quorum call:

mrs. fischer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: i would ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call be suspended. mrs. fischer: thank you. may i speak in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator has the floor. mrs. fischer: thank you very much. mr. president, i rise today to rise on behalf of 18,000 nebraskans who have contacted me to express their concerns with the negative impacts of obamacare. rather than addressing these problems in last night's state of the union address, the president doubled down on his failed policy. the president had his chance to speak, and now i believe it's time for my constituents to have their voices heard.

the law, mr. president, is hurting my constituents. it is hurting middle-class families. we knonow know that millions of millions of middle-class families have lost their health insurance. many who have enrolled in the exchange have been forced into plans that don't meet their families' needs. these plans often cost more, but it covers less. treatments, even for those battling cancer, have been delayed. we learned this month that a woman named josie, who was diagnosed with breast cancer, recently lost her doctors. she was forced to postpone her scheduled biopsy and follow-up treatment. the reason: josie's insurance rolled over into a new plan and the exchange under obamacare at the start of the new year. seniors are losing their trusted doctors, too.

americans are disclosing deeply personal information, including their health care histories and their social security numbers, to this flawed web site that is ripe for hacking. if truth-in-advertising rules applied to obamacare, it would be banned as an unfair and an unreliable product. let me give you an example. we were all told that this massive law would dramatically expand cofnlg for the uninsured -- coverage for the uninsured. yet a recent "wall street journal" article cites a mackenzie study that undermined this process. "only 11% of consumers who bought new coverage under the will you were previously uninsured, according to mackenzie and company survey of companies thought to be eligible for the health care law marketplaces. one reason for people declining to purchase plans was affordability. that was cited by 52% of those

who had shopped for a new plan but not purchased one in mackenzie's most recent sampling performed in january." as it turns out, the affordable care act is hardly affordable and the vast majority of those who purchased insurance through the exchanges already had health insurance. last week the coe o c.e.o. of aa said obamacare was not attracted enough uninsured people to work. he said more premium increases are on the horizon. are they going to be double-digit, he said, or are we going to get beat up because they're double digit, or are we just going to have to pull out of the program? and recently, moody's downgraded health snurpers from stable to negative based on the uncertainty related to

obamacare. the downgrade is a result of the administration's series of unilateral changes which only invite more uncertainty. this pervasive uncertainty is also plaguing our small business owners who are struggling with the onslaught of new regulatio regulations. americans see selective delays for some but not for all. hardworking men and women are on entrepreneurs, are the backbone of our economy. any sort of meaningful economic recovery will only come when they have the confidence to grow and expand their businesses, and that requires certainty. obamacare robs them of that certainty and, as a result, the unemployed are robbed of jobs.

it's not just those accepting for work who suffer from obamacare's heavy regulatory hand. our senior citizens are at a loss as well. "the washington post" recently described challenges facing medicare advantage patients because of obamacare. obamacare has cut over half a trillion dollars from medicare, and now insurers are terminating physician networks. according to the "post," insurers say they must shrink their insurer net wherebies because they face billions of dollars of payments over the next decade, reductions that are being partly used to fund insurance coverage for millions of people under the federal affordable care act. and it's not just our seniors. it's also the young. a recent study by the american

action forum found that it would be cheaper for 86% of young adults to forego coverage. the study concluded, and i quote, "even after the mandate penalty is fully implemented, a majority of young adult households will find it is financially advantageous for them to go forego health insurance, pay the mandate penalty, and personally coverage their own health care expenses." without the participation of the young, healthy people, we are told the whole system will collapse. then what? well, to add insult to injury, some obamacare proponents want taxpayers to pick up the tab for insurance companies. assuming that the whole system might in fact collapse.

instead of calling this bailout, which is what it is, they use terms that could only be coined in washington, terms like "risk corridors." "reinsurance funds," or "risk-sharing protection." the white house may even preemptively alter portions of this program for big insurance companies before the law falls apart. i believe americans have paid enough. that's why i have cosponsored senator marco rubio's obamacare bailout prevention act. the president and big insurance companies should not be permitted to force taxpayers to pay for the mess that they created.

nebraskans have no interest in anymore bailouts, and they certainly cannot afford to pay for these skyrocketing premium spikes. just ask my constituent from lincoln, who wrote me recently to share her story. she said, "i spent two hours on the phone with health care.com, the supervirus said she was going to -- the sierp vicar said she was going to tray and ren state my plan begin january 1, 0146789 after an hourlong process, everyone but my 15-year-old son was approved for care. so then she tried to apply againment of an hour later the system crashed and she asked me to call back later. so i called back yesterday. i had to go through an hour-long process again for signing up. at that point, all three of my

children were completely denied coverage. my husband and i are seriously scared. if something catastrophic happens, our family will be ruined without health care for our children. these hardworking middle-class families need r relief. they are overtaxed and overburdened. people are scared. the law has not brought what the president promised. the cost of this flawed law is depriving nebraskans the opportunities to build their own futures and pursue their own dreams. scrapping this law should be a priority for the senate, the white house, and for the country. it is certainly a top priority for me. we must repeal and replace this law now. anything short of that is

irresponsible. our constituents are counting on us. let's not disappoint them. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, i am here to say hallelujah that it looks like we are finally coming to the point at which we can grant the homeowners and businesses of america some relief from the huge, gargantu gargantuan, tenfold sometimes increases in flood insurance premiums. we're going to be able to pass this legislation today with a

cutting off of debate yesterday of over 80 votes. i mean, there were times that we were just hoping to get to 60 votes, and i think that overwhelming number finally tells the story that senator landrieu has told this story from the house tops, from the basements, from the riverbanks, and from the gulf shores -- enough. along with senator menendez, who has shouted it from cape may, new jersey, all the way to the port of new jersey at the mouth of the hudson. and this senator has shouted this from the state with the

longest coastline of any state, save for alaska, a state that it's highest point in the entire state is about 350 feet and, therefore, naturally along riverbanks, lakes, as well as the coastal waters, it's something that we have to be concerned with, and that's flood -- flood protection and, therefore, protecting the financial assets of folks, their homes, their businesses, and they simply can't take a tenfold increase all at once. and so now we're going to pass it. now, unfortunately, there's still some folks that are trying to do us in, and they're trying to do us in with subtle amendments that are going to try

to seduce some senators, oh, doesn't this sound good? but it's going to cut the heart oust trgs anout of t andout of . and we have to reject those amendments. at the end the day, we'll pass it. the qui is what happens down --e question is, what happens down there at the other end of the capital? and let's just get a real big vote here, and that will send a message to our colleagues in the house of representatives that this is no fooling time, that these rate increases are already in effect as of january 1, and that we need to stop the rate increases into to have time for fema to do the affordability study and, therefore, to see what is consumable among

consumers, home owns home owns,s owners, and then have that be a consideration along with the actuarial soundness. i'll just conclude my remarks before i thank senator landrieu by saying that one of the toughest jobs that i've ever had in public service -- and i've been blessed with a lifetime of public service -- is the elected insurance commissioner of florida. and i learned something about insurance during those years. and this thing called actuarial soundness is a mathematical proposition whereby the expected risk and the expected loss you want to charge enough if you are an insurance company to handle

that. that's the theory of actuarial soundness. we know that part of the angst here about the federal flood insurance program is that it, in essence, has been subsidized by american taxpayers because it was never charging enough. but the question is, what is the real risk? to take two unusual events, namely, 2005 flood losses in the flood insurance program as a result of katrina, katrina and its flood losses is not a garden -variety category 3 hurricane because the counterclockwise winds came on to mississippi, not on to

louisiana, but the back end of the hurricane on the counterclockwise rotation came across lake ponchartrain, filled up the canals in new orleans, the water pressure got so great as the water level rose, and what you had were some faulty dikes. and when the dike was breached, parts of new orleans flooded. and that caused massive, massive financial loss. the other unusual event which senator menendez can tell you about happened a year ago in hurricane sandy, again, a very unusual exiewrns. nowrk we can talk about climate change, and that's an issue for

another day. but it's very unusual for a category 1 hurricane to hit the northeast coast of the united states in those late months when it's cold. because the water is cold and it's not hot enough to really fuel a hurricane. but this one did. with the result the northeastern coast isn't exactly accustomed to hurricanes as we are in florida, and as a result you saw massive losses, not so much from the wind but from floods. not just along the coast but look at what happened on the inland areas all the way through new england. huge losses in two unusual climb

attic -- climactic events. so as you are calculating what is the actuarial soundness in order to adjust a flood insurance premium to, should those be considered in what ordinary people, over two million policies just in my state alone, 40% of all the flood insurance policies in the state of florida? that's why we also need that recalibrated and calculated. to find out what is affordable in the affordability study. so i'm very, very grateful, and finally i will say that i can't say enough about senator landrieu.

this wouldn't have happened without her. she has been dogged in her determination, she has been unyielding in her attempts to get it to where we are actually going to pass it in the senate. and i just want to express my personal appreciation to senator landrieu on behalf of the people of florida, indeed on behalf of the people of the united states. madam president, i yield the floor. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to proceed for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. i would also ask unanimous consent that my full statement

be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: madam president, today i rise to introduce the retirement security act of 2014, legislation that i'm sponsoring with my good friend, the senior senator from florida, and the chairman of the senate aging committee. our bill would encourage small employers to offer retirement plans, encourage employees to save more for their retirement, and ensure that low- and middle-income taxpayers are able to claim tax benefits for retirement savings already authorized in law. madam president, i thought it was interesting last night that the president in his speech highlighted what is a growing

problem in this country, and that is that people are unable or not have saved sufficiently to have a comfortable retirement. the bill that we are introducing today is an outgrowth of our work together on the special committee on aging. last fall, the committee conducted a hearing on retirement security where we heard from witnesses that far too many american seniors have real reason to fear that they will outlive their savings. according to the nonpartisan center for retirement research at boston college, there is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap between the savings american households need to maintain

their standard of living during their retirement years and what they actually have. that is an enormous gap that speaks to the fact that we need to shine a light on this problem. nationally, one in four retired americans has no source of income beyond social security. in maine, the number is one in three. four in ten seniors rely on that vital program for 90% of their retirement income. yet social security provides an average benefit of just $1,294 per month, less than $16,000 per year. it's hard to imagine stretching those dollars far enough to pay the bills. certainly a comfortable retirement is out of the

question. according to a survey published in 2012, more than half of all americans are worried that they will not be able to maintain their standard of living in retirement. that is up sharply from 34% two decades ago. and they are right to be concerned, madam president. projections published in 2010 by the employee research -- by the employee benefit research institute, ebri, showed that nearly half of early boomers -- those between ages 56 and 62 when the study was conducted -- are at risk of not having enough money to pay for basic costs in retirement, such as uninsured health care costs. their many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing america's seniors,

including the severity of the recent financial crisis, rising health care costs, the need for long-term care, and the fact that americans are simply living far longer than they did in the past. the shift from employer-based defined benefit plans, pensions , in other words, to defined contributions plans like 401(k)'s also has played a role. another contributing factor we found is that the employees of small businesses are much less likely to participate in employer-based retirement plans. according to a recent g.a.o. study, more than half of the 42 million americans who work for businesses with fewer than 100 employees lack access to a work-based plan to save for retirement. costs and complexity are among

the reasons plans are not more widely offered by small businesses. chairman nelson and i believe that making it easier for smaller companies to provide access to retirement plans for their workers would make a significant difference in the retirement security for millions of americans. that is why the bill that we're introducing today focuses on reducing the costs and complexity of retirement plans, especially for smaller businesses, and on encouraging individuals to save more for their retirement. let me describe some of the provisions of our bill. first, our bill would allow small businesses to enter into multiple employer plans to jointly offer retirement programs to their employees. this allows smaller companies to

share in the administrative burden of a retirement plan, which helps in turn to lower costs. current law discourages the use of m.e.p.'s russ because it requires -- because it requires a connection or a nexus between unrelated businesses in order to join an m.e.p., such as membership in the same trade association. our bill would waiive that next uz requirement -- nexus for companies with fewer than 500 employees. we also provide a phaseout so businesses are not automatically disqualified when they hire the 501st employee. second, our bill makes joining an m.e.p. a more attractive option for small business. under current law, one employer in a multiple employer plan

fails to meet the minimum criteria of necessary for retirement plans to obtain tax benefits, all employers and their employees could lose their tax benefits. these benefits are substantial. for employees include the taxation of income contributed to a plan until they withdraw those funds. for employers, plan disqualification could result in limited deductions at a higher tax burden. our bill directs the treasury to issue regulations to address this uncertainty and protect members of an m.e.p. from the failure of one bad apple to meet its obligations. third, our bill reduces the cost of maintaining a retirement plan. current law requires that participants in a retirement

plan receive a variety of notices. the plan would -- our bill would allow treasury to simplify , clarify and consolidate these retired notices, again, creating savings that can be passed on to employers. as ranking member of the committee on aging, i have heard countless stories of retir -- retirees whose savings did not go as far as they had anticipated. adequate savings reduces poverty among our seniors during what should be their golden years. as the help committee report noted in july, 2012, elder poverty also increases medicare and medicaid costs and strains our social safety net. giving those not yet at riemplet age more opportunities to

save -- at retirement age more opportunities to save and to save greater amounts of money may help to ease this additional burden on entitlement programs that are already projected to run into financial trouble. the retirement security act of 2013 encourages -- fewer foreig. the existing safe harbor for so-called automatic enrollment plans effectively caps employee contributions at 10% of annual pay with the employer contributing a matching amount of up to 6%. we create an additional safe harbor for those plans that would allow employees to receive an employer match of contributions of up to 10% of their pay. i recognize that businesses that choose to adopt a plan with this

new optional safe harbor may face additional costs due to the increased employer match. that is why our bill helps the smallest businesses, those with fewer than 100 employees, offset this cost by providing a new tax credit equal to the increase match. now, madam president, i want to emphasize that the retirement plan options for businesses, including in our bill, are just that; they're options, they're choices. no business, large or small, would be required to offer a retirement plan under our bill. some firms facing an uncertain economy and rising health care costs may choose to spend their limited resources elsewhere. accordingly, our bill ensures

that current measures to encourage savings are functioning as they were intended. and one such improvement is the so-called savers credit, which real estate ducereduces the tax- and middle-income earners who contribute to retirement plans, yet this cannot yet been claimed on the short tax form, the 10140-ez, which is used by individuals with incomes under $100,000. a study found that only 23% of people with household incomes of less than $50,000 per year, the group most likely to qualify, was even aware of the savers credit. to address this bill -- this problem, our bill directs the treasury to make the credit

available on the shorter tax form. in light of the positive effects that this bill would have in strengthening retirement security for millions of americans, i urge my colleagues to join chairman nelson and me in supporting our legislation. i meai'm very pleased that we ha number of groups that have endorsed our bill. i expect to have more to say about that next week. but at this point i would encourage my colleagues to take a look at the hearing that chairman nelson and i held at the aging committee that focused the spotlight on this problem. we simply have too many of our seniors who are in their retirement years without sufficient funds for a comfortable retierlt, and that can and should change. thank you, madam president.

mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: first of all, i want to thank my coleader of the committee, the great senator from the state of maine, who has been not only a great leader but also a terrific copatter coparts twrie offer the leadership to -- as we try to offer the leadership to the aging committee. we are literally trying to make bipartisanship work. and it's only because of folks like senator collins that this is working and, as a result, we've just got a terrific committee, the members participate, they come, they're engaged, they ask the questions of the witnesses. as senator collins has said, as a result of one of these

hearings, with her leadership, she suggested putting together this important piece of legislation. our committee held a hearing last fall called "the state of the american senior," and we wanted to look at the financial security of the average senior in retirement. we didn't like what we heard. fewer than half of the workers even have access to a retirement plan, and those numbers shrink when you talk about employees who work for small businesses. one-third of the private-sector employees work at small businesses, and nearly 72% of businesses with under 100

employees offer no savings plan. i want to repeat that. of businesses under 100 employees, 72% do not offer a savings plan. so what do seniors then end up with? well, they rely on social security to get by in retirement. and that's just simply not enough money to pay for housing and medical care and other expenses. take, for example, my state of florida ... more than three in five people get half of their retirement income from social security. and here's a shocker: one-third of floridians only receive social security income.

one-third of all of the 20 million people in florida receive social security income. that's -- that's all they receive is their social security. so there's a problem that needs to be fixed. too many people are getting by with too little, and so senator collins and i have come together on this legislation aimed at increasing access to savings plans and creating more opportunities for those in retirement to put more money aside ahead of their retirement. and so senator collins explained it. we're going to try to pool all the small businesses together with their resources to take advantages of the economies of scale to create one plan, and it increases the safe harbors for

things like automatic enrollment and escalation contributions, which have shown -- have been shown as ways to get people to save more. so it's common sense, it's bipartisan, it's a great privilege for me to work with senator collins on it legislation and on our committee work. and, madam president, i would yield the floor, and if no one else is seeking recognition, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, madam president. i i understand that we're currenpresently in a quorum cal. i ask that it be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, so that i may call up amendment number 2706. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from rhode island, mr. whitehouse, proposes amendment numbered 2706. mr. whitehouse: thank you vef. i want to just say a few words about this amendment, which i hope we can pass.

i think it is an amendment that will find strong bipartisan support. i am from new england, and across new england -- but i suspect in wisconsin and across the country as well -- communities are trying to restore old rivers back to their healthy state. and what we see in new england, particularly in rhode island, with our history of the industrial revolution, is that our early industrial history was powered by hydropower. it was powered by damming rivers and then diverting some of the flow through a wheel that then drove the engines of industry, the mills, for instance, that were so important to rhode island's industrial history. and that's not just true in rhode island. it's true across new england.

i suspect it's true in a the love places across the country. so -- in a lot of places across the country. as local communities are restoring these rivers, they tend to be small rivers and small dams, what we want do is remove the old dadges s old dame original flow is restored. in some cases we want to actually keep the dam but build a fish passage so that the fish that are working their way upstream to their traditional breeding grounds find a passage and aren't blocked by the dam. and that is part, again, of bringing these old rivers back to life. so when you do that, it's usually in my state towns, small towns often, and local community organizations that have to apply

in order to make those changes. part of the application process is a flood map revision to show what change, removing the dam or change the culvert or adding the fish ladder, will affect -- will make on downstream conditions, a and so the flood map gets redone. the flood map gets filed with fema, and fema requires a processing fee of more than $5,000 in order to review and accept the flood map revision. now, what actually happens in practice is that the town or the local organization that is filing ad into map revision, because they're repairing or

replacing the dam or providing fish passage for it, they will apply to waive that fee. and virtually always, at least in rhode island, and i think around the country, virtually always fema is willing to waive that fee. but the problem is thaoers small organizations and these are small towns, and it takes actually a considerable effort to put together the fee waiver application. so you may save $5,500 in the form of the fema fee, but you'll spend maybe close to that much on your lawyers and engineers and on time and trouble and working together to get that application done.

so since these fees usually get waived anyway, this amendment would just cut to the chase and say there's no fee. and because there's no fee, now you don't have to apply for a fee waiver. and that will help the small towns and the small organizations that are often behind these small projects. and i mean dams that are only just, you know, four or five feet tall sometimes. the redesign of a culvert is not a major effort. very important to local communities. very important to local fishermen, very important to local canoers and outdoorsmen but not a terrifically big deal. so i hope that we can agree to eliminate that bureaucrat requirement. neither noaa nor fema have expressed any objection whatsoever to this. and if i can close, i'll read a

statement by chris fox, who is executive director of the wood pakatauk water association. the rivers run through eastern -- sorry -- western rhode island and they are wonderful rivers. i have actually canoed and kayaked on both and enjoyed it immensely. he had to go through this fee waiver process for a set of projects on the upper pakatauk river and he writes about this -- i quote -- "this amendment will avert lengthy project delays and reduce the cost of these environmentally beneficial projects nationwide. on behalf of the wildlife, water and people who reside and depend upon the health of the wood pakatauk watershed i thank you and all those who support this amendment. i hope all my colleagues will join together to earn chris fox's thanks for i hope

noncontroversial and beneficial amendment. i thank the presiding officer, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. shelby: madam president, i rise today in opposition to senate bill 1926. in july of 2012, after over seven years of negotiation here

in the congress, the congress finally passed the biggert-waters act, the first significant flood insurance reauthorization bill since the creation of the flood insurance program in 1968. madam president, one of the goals of the reforms at that time was to ensure, yes, to ensure that the 5.6 million flood insurance policy holders in this country could collect on their policies if they were ever to suffer a flood loss, something that cannot be guaranteed by flood insurance -- the flood insurance program that's currently $25 billion in debt. the program basically is bankrupt and only operating by the grace of the american taxpayer. historically, madam president, the flood insurance premiums have not covered costs because

the program was not designed to be actuaryiarily -- actuarially sound. essentially it was flawed from the beginning when it was created in 1968. the actual flood insurance act of 1968 authorized subsidized rates to encourage participation in the flood insurance program, especially for properties in high-risk locations. the biggert-waters legislation changed all this by requiring that the program be actuarially sound, that flood insurance rates reflect actual risk and that the program eliminate its debt. the sponsors of the legislation before us now have said that the moment biggert-waters was signed into law by the president, they began working to roll back the reforms. before they had any clear

knowledge of how the changes in that legislation would be implemented. how mapping would affect homeowners. how flood insurance rates would change. or who might be pulled into the program and who might be pulled out. if my colleagues are hoping to decimate the flood insurance program, then they should support this legislation because that's exactly what it will do. however, if they are looking to address the unintended consequences of biggert-waters, then we should take a more measured approach like we do on most legislation. if there are affordability concerns that they are seeking to address, then i think we should find a way to address them. if they are attempting to address economic impacts that were not contemplated in the biggert-waters act, then we should find alternative

approaches that minimize those impacts. if they believe that the rate at which biggert-waters phases in risk-based premiums needs to be reconsidered, then we should discuss alternative increases. unfortunately, madam president, this legislation does not specifically address those issues. senate bill 1926, coupled with the provision that the sponsors included in the recently passed omnibus appropriations act, will stop all changes in the federal flood insurance program. those efforts will ensure that mapping revisions which we desperately need do not move forward, that premium increases are halted and even more disturbing that homeowners never truly learn their real flood insurance risks. i believe people in america

deserve to know the costs and risked of where they live, and, madam president, taxpayers deserve to have those who choose to live in harm's way assume their own risk. the proponents of this legislation want to continue to burden an already overburdened and bankrupt federal insurance program. they're not seeking to address a few of the discrete problems of the flood insurance passed in just tbefl. make no mistake, they want to stop it all. i concede like any legislation there are issues with the implementation of biggert-waters that were not anticipated but those can be addressed in other ways that do not require the, quote, stop everything approach that the proponents of this legislation are basically advocating. congress is often criticized for being unable to fix anything.

well, in 2012 we took a very significant step toward fixing the national flood insurance program after seven years of work. and now we have a bill before us that will undo virtually every reform that was enacted less than two years ago. madam president, i urge the proponents of the bill today to follow regular order and to take this bill through the committee process where it can be debated and amended and where people can be heard. absent that, i urge my colleagues to join with me in voting against this legislation in favor of a more measured approach which will preserve what is needed in the biggert-waters legislation and change only what needs to be changed. madam president, i thank you and i yield the floor and

suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you, madam president. i would also ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my speech that senator reed from rhode island be the next democratic speaker. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor to speak against the coburn amendment. i know that the good senator from oklahoma hasn't brought

this amendment up yet but this is the time of which i have available to speak to it. if he doesn't bring it up, god bless him, but if he does bring it up, hopefully these comments will be able-term pact some of the members -- able to impact some of the members of this body. before i talk about this amendment i want to thank senators menendez, landrieu, isakson, for including legislation that's very important to senator johanns and i in this important flood insurance bill. title 2 of the underlying bill is actually the national association of registered agents and brokers act or as i referred to it, narab. it is legislation senator johanns and i introduced last year. it provides one-stop licensing for insurance agents and brokers operating outside of their home state. while also fully preserving the authority of the state insurance regulators to supervise these

markets. currently an agent or broker seeking to berate in multiple states must meet state'-specific licensing requirements for each state and seek approval from each state's jurisdiction. this process can be time consuming, costly, redundant, and sometimes contradictory. without providing any greater consumer protection. that's a big disincentive for agents and brokers to try to grow their business. this is not a new issue for the insurance agency. congress recognized the need to reform the insurance licensing system 15 years ago, back in 1999 when it incorporated the national association of registered agents and brokers subtitle into the gramm-leech-wylie act. unfortunately, during the consideration of the act congress did not provide for the immediate establishment of narab. instead it included provisions to simply encourage state

reciprocity for licensing. as a result, gramm-leech-bliley wasn't able to achieve the uniformity that congress had hoped for and these efforts became something of a dead end. and that's why we're here today, considering this important legislation. title 2 would provide agents and brokers with the option of becoming a member of narab provided they need standards set by the association and undergo a criminal background check. narab will streamline the licensing process for agents and brokers, enabling them to be licensed once under a single high national licensing standard, rather than follow different state standards. this will save time and will save money. the association will set rigorous professional and consumer protection standards including the requirement that all association members undergo criminal background checks and for the first time, continuing

education standards for nonresident producers. in addition to setting rigorous standards the association will let agents and brokers renew their license all at once and preserve the ability of regulators to supervise agents and brokers. on average agents sell their products in eight states with many of them serving even more than that. the one-stop licensing compliance mechanism will benefit all agents and brokers but particularly the small agents and brokers who must spend time and money dealing with different standards in different states. a one-stop shop for insurance licensing will help smaller players compete against the big competitors. more opportunity is good for small business, and more competition is good for consumers. however, the amendment that i referred to in my opening that may be omped by the good senator

from oklahoma would render narab meaningless by giving states the authority to ignore nara's cross-state licensing abilities. the concept of narab was first developed in 1999 but again the measure wasn't able to achieve the level of reciprocity and uniformity it hoped for. title 2 represents over a decade worth of effort and i believe will achieve the goals laid out in gramm-leech-bliley in and ensures that regulators can continue to protect consumers. i appreciate and understand the concerns of my friend from oklahoma and i share his interest in making sure that we preserve states' rights. but i also want to make clear that we tried providing an opt-out for state 14 years ago and with all due respect it simply did not work. that's why we're here today debating this bill. let me just take a minute and talk about how this legislation

protects states' rights. every state would retain all authority to license its resident agents and brokers. the association would be required to notify states when agents and brokers apply for membership. letting states notify narab of any reason membership should not be granted for a producer. additionally, because the association would be in communication with all state rirgts, this notification measure would prevent bad actors from simply moving to another state because the record would follow them. states will also have significant control over narab, the nonprofit association would be governed by a board of directors dominated by state insurance regulators and chaired by a state insurance regulator. the senator from oklahoma's amendment also implies that this legislation somehow imposes unfunded mandates on states or compels states to take some action, and this isn't the case. the legislation also ensures that states remain responsible

for the oversight and day-to-day regulation of the insurance marketplace. states will maintain exclusive control over regulation and marketplace activities, consumer protection requirements, unfair trade practices, and other important areas. under this bill, we preserve the long-standing authority of states to supervise insurance producers. any agent or broker who obtains the authority to operate in a jurisdiction through narab is still subject to the full regulatory authority of that state and must comply with all marketplace requirements. and under other proposal, we ensure that states will continue to receive insurance licensing fees which will be collected by narab and remitted to the states. this legislation is strongly supported by the national association of state insurance commissioners and the national association of insurance and financial advisors, the council of insurance agents and brokers, and the independent insurance

agents and brokers of america. and it's purpose is thwarted if the good senator from oklahoma's amendment is adopted. if licensing is not -- membership in may rab offers very little value for those agents and brokers who would otherwise participate. so i would urge my colleagues, if the good senator from oklahoma decides to bring up his amendment, to oppose that amendment. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. mr. coburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i am waiting for senator menendez to come to the floor on a budget point of order order. but skill to set avied the amendment so i can call up my amendment of.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. coburn for himself and mr. mccain proposes an amendment numbered 2697. mr. coburn: i ask that the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. byrnmr. coburn: i see senator menendez is now on the floor. this amendment is going to lay additional outlays over the next five years with no outsets. the bill is offset over ten years. it relies on a budget gimmick that assumes that the congress would not raise the nfib cap. the program would delay payment of insurance claims until additional resources became available. so in reality this bill will add another $2.1 billion in debt to the nfip while making no dhiengs addressing affordability issues. even the administration states

that delaying implementation of these reforms would further erode the financial position of the nfip, which is already $24 billion in debt. this delay would also reduce fema's ability to pay future claims made by all policyholders. nfip is unaffordable as the current program is already more than $24 billion in debt. madam president, i -- the pending makers a bill to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the biggert-waters flood insurance reform act of 2012 and to real estate form the national association of registered agents and brokers would violate the senate paygo rule and increasing the deficit. therefore, i raise a point of order on this measure pursuant to section 201-a of s. con. res. 231, the concurrent resolution of the budget -- on the budget for fiscal years 2008. mr. menendez: madam president, pursuant to section 904 of the

congress ago budget act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending bill and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are order. the motion to waive is debatable. mr. coburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: this country is in serious trouble with its debt, its unfunded liabilities and continuous habit by its elected representatives to not live within its means. waiving the budget act so that we can delay a reform on something that needs to be reformed does not make sense.

i have no doubt i woangts win this budget point of order but the american people need to be paying attention. here we go again, not doing the hard, tough work of making choices about priorities. and so we passed a bill, the biggert-waters bill, it was signed in to law, and now because it's starting to come into effect, we're going to delay it for four years. it's going to cost billions. and then we're not going to solve the problem. and don't forget ... this is not about keeping biggert-waters intact. it is about making it go away. that's what it's really about. and i'm adamantly opposed to the waiver of the budget act, and i will wait-to-the call of the chair -- and i will wait the call of the chair on the vote. i yield back. mr. menendez: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: just briefly, i appreciate my colleague from

oklahoma's long-standing views on a variety of fiscal issues, but 0 on this one, i must say that i have a disagreement with him. this isn't about doing away with biggert-waters because the reality is that the 1% of properties that equal 33% of all of the claims, there is nothing set aside for that 1% that creates 33% of all the claims. it remains as it existed in biggert waters. as a matter of fact, overwhelmingly, we keep most of the biggert-waters reforms in the legislation. the one thing that we are doing is creating a pause for those property owners who have obeyed the rules, followed their responsibilities, built to new standards and now find them servings notwithstanding having

done all of those things, that they're in the midst of a lost f hurt great shock that some of us foresaw as evidence of the fact that i raised these issues as a member of the senate banking committee where this bill www.-- where this bill was heard and when i couldn't achieve any affordability elements, i got an affordability study included whose study should be completed before we actually put into force skyrocketing premiums that are going to, what, create greater stability for the fund? no. what's insurance about? insurance is about spreading risk over a wider pool. so what happens when the many stories that many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come to talk about on the floor, which is people who just can't simply meet that skyrocketing premium? and in essence they have to say,

i can't have insurance or i'm going to turn my house over to the mortgage company because i can't sustain that or we'll have to sell at a firesale. so what happens then? the pool grows smaller. the what's the consequences of the risk pool growing smaller? prices rise, and when prices rise even more for everybody else, what happens again? the risk pool grows smaller and then the risk pool grows smawcialg the prices rise again. so this isn't about undoing biggert-waters. on the contrary, this is about getting it right. this is about fulfilling the element of the law that said there must be an affordability study so that we can determine what type of affordability mechanism would exist in the law so that we can ultimately make

sure that we have a solvent program and, at the same time, be able to keep the single-most significant asset that any family has in this country, which is their home. and so that's what we're trying to do here, and that's why i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the waive of the budget point of order. and i yield the floor. ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: madam president, i am i understand that senator reed has been waiting to speak about his amendment and that unanimous consent allows that. i would like 30 seconds to responding to the coburn amendment, and i see the senator from tennessee, i'm not sure what brings him to the floor, but if i could have 30 seconds to respond to the coburn amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. landrieu: i want to underscore what the senator from new jersey just said. if our efforts were to repeal

the biggert-waters bill, we would have drafted one to do so. this is not repealing biggert-waters. this is an honest, good-faith attempt to make the flood insurance program work. so we are insisting that the affordability study be done first. we're insisting that the maps be accurate, and we're insisting that fema recognize levees that taxpayers have built with their own money. is that too much to ask? think about that. an affordability study, to recognize levees that are built, and to, you know, make sure that people can afford these rates. i know my 30 seconds is up. i would urge my colleagues to vote against the coburn point of order and to help us move this important bill to the house of representatives with a strong vote.

mr. reed: madam president, i would first ask unanimous consent that ellen mclaughlin be granted athe privileges of the floor for this session of the 113th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you very much, madam president. i now ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendment, number 2703. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reed: thank you. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reed proposes an amendment numbered 2703. mr. reed: i would scu ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: madam president, my amendment would require the federal emergency management agency to study and report on the advisability of establishing voluntary community-based flood insurance policies under the national flood insurance program, the nfip. the government accountability office would require to review and comment on the study. the study will help answer questions about how such

voluntary community-based policies could be implemented within the national flood insurance program. it does not commit fema, the congress, or local communities to take any action. it simply calls the fact-finding and analysis that could provide the basis for improvements to flood insurance program. the idea of community-based flood insurance is to assess the risk fof all properties -- for all properties within a community and collect premiums from the community rather than from individual property owners. by purchasing insurance at the community level, willing local governments -- and i'm emphasize "willing" and "voluntary "kings -- maybe able to is spread the cost of premiums equitably among property owns. they may be able to increase participation in the flood insurance program including among property owners who are within the 100-year floodplain but who are not subject to the mandatory purchase requirements because they do not carry a federally backed mortgage.

expanded participation would ensure that all properties in the floodplain have coverage from risk. beyond increasing coverage and participation, community-based insurance may also offer new opportunities and incentives for communities to deal with affordability, including by undertaking mitigation efforts that will reduce risk and insurance costs. indeed, the amendment specifically requires fema to develop a strategy that incorporates mitigation into its recommendations for community-based policies. for communities in rhode island and along the east coast dealing with the aftermath of hurricane san did and the reality of sea level rise and climate change, this could offer another tool to prepare. there are important questions to be answered about the feasibility of such an option and how it might be offered. that is what this amendment seeks to do. a study of this option has been included in separate amendments and bills sponsored by proponents and opponents of the

underlying bill. and it has been approved by the house twice as a free-standing bill. indeed, it has been part of bills or amendments sponsored or cosponsored by chairman johnson, senator crapo, senator shelby. i want it thank the authors and managers of the underlying bills for their work. they have are a done an extraordinary job in, wog to in working to e ensure that my amendment quo be considered. i believe that this amendment will add to the goals of the underlying bill and given the bipartisan support thor this concept, i would hope it could be adopted about by a voice -- by a vis voice vote. before i leave the floor, madam president, just another point. another emergencying that is facing up -- emergency that is facing us, unemployment insurance. and i would ask if we could continue this bipartisan dialogue we've had and salute my colleagues on the other side of the aisle