and aware of the problems this can create. we can fix this without creating a situation where we have thousands of pages of regulation and the reality is the unintended consequences of the situation we're in now with obamacare is we've made it unaffordable. we've made it such that millions of americans simply can't afford the health insurance they're being offered. let me talk about a few, where

people have written me and talked to me be about. this is jack from spring dale. i just found out recently from my health insurance provider that my current health insurance policy will be discontinued effective the first of next year. and a replacement policy will be approximately double, which will be around $1,200 per month. my question is this: what is obamacare supposed to do about that? and if not, what can be done to fix it? here's leonard in jo ann. this letter comes to you to ask for your needed support to defeat the affordable care act in any way possible. we recently received notification from health advantage in arkansas that our premiums increased for a total of $1,360. our out-of-pox max increased

from $3,000 to $5,000. the primary care physician co-pay increased from $35 to $135 and the specialist co-pay increased from $35 to $70. if either of us has to visit the e.r., that co-pay increased from $100 to $250. the drug co-pay also increased. we're insulted to have to pay for benefits such asthma terpbt, peed -- such as maternity, pediatric dental, drug rehab which we have no need for. health advantage of arkansas explained that these changes to our policy and increased costs were due to compliance to the affordable care act. we have supported you in the past and we'd like to know what your plan is to relieve arkansans and other americans from these additional finance burdens imposed upon us by the affordable care act. mary in little rock writes that she received a notice that her

medpac advantage plan was canceled at the end of last year. she explains, i had no idea that obamacare was going to also affect medicare. now to receive comparable coverage for 2014 i will have to pay an additional $500 plus in premiums. this additional cost will definitely place an unfair burden on my finances. what are you and the senate going to do to correct this situation? i think mary asked a very fair question. what are we going to do to correct her situation, the situation of so many others? i think the answer is that we need to repeal obamacare. we need to put in place a system that does take care of the problems that we have but without the bureaucracy, without the tremendous expense and make health care affordable for all americans. i yield back. a senator: madam president? or mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i appreciate the comments of my colleague from arkansas and prior to him, those from missouri and wyoming, and we'll be hearing in a minute from our colleague from nebraska, all of whom are expressing the sentiments conveyed to them by their constituents in the individual states about the very real, very personal impacts obamacare is having on them. last night in the president's state of the union speech he sort of glanced over that issue, kind of the equivalent of a drive-by, acknowledged the law, said it was not going to change, and if republicans have better ideas, come forward with them. you just heard the senator from missouri, senator blunt, list off 10 or 12 things that we think could be done that would be dramatically different and a dramatic improvement and a very different approach he from what is included in obamacare, which is a heavy-handed government-driven hraougs to

health care which -- solution to health care which puts the health care in this country, one-sixth of our economy under political control here in washington, d.c.. as a consequence of that, what we're seeing out there is higher premiums, higher out-of-pocket costs in the form of deductibles and co-pays, canceled coverages and fewer choices when it comes to doctors and hospitals. that's been the real-world impact of the passage of obamacare. the president said when he was running for office that he was going to reduce health care costs by $2,500 per family. we now know that they have gone up since he's taken office by about $2,500 per family. and they continue to go up all the time. we hear consistently from our constituents in our individual states and those stories that are being shared this morning i think are just good examples, again, of the real-world impacts of this law and why it is so important that we go back, start over, do this the right way with reforms that actually address the issue of creating more

competition, more choice for individuals, allow market forces in the world of health care as opposed to having this overreaching government approach which clearly hasn't worked. and the one thing that i, many of us got up and talked about when obamacare was being debated is the fact there wasn't anything in there that constrained utilization or that put downward pressure on costs. so costs keep going up. that keeps getting passed on. taxes keep going up. they keep getting passed on. and what does that mean? for middle-class families it means higher premiums and higher deductibles, higher co-pays and in many cases fewer jobs because that's the impact it's having on the economy. and it really worsens the very thing the president says he's most concerned about, and that's the issue of income inequality because when you are driving up the cost for consumers in this country in their daily lives and i would say health care for most people is a very significant cost, and i would add energy to

that, but those are a couple of things where we have seen policies that have made it more expensive for middle-class americans to make ends meet. and health care is certainly an example of that. i'd like to share a couple of examples from my state and of course has been mentioned earlier by my colleagues, we hear these in the form of e-mail, letters, phone calls coming into our offices, lest anybody think what we do here is done in a vacuum, these are not abstract issues. these are very real personal experiences that people across this country are having. this is from a constituent in harrisburg, south dakota, which is a growing community near sioux falls, south dakota, a growing, vibrant community. it says my wife and i have been fortunate to become small business owners and entrepreneurs. so far we've been successful of living the american dream for the last three years and have seen great success in what we do. unfortunately, with obamacare we're needing to make choices i never thought we'd have to make. based on the rates for health insurance, we would be paying

approximately $800 out of pocket per month. essentially we're thrown in to making an additional house payment per month or face a penalty at the end of the year and not have health insurance. the constituent goes on to say, needless to say i'm very disappointed and upset right now. i feel i'm being taken advantage of because i'm a small business owner and wanted to live the american dream. this is another constituent from rapid city who says, and this was in the form of a letter regarding the president's broken promises. he says the bottom line is the president lied to us. he said if we like our policy we can keep it. he said we would be saving around $2,500 a year. wrong on both accounts. he concludes when our policy expires it will be canceled and we'll have to pay almost triple what we're paying now. those are examples from my state of south dakota. and my colleague from arkansas shared skpapl -- examples from here. senator johanns hears examples coming from his state.

he represents people like those i represent in south dakota who in many cases make their living the same way but are experiencing the economic consequence of a bad policy, a failed policy, a bad law that was rushed through here and that they're now, the american people unfortunately are experiencing the adverse impacts of that on their own personal economic lives and in a broader sense on our economy nationally. higher costs, canceled coverages, fewer choices in the form of doctors and hospitals and fewer jobs for american workers that we want to get back to work. that's the real-world experience. there's a better way. the senator from missouri talked about many of those ideas, i hope the president would work with us to repeal this bad law and start over in a way that makes sense for the american people and for our health care economy and this country. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. johanns: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska.

mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. i want to express my appreciation to senator boozman, senator thune for being down here this morning to talk about an issue that's extremely important and an issue that we certainly are hearing a lot about in our senate offices and hearing a lot about when we travel back to our home states, and that's the whole issue of obamacare. the president of course mentioned this in his state of the union last night. i think he really hopes that he can change the subject here. but the reality is you can't because so many people are being hurt by this legislation. over four years ago when the health care law was being debated, there was one concern that dominated the discussion when we talked to our constituents back home. that concern was cost. they talked about the rising cost of health care and wanted

to see what we thought in terms of this law's impact on that. but since this year's rates were posted, mr. president, it has become absolutely obvious that this law did not hold true to its promise to reduce costs. our nebraska insurance director was asked to comment about this when the rates were coming out. he said -- quote -- "basically the rates are going up." unquote. no truer words could have been spoken. a cnbc headline read -- quote -- "consumers say they're shelling out more for health insurance." unquote. but it's not just those headlines or the opinion of our director of insurance. it's what's happening to real people in their lives. a father from just outside omaha, nebraska, wrote a letter to me. he said this, in 2013 his

family's flexible spending account was cut from $5,000 a year to $2,500 a year as a result of the health care law. if there was one thing that people appreciated, it was the flexible spending account. why you would want to cut this doesn't make any sense. but that's what the health care law did to him. he goes on to say that his wife's employer-sponsored insurance premiums have increased by an incredible 50%, and their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket costs, they haven't gone down. they've gone up too. and these increases have been the worst they've seen in 14 years of employment, all due to the health care law. his sons who are struggling to pay for college had their work hours restricted to 28 hours a week. why? because of the law.

so as a result, they applied for more tph-pbgs aid. they're -- more financial aid, going further in debt and taking on part-time jobs so they can stay in school. but that's not the only person that has written to me. a nebraskan from south central part of the state reports this. he spent 27 hours trying to enroll on healthcare.gov only to find out he couldn't afford coverage, even with a premium subsidy. under the best option, his deductible would increase by $7,000. mr. president, to a middle-class family, $7,000 out of pocket is bankruptcy. they don't have it. it's not like that money is going to fall out of the sky. a young traveling nurse from northeastern nebraska also faced sticker shock, reached out to me. under a new plan, her premium

more than doubled and her deductible went from $3,500 to $6,500. and she wrote to me and she said -- quote -- "this is not affordable when i have student loans to pay for and i'm trying to support myself." unquote. it's possible that some nebraskans have temporarily renewed their old policy under the delay that was announced by the president, but that just means that they have delayed the pain until next year and will see more of these stories of skyrocketing costs and deductibles. well, let's face it, americans didn't get what they were promised when the law was passed. they expected a bill that would deliver on the promise and address the cost of health care. instead they're stuck with the very real consequences of a poorly crafted policy.

i think it's time that we show americans we can do better. i believe the place to start is to repeal the law and start working on step-by-step solutions to draw down health care costs for american families. those of us on the floor today are ready to tackle the challenge, and i hope we find willing partners. mr. president, thank you. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. ms. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent to call off the quorum call. the presiding officer: the quorum call will be suspended. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is now closed. 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 s. 1926, a bill to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the biggert-waters flood insurance reform act of 2012, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the previous order all postcloture time is yielded back and the motion to proceed is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 294, 1926, a bill to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the biggert-waters flood insurance reform act of 2012, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, amendment numbers 2702, 2704, 2705 and 2698 are considered proposed and agreed to. ms. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. ms. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment 2708 and ask for its consideration. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so agreed. the america will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from new york, ms. gillibrand, proposes amendment number 2708.

at the end, title 1, add the following -- ms. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the remainder of the reading. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. gillibrand: i first want to thank senator menendez, senator landrieu and senator isakson for their tremendous leadership on the homeowners flood insurance affordability act, which i am a very proud cosponsor of and for working with me and my staff on an amendment that is so critical to so many new yorkers who are still recovering from superstorm sandy. mrs. gillibrand: my amendment is quite simple and common sense. it is aimed to help homeowners who are currently stopped in a bureaucratic ditch which is impossible for them to climb out of because of the immovable reality of the building they live in. under today's fema policy, flood insurance freedom rates are based on the elevation of the house relative to the base flood elevation, which is the elevation that fema calculates that floodwaters have a 1% chance of riseing to in any given year.

under normal circumstances, homes can be elevated to avoid high insurance rates that are assessed on homes that are built below the base flood elevation in special flood hazard areas. but in places like new york and new jersey, this is impossible for owners of older urban homes such as brownstones, row houses and multifamily buildings which can predate back to the pre-civil war, that in many, many instances cannot be raised due -- razed due to structural characteristics and can be built before flood maps were in place. when homes are mapped in a flood zone, they are left without any option toss lower their flood insurance premiums, which can be as high as tens of thousands of dollars each year. so to fix this, my amendment would require fema to provide a uniform set of guidance that provides fema-approved methods of mitigation for homeowners who just simply can't elevate their homes. this amendment would require

fema to look at whether a homeowner has implemented any of the prescribed alternatives and take that into consideration when calculating a home's flood insurance risk premium. by providing a clear set of mitigation alternatives for these homeowners, this amendment will help new yorkers and homeowners across the country who cannot elevate their homes to reduce their flood risk. it will help homeowners prevent costly damage to their homes during the next storm or flood and save money in potential disaster recovery costs in the long term. i suggest an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to call off the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call will be suspended. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president.

mr. president, i rise in strong support of the flood insurance fix bill on the floor today, and i urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to come together and to pass this first crucial step toward getting it right with the national flood insurance program. it's important for america, it's important for millions upon millions of american homeowners, not just in louisiana, not just in florida, but in every state, every state of the country is absolutely affected. and i also specifically urge my colleagues to defeat the toomey amendment which i think is very well intended but will not get the job done and to waive the budget point of order, which is a largely technical point of order, and i will explain each of those in turn. first of all, mr. president, the need for this bill to get things right, all of us came together

over a year ago and passed the so-called biggert-waters act to reauthorize the national flood insurance program and to reform it in important ways, and we needed to do that broad brush. the program needed to be continued, not just in short-term fits and starts, which had been the pattern for many years. in fact, in 2010, it was so bad we actually let the program lapse four different times by inaction, shutting down thousands upon thousands of real estate closings that we needed to build up our economy, shutting this down every time. so we needed that reauthorization, and we needed and still need reform of the program. we need to build up the program to make it fiscally sustainable, to make sure that over time we get revenues, premiums coming in that cover the full costs of the

program. and there is no debate about that. that's why we passed that bill. what was not foreseen, mr. president, was that in some significant number of cases, those reforms, once they were put into effect, would actually lead to completely unaffordable rate increases, a completely unsustainable path forward that wouldn't even get us toward the goal of building up the fund and building up the program to make it fiscally sustainable. no expert predicted that beforehand. no one from fema said you will have some rates that are completely unaffordable. no outside insurance experts said that, but once the details of their reauthorization were begun to be put in place, that became very apparent. now, mr. president, we don't

know exactly how many cases we would have like this, but we know they are not just isolated cases. we know they are not just in coastal communities. they are in every state to some extent or another around the country, and over a time, members of both parties from every state have begun to understand that, which brings us together hopefully in a constructive way on the floor today. certainly, that situation is dire and the threat is very real in louisiana. months ago, for instance, i visited a neighborhood in st. charles parish, part of southeast louisiana, right on the mississippi river. i visited a very nice, solid, middle-class neighborhood. i met with many, many homeowners there. they presented me with a box, a box this big at least, full of

keys, house keys, and they were these folks' actual house keys, and they were saying if this isn't fixed, if this isn't done right in time, we're going to have to turn these keys in, to the bank, to the government, to whomever, because we would face, not just premium increases. we had all accepted premium increases as part of the reforms, as part of the reauthorization. but completely unaffordable, unsustainable increases, literally going to $12,000 or $18,000 or $27,000 a year, not on a miller's home, on a modest middle-class home. that just doesn't work. and these folks were saying very sincerely, very directly here are my home keys because that's where this is headed. now, that's not right on so many different levels.

first and foremost, it's not right for those americans who have lived by the rules every step of the way, who built to the right elevation when they built their home, who got the flood insurance required by law and required by prudence, who paid all their premiums, who went through mitigation programs, if they could, to raise their homes in many cases. but these are folks not living right on the coast, not choosing highly dangerous areas, who do not have second homes, beach homes. we're not talking about that at all. we're talking about a solid middle-class neighborhood way off the gulf coast, way off the gulf coast. people who followed the rules every step of the way who still faced the prospect of those completely unaffordable increases. that's not right and it's not fair.

on a second level, that reality threatens whole communities and threatens our economy. because if that were allowed to happen in any significant number of cases, it would be an economic spiral downwards. banks would be burdened with foreclosures. local businesses would be hurt significantly. whole communities would be in an economic spiral downward. and, again, we're not just talking about second homes on a beach. we're not talking about that at all in louisiana. and, by the way, this bill does not give any relief regarding second homes, for instance. we're talking about a lot of communities and a real and unsustainable hit to our economy. and on a third and final level, that reality would ensure we don't even get to the goal of these reforms, which is to make the system whole and fiscally sustainable.

because to do that we need more folks in the national flood insurance program, not folks leaving, turning in their keys. that will kill any effort to make the program solid fiscally and sustainable fiscally. so on every level we cannot allow this to happen. the menendez-isakson bill with the help of many other members including myself was put together to get us to the right place, and it takes the important first step to make sure we get it right, fema does the mapping right, which they're not doing right in some cases now. fema does the affordability study mandated in the original biggert-waters bill but which fema has not even begun yet. we do all those things to get this right and avoid completely unaffordable rate increases. and i urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support this

good bill. we also need your support in defeating the toomey amendment and waiving the budget point of order and let me speak about those briefly. pat toomey's amendment is very well intended, but it falls short in my opinion. it limits any delay in rate increases to two years, and some rate increases continue for those two years. and most importantly, it doesn't mandate and ensure that fema ever gets through this affordable study, ever makes recommendations to congress for the ultimate fix, doesn't give us any time to react and legislate in that area, and it doesn't ensure in any way that fema gets its mapping right based on true sound science and engineering methodologies. that's kicking the can down the

road and not ensuring in any meaningful way we're going to get it right. that simply isn't good enough. we need to tie in any delay to figuring out the ultimate fix by having fema complete its affordability study, by making fema make recommendations to us, by giving us six months to act on those recommendations, by mandating that fema do its mapping correctly and not have rate increases before it rushes forward with incorrect mapping which is going on right now in some cases. that's what the underlying bill does. that's what the toomey amendment does not do as well intended as it is. secondly, there will be a budget point of order vote and we do need 60 votes to waive that budget point of order. and i will vote yes to waive it, as a strong fiscal conservative. because this is necessary to get

this national flood insurance system right and to make it fiscally sustainable. in fact, over the ten-year budget window that we normally use in scoring, this bill has no score over those ten years, it just has some scores in some intermediate periods of time which gives rise to the budget point of order. so i urge my colleagues to vote to waive that point of order knowing that there is no score over ten years. also knowing that quite franklily, the fiscal assumptions about the current law are enormously flawed. the notion that we're going to make the national flood insurance program more stable and more fiscally sustainable by having a bunch of premiums go up to $27,000 a year on a modest middle-class home is crazy. that's not going to get us to a better place. that's going to get us to a worse place.

that's going to shrink the program, that's going to have people leaving the program, paying no premiums, not paying higher premiums. yes, reasonable premium increases have to be part of the solution. but completely unaffordable premium neems aren't part of the solution because people can't afford to pay them so they'll pay zero instead of something substantial, they'll leave the program instead of putting more homeowners and properties in the program which is essential to get to a strong and stable fiscal situation. so, again, on a bipartisan basis i urge my colleagues to support this bill. it's a very important step to stabilize and fix the situation and to defeat the toomey amendment and waive the budget point of order which is absolutely necessary in this process to support a good bill. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i want to take a moment to thank the senator from louisiana for his input into the legislation, his work, his advocacy and i agree with him on the underlying statements that he made, particularly as it relates to the necessity for the legislation as well as the opposition to the toomey amendment which i understand what senator toomey is trying to do but i agree it doesn't meet the ultimate challenge as well as the budget point of order for the reasons senator vitter said. i want to take the opportunity to say thank you for your support. and i observe serve the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the quoru call be

vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call be suspended. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the time that takes place during the subsequent -- any subsequent quorum call or the subsequent quorum call i'm going to ask for can be equally divided on the gillibrand amendment. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. menendez: mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i have eight unanimous consent requests, they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders and i ask these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise today to pay tribute to

hida foanl, lost to, pendleton, lost one year ago today. she was 15 years old. she was gunned down while she was standing with friends in a park on chicago's south side. a talented, caring girl with a bright future, she was a sophomore at king college prep, she was an honors student, majorette in the school band. this is her photograph. those who knew her talk about her warm heart, her big smile, what a great friend she was to all those around her. a week before her death hidia was here in washington performing with her school band in washington, d.c. for president barack obama's inauguration celebration. she was absolutely thrilled that as a high school student she could come out and perform for the president she loved. days afterwards she was gunned

down, murdered by men who allegedly mistook her and her friends for members of a rival street gang. i join with those in chicago and across america who mourn this grim anniversary. and i extend my condolences to her family. this last week or two, even longer now, it's been pretty cold in chicago. snow, ice. people don't go use much. but i wanted to take a hip to individual hadiya's mom and dad on the occasion. her mom, cleo, her father nate and her brother nate jr. and the extended family are mourning her loss. we sat in their apartment saturday morning just talked a little bit about her. talked about what it meant, what the reaction had been. the parents were heartened that king college prep had not

forgotten their daughter. that today they were having a special observance and ceremony to remember her. that meant a lot to her mom and dad. they had been out here to testify before my judiciary subcommittee about issues involving gun violence. they've been on television, they've made the rounds. but when you're there with them in the apartment you know after the cameras are gone and all the visitors are gone, it's still a sad remembrance of a beautiful young girl whose life was cut short. no family should have to experience what they went through. but like so many families who have lost loved ones, the pendletons have decided to dead indicate themselves to turning their pain into a purpose. they're working to reduce the scourge of gang and goon smoons voons so other families can be spared. they've established the hadiya pendleton foundation to provide after-school enrichment programs to help kids avoid the violence

on the streets. hadiya was featured in a video where she said it's your job as students to say no to gangs and yes to a great future. the foundation named after her will help other students reach that goal. i commend the family for their work on this foundation. i believe it will make a difference. her family as i mentioned has traveled to washington to talk about our laws and how to change them to avoid future violence. in particular, they've spoken out about the need to crack down on the gun fly to gang members. the current federal laws on what we call straw purchasing and gun trafficking are an embarrassment. they're too weak. they need to be strengthened. i've joined with my colleague, senator mark kirk, my my republican colleague in a bipartisan evident and a number of colleagues have joined us to introduce legislation to crack down on trafficking. we call at this time stop

illegal trafficking and firearms act. mark kirk likes to call it the hadiya pendleton act. we named the key section after her because we think this legislation might reduce the senseless gang shootings like the one that took her life. straw purchasing is when the girlfriend of a thug who has no criminal record goes to buy the gun to hand to him to commit a crime. he can't buy it, couldn't walk in the store and buy it. could never bass h. pass the background check. she did. when she passes it, she hands him a gun and unfortunately violence and death can be the result. last april our antitraffickings legislation got 58 votes on the floor of the senate. 58 votes to stop the trafficking of guns into the hand of criminals. that's a few votes short of what

we needed. we're close. our job is to convince just two or three more senators to join us. the pendelton family understands that even though this law seems so o obvious, so reasonable and can save the lives of innocent people, it is going to be hard to come by. there is a gun lobby here in this town. they're very powerful. and their allies will do everything they can to fight even the most popular commonsense reform, like cracking down on illegal gun trafficking. the gun lobby says we shouldn't pass any new gun laws and we should just enforce the laws already on the books. actually, the gun lobby is in court every day trying to strike down the laws already on the books. the bottom line is that the gun lobby always seems to oppose laws that might reduce gun sales. they just want volume, volume of firearms sold. they had their way, no questions asked. but it is time to crack down on the sale of guns that end umin

the hands of criminals and gang members. we need to push afford with strong efforts to cut off the supply of straw-purchased illegally trafficked guns. the path may not be easy, but it is the right path. if we succeed, we'll prevent crimes and save lives. i want to commend the pendelton family for the courage they've shown. i commend them for that efforts to try to spare other families. i hope lawmakers will just reflect for one -- one brief moment about this good family who lost this great daughter and now has dedicated a big part of their lives to preventing shootings in the future. we owe hadiya and her mom and dad and her memory our best effort to make this a safer america. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. heller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the quorum call will be successl be suspended. mr. heller: i ask that the pending amendment be set aside. the clerk: mr. heller proposes an amendment numbered 2700. mr. heller: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. heller: again, mr. president, thank you. i'm here today to talk about the heller-lee amendment to the flood insurance legislation that we're currently considering. one of my core beliefs in order for americans to succeed is that regardless of the issue, we need more choices, we need higher competition, and we also need less cost. so let's talk about the nfip. right now the national federal insurance program has a near monopoly on the flood insurance

market. if you asked other americans if they knew there were other flood insurance programs other than through nfip, you'd probably get a blake stare. since the passage of the national flood insurance act, when congress pass the last flood insurance reform package under biggert-waters, congress reaffirmed the intent that private primary flood insurance should satisfy requirements and those of mandatory purchase. unfortunately, due to the lack in legislative language, there have been pervasive revections of primary flood insurance by most lenders. this is due to the fact that lenders are unsure about the validity of private-issued flood insurance despite the fact that this insurance has been issued and accepted in the past.

for this reason, i along with senator lee have worked on an amendment that would provide clarification and hopefully eliminate this uncertainty. the heller-lee amendment provides a simple and clear definition of what is acceptable private flood insurance. our amendment would define acceptable private flood insurance as a policy that provides flood insurance coverage issued by an insurance company that is licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance in the state or jurisdiction in which the insured building is located. private insurance -- insurers are already subject to statutes and regulations in each and every state. state insurance commissioners are the best regulators to allow and disalou any policy -- disallow any policy they deem proper or improper and they have significant ability to ensure fair and equitable settlements of claims. further encouragement of

private-sector participation in the flood insurance market will help reduce the risk to which u.s. taxpayers are currently exposed. in fact, mr. president, i'd like to share some statements that i just received from fema after i asked fema if private flood insurance is a viable tool for some consumers to find lower-cost options. and fema stated, and i quote, "private flood insurance would create competition. it is possible some homeowners could find lower-cost options for flood insurance as a result of privatized market competition." unquote. so i ask my colleagues to support the heller-lee amendment so that we can give the american public more choices, higher competition, and less cost when it comes to flood insurance. mr. president, thank you. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. heller: thank you. quorum call:

quorum call: