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 who have been

principled in their pursuit of this objective and we can move on that issue also. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, madam president. i rise to address the amendment that i have. i will formally ask to call it up in a few moments, but i want to say a few words about it. and i'd like to start by a little bit of background and reminder of where -- how we got here and the circumstances that brought us to this point. and it all started, of course, with a completely unsustainable national flood insurance progr program. i don't think there's any dispute that this program is massively in debt, it's completely -- it's been completely underwater, it was unsolvent, and there was no pros -- insolvent and there was no prospect for this to right i

itself because of the massive subsidies for homeowners of all stripes. by the way, in addition to being fiscally insolvent and, therefore, a -- a huge drain for taxpayers, it has a lot of very bad incentives when you subsidize homes that are built in dangerous places, you subsidize and encourage homes to be rebuilt there, homes to be bought in places that are just dangerous and costly. and so there are problems inherent. the c.b.o. was very clear about this. this program was not going to be able to honor its commitments. that's what happens when a program like this is insolvent and is unreformed. people who think they've got insurance for their home end up discovering one day that they don't because it's -- because of its insolvency. and so along came the biggert-waters approach to reform the national flood insurance program and to put it in a position where it would actually be solvent and it would actually be able to honor the policies that people are paying for.

it was september of 2011 that the senate banking committee took up the reforms and they passed it with a voice vote. in other words, there was no dissent, there was no objection. to the biggert-waters reforms. now, that was, of course, after many hearings. this had been -- this has been discussed at length for many years before we got to that point. but we did, we passed it in the banking committee. and in june of 2012 -- so less than two years ago -- biggert-waters, the flood insurance reform program, was wrapped into another bill, it was the map-21, a transportation bill, it was wrapped into that, and it passed, it passed with overwhelming support. as a matter of fact, as it happens, every single democrat who was in the chamber and who's a member of the senate voted in favor of the bi biggert-waters reform. i think in part because they understood that this program needed to be reformed.

and i think we all believe that this program needs to be on a fiscally sustainable place. so the final passage of that bill less than two years ago required the reforms of biggert-waters, which includes as central to those reforms that over time, everybody who participates in the national flood insurance program will eventually be paying actuarial sound rates, rates that actually reflect the risk of their home so that taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook and they wouldn't be subject to the worry about whether this program is going to go away altogether. so that's where we were when, lo and behold, we start to discover that for some people, premium increases are going to be very, very dramatic. i've heard a hot from pennsylvanians -- i've heard a lot from pennsylvanians. this is a program with the biggert-waters reform. one of the problems that i suspect a lot of folks did not anticipate was that the premium spikes would be quite substantial and they'd happen

over a pretty short period of time. there is a phase-in under the biggert-waters reforms but it's quick and it's very problematic for that relatively small handful of people who would be adversely affected because it turns out that the remapping determines that they're in a higher risk profile than had previously been understood, or if they had built their home prior to the national mappings, they wouldn't be subject to the premium increase but upon sale of their home, the premium increase would go into effect. and it would go into effect immediately and that, of course, can have a devastating impact on the value of a person's home. so i -- i want to just be very clear. there's no question in my mind that if we didn't do anything, if we simply leave biggert-waters alone, that has an unacceptable impact on people who are adversely affected in the form of premium increases that are way too big, way too quickly. and that's not -- that's not the right outcome. that's not -- we shouldn't settle for that. i know cases in pennsylvania

where people have -- are facing thousands of dollars in increase. in some cases it's immediate. in a case where they are going to be selling their home, the new buyer would face that immediately. in other cases, it's phased in very quickly. so the menendez approach, the underlying bill that we're debating today, deals with this but it deals with this in the wrong way. it deals with this by completely suspending all the reforms. it completely dispensz with the idea -- dispenses with the idea that we should move towards an actuarially sound program. it says for four years, there will be no change in premiums. now, it's hard not to see this as a measure that's designed to kill the reform. and i understand that it's painful to have any premium increase. but to say that the response should be to abandon any effort to move to a fiscally sound,

actuarially based program, that just can't be right. to do that is to completely throw out the reforms that took so many years to get there. and, by the way, it doesn't provide any certainty for the homeowners that it's meant to protect. for four years, nothing happens and after the fourth year, nobody knows what happens. i know the -- it's the intent for some to continue indefinitely without making any changes but that is not a solution. this is an insolvent program. what that means is we will get to the day relatively soon, according to c.b.o., when the national flood insurance program will simply be unable to honor the commitments that it's made, it will not have the resources, it will not have the borrowing authority, it will run out of money. and people who then get their home flooded will find it of little comfort that their premium was a little lower when it turns out there's no -- there's no benefit to be paid, there is to resources for them

to rebuild. so this -- this just doesn't work. and it's not just me who observes this problem with the underlying menendez bill. as a matter of fact, the president of the united states has weighed in on this and i will have a quote here from a statement of administrative policy that they put out two days ago in response -- directly referring to this bill, identifying it by number. this is the bill we're talking about, the menendez bill, and one of the things they say is "delaying implementation of these reforms" -- the reforms they're talking about is the biggert-waters reforms, delaying the implementation, as the menendez bill would do -- "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." this is the president of the united states.

his administration has looked at the menendez bill and this is their conclusion. this doesn't work. this doesn't work for policyholders. it doesn't work for taxpayers. it doesn't work for anybody. there's another problem that i would point out with the menendez bill. it wouldn't work if it were to become law for these reasons but it's not going to become law. the administration's made it clear they don't support it. the speaker of the house has made it abundantly clear he will not put a bill on the house floor that guts the reforms of biggert-waters. the chairman -- the house chairman of the banking committee, who has jurisdiction over this, has made it abundantly clear he's not going to move a bill that does away with these fiscal reforms. so voting for the menendez bill, if your goal is to do something to help home orange homeowners e

facing premium increases, a vote for the menendez bill does nothing because the bill's not going anywhere. the administration doesn't support it, they've said. so the house is not even going to take it up. so if your goal is to do something for constituents who are phase facing a big premium increase -- and, frankly, that is a big part of my goal -- the menendez bill doesn't cut it. that's going nowhere. what the add manage said would work -- what the administration said would work and what house leadership are willing to work with us on would be to phase in these premium increases more gradually. because everybody acknowledges the premium increases are occurring too -- too quickly and that needs to change. so this -- this is another quote from that same statement of add manage policy -- administration policy on that same bill. what they said was "the administration strongly supports a phased transition to actuarially sound flood insurance rates."

now, they didn't refer to my amendment but this is exactly what my amendment does, it phases this in gradually. so as to minimize the pain, allow people an opportunity to adjust, allow people the time to maybe mitigate the risk and still maintain the integrity, the fiscal integrity of the program so that it actually can pay the claims that will be submitted to it -- that surely will be submitted. let me just run through quickly exactly what the amendment does and doesn't do because there's been some confusion about this. it's -- our amendment actually retains very significant portions of the underlying menendez bill because parts of it made a lot of sense. so section 1 is just the title. section 2, definitions, unchanged. section 3 is where we phase the premium increases in gradually rather than suspending them altogether. that's the big difference. section 4 of the menendez bill

is an affordability study and report. it requires fema to complete this study, as biggert-waters does, within two years of the enactment of the bill. we leave that intablght. i think that's a good idea -- we leave that intact. i think that's a good idea. we need that. my amendment would not affect that whatsoever. the menendez provides additional funding for the affordability study, it lifts the cap that was set before. my amendment wouldn't change that. i think that we need to lift that cap. section 6, this is a measure that providers funds to reimburse homeowners when they challenge the redrawing. so when the map -- a new map comes out and someone's house is deemed to be in a more risky place and, therefore, the premium is higher, the homeowner can challenge that. and if the homeowner wins, under the menendez language, which i support and stays in this bill under my amendment, the homeowner would be reimbursed the cost of that challenge. and senator king from maine had

a very good suggestion i think which is if a community chooses to challenge the mapping because they think there was a mistake made, they think it was inaccurate and it adversely affects them, they, too, that community, too, would be reimbursed for its costs if it turns out to be successful in its challenge. i agree with that. we've incorporated that into our amendment. section 7 addresses flood protection systems. this is a very important part of what the menendez bill does and i fully support it. and that is this. under current law, one of the problems is in order to -- for a community or a -- or a home, a homeowner to fully benefit from risk mitigation that they may have done, a levee that may have been built or a dam or some other risk mitigation, in order to fully benefit from that, the federal government has to have paid for some portion of it. that's ridiculous. what difference does it make who paid for it? if it's been built and it's providing protection, that's all that should matter. this language would achieve that. the menendez bill achieves that

and my amendment incorporates that. we keep that intact as well. section 8 treats floodproofed residential basements, addresses that. our amendment doesn't change that. section 9 creates a designation of a flood insurance advocate. again, my amendment makes no change to that. section 10, senator blunt had an amendment that would change the remodeling trigger for loss subsidies from 30% to 50% of a home's value. we incorporate senator blunt's amendment into our own so that's there. senator hagan had an amendment to exempt escrow requirements for flood insurance payments. we -- we fully incorporate that into my amendment as well. senator rubio had an amendment also that was accepted by the managers. it's in ours. so really what it comes down to, the difference between my amendment and the menendez

approach is one keeps us on a path of reform, keeps us on a path to an actuarially sound, fiscally responsible flood insurance program whereby the flood insurance program is actually able to pay its claims. and the menendez bill dispenses with did. it dispenses with the most important perform. the other part that we do is we soften the blow. if your concern is with these homeowners who are facing these huge premiums, my amendment is the only way we're going to actually achieve that help for those folks, because this is the only legislative approach that has a chance of actually becoming law. by the way, in addition to its problems with the other body and the administration, the menendez bill is subject to a budget point of order because it increases our deficit and it

forces more government borrowing subject to a government point of order. i don't know that it can sustain that. i don't know if it can defeat a budget point of order, and that's an important issue, because our approach is fiscally sound, we're not subject to a budget point of order. what we do is we say, sure, the longer delay in the phase-in of the premium increases costs the flood insurance program some money until you get to the point where people have reached the level where they're paying actuarially sound rates but we offset that with a very modest surcharge on all flood insurance policies in the country. it is about $40 per year, in the first year, the most expensive year, unless your income is over $500,000 a year in which case it is $80. it goes down over time because as the higher premiums are phased in, the loss to the program is diminished and, therefore, the surcharge goes

down with it. let's be very clear, the maximum that anybody would be paying is about $40 a year. unless your income is over $500,000 a year, in which case it would be $80 a year. i'll just wrap up, mr. president. i just think that we can't continue to ignore all of the fundamental mandatory spending problems that we have. when we actually go through a long and painful and be deliberative systematic process to reform a program, for us to walk away within two years and say never mind, we're not going to have any reform, is just so disappointing and irresponsible. we've got bigger challenges facing us. if we can't deal with this, i don't know what we're going to do. again, i fully acknowledge that we've got to soften the blow for people who are going to face much higher premiums. my amendment does that.

and the way we do that is by ensuring that nobody's premium could go up by more than 25%. in the case of people who would face a big increase, under my approach, it would take many years of gradual phasing in before they would actually be forced to pay that higher actuarially sound rate. if they think that rate is unfairly high, they can challenge it or they can leave the program and buy private insurance. they could do that too. but to suggest that we're going to just do nothing after having put the reforms in place, i think it would be a big mistake. mr. president, there are a lot of groups that are supporting my amendment. i've got a list here i'm going to run through. the national resource defense council, national wildlife federation, nature conservancy, national association of mutual insurance, the reinsurance association of america, american rivers, national fire protection association, national lease housing association, the r

street institute, american consumer institute, americans for prosperity. americans for tax reform, coalition to reduce spending, council for citizens against government waste, freedom works, national taxpayers union, taxpayers for common sense, taxpayer protection alliance. you can see there is a combination of fiscal watchdog folks that are very concerned about fiscal prudence as well as people who are concerned about environmental integrity. there's other groups coming on continuously. as i mentioned, every democrat who voted on the biggert-waters reform voted in favor of it. what my amendment does is it preserves the integrity of the reform while softening the blow for the people who would be affected by it. so, i think this is just a very, very important although modest step in doing these two things. and, mr. president, i'm going to

ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that i may call up my amendment 2707 with the modification which is at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from pennsylvania, mr. toomey, proposes amendment numbered 2707 as modified. mr. toomey: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call::

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so i may call up amendment 2709 and that the amendment be modified to correct

a typographical error. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oregon, mr. merkley, proposes amendment numbered 2709 as modified. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i think i will take this occasion to just make a couple of remarks about the content of this amendment. this amendment is about a predatory practice that is involved in the flood insurance world, and that predatory practice is that when a servicer of mortgages places insurance, flood insurance on a property, be it a home or be it a business, they sometimes arrange a very expensive policy to be placed on the property, and the reason they do this is that the insurer, the insurance company that has prepared the policy, is charging many times the market rate, but in exchange they pay

the servicer a large bonus. now, we can remember how bonuses in the subprime world were used to steer families from prime mortgages into subprime mortgages. in this case, the bonus is being paid to the servicer so the servicer will steer the family into an expensive insurance policy rather than a fair market rate policy. my amendment just takes a very simple approach and says that these bonus payments or incentive payments or whatever name you would like to give to them from the insurer to the servicer in order to utilize their very expensive above-market rate product rather

than a fair market rate product, will not be allowed. that eliminates this conflict of interest but enable the servicer to provide a fair service of placing insurance on a property, flood insurance on a property if it's required under the terms of the mortgage but not to do so in a predatory manner. so, mr. president, i hope that all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take a look at this practice and realize that the overall scope of this bill is about a fair deal, a fair deal for families who are in the situation of being required under their mortgage to obtain flood insurance. part of that fair deal should involve ending this particular predatory premium practice on flood insurance.

thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ken. mr. corker: thank you, mr. president. i want to speak very briefly -- after i ask for unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: i want to speak very briefly on the toomey amendment. i know that we have on the floor a bill that basically, let's face it, puts off for about four years reforms that we put into the flood insurance program. it's a $24 billion program.

a very small, in essence, entitlement program that we have in this country. and i am very despondent over the fact that we passed these reforms out of the banking committee unanimously in 2011. they took place on october of 2013. our nation is facing incredible entitlement problems, and we all know it. people on both sides of the aisle have been down here ad nauseam talking about the fact that as a nation, the number-one threat that we have our inability to deal with the fiscal issues that we know we have throughout the entitlement programs we have in this country. and here we have a situation where unanimously out of the banking committee we passed reforms to deal with the flood insurance program that we know is moving quickly towards

insolvency. and so what do we do? maybe instead of being the most deliberative body in the world, we might be described as the most pandering body in society in the world. what we're doing instead is punting on these reforms. and i'm discouraged by that. it's amazing. i just think that, you know, we have not shown the ability to really address any of the bigger issues that our nation has to deal with. so, you know, i would be obviously more responsive to a bill that maybe made tweaks or does did some things to make this work in a way that was not quite as draconian. but the fact is we all know that the way the program works, it's just not sustainable and we know that in essence taxpayers all across this country are subsidizing folks that are

participating in a national program to cause them to have insurance relative to their own property. so in essence -- in an effort to try to deal with this in a more thoughtful way, pat toomey from pennsylvania has offered an amendment that calls to ensure that the increases in premiums that people are facing are done so in a very -- in a way that obviously dramatically reduces the impact on people. and, again, i applaud that, i appreciate that. i do think that there are some homeowners in this country and property owners that are having the way -- the way the program now works, these increases would take place over the next four to five years and instead the toomey amendment causes that to not increase, especially for those who make under a certain amount of money, for those not to increase more than 25% a year. so if you had -- if you had a

200 bill for flood insurance, next year it would go up 50%. i think it's a thoughtful effort to try to cause this bill to still be actuarial sound, it has no negative impact on our deficits and i think it's a way for us to deal with this in a much, much better way than, let's face it, just putting our head in the sand and not -- not taking this issue on. i want to go back one more time and say this is one of the few reforms, one of the few reforms -- it may be the only reform that i'm aware of that has become law that has come out of the banking committee in several years. indict so unanimously. this is in essence an entitlement program. it is a small entitlement program, and i understand it's very, very important to some property owners around our country.

but if we as a body are going to turn away from reforms and not, by the way, replace those reforms with other reforms but instead delay for in essence what most people believe because of the way fema operates, delay this for four years, i think it speaks to -- i think it speaks to a body that just really has no desire whatsoever to take on the issues that are so important to our nation's citizens. so i do want to say, again, i think the toomey amendment is a thoughtful approach to trying to deal with the issue that i think is affecting many people in this body who do have people that they represent that are going through substantial increases in a way that they feel to be too draconian. so if that's your issue, if that's your issue, i would people to strongly support the

toomey amendment and, by the way, with the toomey amendment's passage, which leaves the rest of the reforms in place, i would then believe that we've done something in this body that is thoughtful. we -- we have attempted to make this flood insurance program actuarial sound, and at the same time we would have solved the issue that i think so many people here are concerned about. without the passage of the toomey amendment, as a part of this bill, i do want to say one more time this body will have failed once again, with a very, very, very small entitlement program, we will have failed to rise to the occasion to put our country minimally on a course towards solvency and instead turned away from this effort which speaks to the fact there

is almost no likelihood we'll ever within the short -- medicine term, anyway, be able to address the bigger issues we all know are looming and are affecting our country in such big ways. so yield the floor --, i yield the floor, i urge strong support for the toomey amendment and without the toomey amendment, i hope this body will vote down this bill which undoes the only real reforms that the banking committee has put in place in the last several years. with that i yield the floor and thank the president for the time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you. and first i thank my clee and friend from tennessee for his as-usual thoughtful presentation, even though i disagree with it, it's always thoughtful, care 234reu thought out and i appreciate his thoughts and efforts. now, first, mr. president, the need to pass the

menendez-isakson-landrieu bill is extremely important. here in new york -- in new york, we're not here, i wish i were -- in new york we have seen the follies of the present flood insurance law. we've seen follies in a variety of ways. most of all, we have seen homeowners charged a fortune which they can't afford, we have seen homeowners told even 23 if they're not going to be charged immediately when they sell their home the rate-rate will go so high they can't sell the home or the value of the home decreases. we have seen people, victims of sandy whose homes were destroyed or largely hurt, rebuild their homes and then be forced maybe to lose them because of ridiculous flood insurance claims. we have seen the problems with the maps, areas five miles from the nearest flood, somehow get called a flood zone and have to pay more insurance.

we have even seen fema overreaching in terms of drawing maps. in fact, in my state they used sufficient fox county's flood maps -- and flood levels and just transposed them on nassau oint county, a different place with different elevations and different tides and we had to get that undone. so a moratorium going back to the drawing boards and holding rates in place while that happens makes eminent sense. it is true, it will cost the government some money but what's our job here? is it to let thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands default, lose their homes? while we stand there and twiddle our thumbs? i don't think so. i don't think the vast majority of americans think that. we have to figure out how to

deal with flood insurance and the menendez-isakson-landrieu bill does that. but while we're doing it, we have to make sure that people don't lose their homes. there's many more storms out there, we know that. we've had a katrina, we've had a sandy creating unprecedented damage. does -- it certainly means that the old flood insurance program probably has to be changed. but to just eliminate it, basically, by not passing this bill, or by passing the toomey amendment, which in effect would eliminate it, makes no sense wound cause huge damage. now, i rise in opposition to the toomey amendment. if you believe that there should be some level of affordability before we impose rates, then you can't vote for the toomey bin laden. -- the toomey bill.

the toomey bill basically has mandatory rate increases before any affordability study. it repeats the mistake of biggert-waters. biggert-waters actually called for an affordability study, fema didn't complete it and still had the rates go into effect. if affordability is one of our hallmarks and i believe it is, it certainly makes no sense to do what fema has done under biggert-waters, put rate increases in effect before affordability is studied, or do what toomey does and say -- explicitly says rate increases shall go into effect before the affordability study is completed. furthermore, the toomey amendment in my judgment means you may as well have nothing at all. go back to the old. because it establishes an uncapped annual fee on all

5.6 million nfip policyholders for an unspecified period of time until the identified costs of this bill are offset. no guarantee that homeowners could be protected from a $30,000 premium if that's what the actuaries think. speaking for my state of new york, they say it's people on the water, it's seconds homes, it's rich people. not in new york it's not. we've all seen the pictures of homes damaged in staten island in the rockaway queens and on the southern shore of long island. modest homes, some of them even called bungalows where people live full time, long beach, an example of that. average folks, firefighters and teachers and cops and clerks and secretaries. small business people. who struggle, double or triple or quadruple their insurance rates, their flood insurance rates and they just can't get by.

and one other point i'd make. some of you say this doesn't affect me. it's going to. because fema is remapping across the country. they've done a lot of the remapping in new york, i've talked about how irresponsible what they've done is. once they come to your state and map, you will see that the mapping is almost nonsensical. mapping people into flood zones who have never had a flood, charging shall, charging rates that average folks cannot afford. and from what i'm told, pennsylvania is the state with the highest percentage of new mapping activity. 14% of all new mapping activity, 1,400 maps. so i think even in my good friend -- i know he's a true believer in these things and i

respect his integrity but it's sure going to affect the people of pennsylvania. guess which state is second in terms of new maps. new york. 625. that's why i feel so strongly and have worked so hard with senators menendez and isakson and landrieu who have done such a fabulous job on this legislation to get it passed. and so i urge defeat of the toomey amendment. the toomey amendment is almost the -- a mirror image of the bill itself. the biggert- waters bill, which we are trying to counteract. and because fema didn't implement it correctly. and if toomey is defeated and if our flood insurance bill, which i'm a proud cosponsor, is passed, homeowners will be able to breathe a sigh of real relief while fema goes back to the

drawing boards and figures out a way to have a flood insurance program that doesn't bankrupt thousands of middle-class, working-class people. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are, sir. mr. coburn: i ask it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i believe when i left my amendment was pending, amendment 2697, and i'd like to spend a few minutes talking about that. i know somebody else is coming to the floor here rather quickly

and i have about five minutes i've been told by the cloakroom. congressional creation of the national association of registers agents and brokers, the bill that has been attached to the flood bill, usurps the rights of states' authority over insurance, licensing and licensd regulations. congress established the mccarran ferguson act that states should retain the regulating authority over insurance laws. while narab 2 was crafted to retain primacy of insurance regulations and enforcement actions within the states, this bill will nevertheless compel states to accept a national license within their jurisdiction. the nonpartisan congressional budget office stated, "the association's authority would exist only through a preemption of states' power to regulate the licensing of insurance producers."

this preemption would stem from an exercise of the sovereign power of the federal government. narab 2 provides the president and his or her appointee the authority to nullify the decisions made by the narab board but does not extend any of the same rights to the individual states. this amendment will provide -- my amendment will provide a state the opportunity to opt out of participation in narab only through the passage of legislation by the state legislature and signature of the governor, and it will not allow a state insurance commissioner to opt out on a whim. to prevent a disruptive transition, this amendment requires a two-year delay between passage of this -- of state legislation and the effective date of an opt-out. so you can't get out just like that. it's two years. in order to maintain the foundation of the reciprocity and prevent states from gaming the provision for a competitive advantage, insurance producers located within a state that opts

out of narab would be ineligible from participating in the narab system. so if your states opts out, you lose the privilege of going to other states. the inclusion of this provision would accomplish the bill's goal of streamlining and cost savings without the continuation of congress infringing on activities that should be left to the states. the amendment will still allow the benefits provided by a multistate licensing process to reduce the bureaucracy involved for producers to access customers in other states, which will help increase competition and lower consumer costs, things that i'm totally for. actually, i'm for this bill but only with preserving the 10th amendment rights of states. the provision will also provide a safeguard from narab if 10 years from now it's not working as well as current consensus has hoped and a state or states no longer wish to participate. as the bill's proponents have

already pointed out, narab has the support of every state and every insurance producer. they all -- all agree. if that's the case and this is so popular and such a needed reform, then no state will apt out -- no state will opt out, and the opt-out provision will be moot while still protecting the states' rights. i understand the opposition to this, they think this won't get off the ground. but the very statements have been made, both in the committee and on the floor, that everybody wants this. all the insurance industry wants this. all the state insurance commissioners want this. if that's the case, nobody will opt out. and we will have met our constitutional duty of providing and protecting the bill of rights for the states.

i -- i'd just finish by saying this. one of the reasons we're in extreme difficulty -- we're in what physicians would call estremis -- is that we have ignored states' rights, we have ignored the bill of rights and we've said, we're primal, we're primal. so as c.b.o. said, we're stepping all over this. and i understand i probably won't be able to stop it, but it's another indication of why we need the enumerated powers act, and that's simply a bill sponsored by 46 senators -- 44 senators that says, if you bring a bill to the floor, you have to give the authority under which the enumerated powers would justify you bringing this bill to the floor. to make us pause just to think

about it. i don't think it's unreasonable. people may disagree about whether states ought to have the right to opt out, but if the program is such as has been designed by the authors of this bill and the statements by the people who have spoken on this bill on the floor, if that's the case, putting this amendment in won't harm it at all. it won't ever be used. so it's simply saying, if they want to opt out, it's two years after they vote in their legislature and signed by the governor before they can. so there's no disruption. nobody's going to do that. if it's true what everybody who is supporting this bill has said. so it's peculiar and curious to me why anybody would oppose this amendment if, in fact, the facts are as stated by those supporting the narab 2. and i support it. but i think we ought to protect

the states' right -- constitutional rights. and with that, i'd yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i know that the distinguished senator from north dakota is going to speak but if she would yield for one moment. i ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:45 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, that at 4:45 p.m. today, the senate proceed to votes in relation to the following: the menendez motion to waive budget points of order against s. 1926, the reed amendment 2703, the whitehouse amendment 2706, and the gillibrand amendment 2708. i would expect that those amendments would go by voice. and, finally, there will be two minutes of debate inbetween the votes equally divided in the usual form. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: thank you so much for this opportunity to stand and support a bill that has taken a long time to get to the floor of the united states senate. and i remember back when members like senator mary landrieu stood and sounded the alarm, sounded the alarm even before we saw the problem coming. and as a result of that initial effort and as a result of the great effort of the gentleman who just left the floor, senator menendez, we now have a bill on the floor that we can truly say, we're actually listening to the middle class. how many times do you think in this body we talk about the working folks who come to work every day doing everything that they can to put food on the table and they just need us to not cause more problems for th them? and we hear about the middle class. and last night during the state of the union speech, again more discussion about the need to pay attention to the financial

struggles and the -- and the challenges of working families. well, let me tell you, this is a bill that for so many working families in north dakota and across the country can mean the difference between homeownership or no homeownership. mean the difference between actually having equity in their home or having a house that's underwater. and i'm not exaggerating. this is a critical part of the housing market. it has created uncertainty in the housing market while we're trying to achieve some success and some continuing momentum. housing is 20% of what we do in this country in our economy but yet this is throwing a monkey wrench into -- into the housing market for so many families and for so many states. i want to not tell anything new here maybe but to kind of give a different perspective, because i think all too often people think flood insurance is about the

coast or it's about the gulf or it's about what's happening maybe along a major river, whether it's the mississippi. but let me tell you, in my state, flooding is a reality for way too many people. and it is a -- it is a problem that we have experienced during these wet cycles that has led to devastation, has led to loss of equity in -- in folks' home and it has led to uncertainty. and i want to talk a little bit about two places that you may not think because you've all heard about the massive grand forks flood and you, of course, watched television, as we were, looking at what could have potentially happened in our largest city, the city of fargo, north dakota. but what you may not know is that we have a city called minot, north dakota, who experienced a devastating flood. absolutely devastating flood, where a tremendous amount of affordable housing, the housing that was along the bodyway thought they were protected, thought they were protected from

a00-year flood. many did not have -- a hundred-year floold. many did noflood.and the hundred literally devastated and wiped out hundreds and hundreds of good, hardworking families and retired folks. and they're looking to rebuild. but right now the uncertainty of flood insurance and what's going to happen with the new flood maps has slowed that effort down, it has created uncertainty. i just had a meeting in the state -- in the city of minot where i talked to the mayor, talked to the city officials and asked the questions about whether they were seeing this uncertainty and they certainly are getting a lot of questions. and it would love -- i would love to tell those hardworking north dakotans that we actually in washington, d.c., can hear what they're saying. i also want to talk about another place way off from minot, in the red river valley, a place called gratton, north dakota where a great north dakota family purchased their year ago.

at the time the flood insurance rate on their home was $00 year. they knew that when they bought the house. they said, oklahoma, fine, we've got this extra expenditure in order to meet our mortgage requirements, and they built that into their budget. and this is cofnl coverage for 0 $100,000. seemed like they were paying their fair share. when the policy recent claim up after the changes in the biggert-waters law, their flood insurance rate skyrockets to $ $4,200 a year. $4,200 a year. that's a 375% increase. in an e-mail to me, ali expressed her desire to raise their children in grafton, but they no longer can afford to live there with those rates. in grafton we don't have flood protection and as a result the entire community is probably in the floodplain. you're going to buy a house, get

a mortgage and be required to get flood insurance. not only is allison devastated by this nurks the whole community of grafton is now struggling with this increase in flood insurance. in the community of valley city, a home has flood insurance imil that just went from $700 to more than $10,000 a year. tbhi that. a lot of people who hear that amount would say, is that your mortgage payment? no, they say, it's flood insurance. the and get? that flood insurance is for $60,000 worth of coverage. you know, we have an opportunity here to, i think, act as a body that actually listens to the challenges of the american people and actually reforms and looks back when we make decisions, decisions like biggert-waters and, as senator

menendez has so often said, the concerns about affordability were raised at the time. they assumed those would be taken into consideration as they moved afford with the rate reductions. as a result, it did not happen and these rates went up. but we also have a unique issue in north dakota. it is called the basement exemption. you know, when you think about at what level your house is protected to, you think about your foundation, to that level where your yard basically meets your foundation. because we waterroofed our basements along the red river valley and a lot of our communities, we were given an exemption. lots of money went into waterproofing and making those basements flood-proof. why do you need a basement? just put it on slab. north dakota, unbeknownst to a lot of people, suffers from tornadoes. in fact, fargo was devastated in the 1950's by a tornado, so people take very serious list that emergency shelter that's provided in basements and frequently those basements get

rehabbed and, as a result, you know, were used as flood control back when those homes were built. but now we have a basement exemption. people have made the investment. fema has in fact suggested that the basement exemptions will no longer be valid for all of those communities that have relied on that to provide affordable housing in their communities. and so this bill retains and says clearly that the basement exemption, after people made investments and reliance on the government -- reliance on the governmentst word that we'll in fact have protection. without this provision, without the basement exemption, flood insurance rates in these theirs rely on basements could go up again $10,000 a year. the homeowners flood insurance affordability act provides a balanced, targeted approach this bill gives fema the authority needed to implement reforms

included in the biggert-waters in a thoughtful way, to improve the program's volves and phase out -- solvency and phase out without putting people out of their homes. it delays the enforcement and proposes regulations to implement regulations to implement that allow time for congress to review. there have been some positive steps and many of my colleagues have come to the floor, including me, to sound the alarm so many months ago. but we need still to pass this bill. and so i think the time is now. and what better way -- what better way for us to respond to the call of looking at and improving the condition of the middle class than to say, we heard, we listened, we understood the challenges, and today we acted?

we heard that you want to own your home, and wheerd that the federal government -- and we heard that the federal government ought not get in the way of you owning your home. and so i would encourage all of my colleagues, all of my colleagues to send a message, send a message that we are putting our votes where our mouths are, that we are in fact today voting to improve the condition of very many working-class and middle-class american citizens who have had great uncertainty created as a result of flood insurance. mr. chairman, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: is noter from texas. mr. cornyn: i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. last night during the president's state of the union speech, i felt like i was watching another rerun of one of my fast favorite movies, "groung day" with bill mor rhode island we all remember that movie. bill murray relives exactly the same 24 hours over and over and over again. and, of course, that's what the president's state of the union reminded me of because really what we heard is a replay of a lot of the ideas we've heard at previous state of the union

speeches. but, unfortunately, the president's speech and his claims in many respects did not reflect the reality of -- for most people. but it's apparent that the president hasn't changed in this respect: he still thinks that slow economic growth and high unemployment, that the answer to that is more government spending and more government control over the economy. and i would say, in the debates we have had in this chamber and elsewhere and that americans have had throughout the course of our history since our countries's founding about the size and role of the federal government, usually we end up debating philosophy, ideology, and theory, but the last five years have given us the proof we need that big government doesn't work.

not to deny people that don't have the best of intentions, but we know that promise after promise has been made -- whether it is for the trillion-dollar stimulus, what it would do to unemployment; the president later said, in a moment of candor, he said, well, i guess shovel-ready wang all that shovel-ready. nancy pelosi talked about timely, targeted and temporary stimulus. geng, this is borrowed money. this is money we didn't have, which is added to our debt. which simply didn't work. and then, of course, there is the example of obamacare. but let's just review. for the last five years the president pushed through this trillion-dollar stimulus, a $1.8 trillion health care law, ad a 7 trillion increase in new taxes, and about a half a trillion dollars in new regulation.

that's what happens, for example, when i go home to texas and my community bankers and credit unions will say, we've hired new people but the people we've hired are the twangs fill out the paperwork that are required by the new regulations that are the result of dodd-frank. another example of e wall street perhaps was the target, but main street was the collateral damage. and so all of these new regulations have a cost to them because businesses, if they're going to be in business, are going to have to hire people to comply with those regulations. but that doesn't help grow the economy. that doesn't help make us more productive. that doesn't put as many people back to work as we would hope to be going back to work in productive jobs. but let's consider some of the results of some of these items, the stimulus, the health care bill, the new regulations and

new taxes. between 2009 and 2013, we've seen median household income fall by more than $2,500. that's $2,500 less than an average family has to spend on everything from food to their heating or air conditioning bill; you name it. $2,500 less. and then we know that the labor participation rate -- that's a fancy name for the number of people actually, the percentage of people in the workforce -- that it's fallen to a three-decade low. it's fallen by three percentage points since 2009, meaning that even fewer people, much fewer people, or many fewer people i guess i should say, are actually in the workforce looking for work. and if they were still in the workforce looking for work, the unemployment rate would be much higher. but they aren't counted once they drop out of the workforce.

then we know long-term unemployment has increased dramatically as a total share of unemployment. of course, all this happened after the recession was over. the technical definition of a recession, i believe, is two consecutive terms of negative economic growth. but amazingly, a poll conducted just last week reflected that 74% of the respondents thought that we were still in a recession. so whether or not it's a technical recession or not, people still feel like we're in one. and that's a remarkable number. and an unfortunate but yet scathing indictment of the president's economic policies which have not delivered what he hoped and had promised to deliver. so what's the big idea the president has to solve this problem or to address these

concerns of average hardworking american families? well, here's the big idea. let's raise the minimum wage. well, superficially i admit raising the minimum wage has some appeal, but the fact of the matter is when employers have to pay more for their workers, overall that's less money to hire new people. one study estimated that raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour -- less than the $10.10 the president has proposed -- would destroy no fewer than 468,000 jobs. so just think of it. you have some money to hire people, but rather than hire more people, the government sets the wages, meaning you can't hire these other people. so that's how it has an either-or effect in terms of jobs. one study calculated that

raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour could potentially destroy as many as 2.3 million jobs. the president chose to ignore this reality last night in his speech. he was eloquent as always, gives a great speech. but he said once again, or reiterated once again where he can't get what he wants from congress, he's prepared to go it alone. so last night he said that he was going to issue an executive order giving a 40% pay raise to federal contractors, even though the white house cannot tell us today how many workers would actually be affected because they don't know. but who's going to end up paying more? well, the federal government. so we're talking about raising spending by the federal government by 40% for these federal contractors. somebody's got to pay that money. so it's either going to be the taxpayers or it's going to be

added to our deficits and debt. well, mr. president, i don't want to be a wet blanket, so let me end on a more positive note. something that we could actually do together that would actually make a difference. on those long-term unemployed, on people stuck in jobs that are dead end or which they are frustrated with because they are not able to earn the income they want to provide for their family and to live their dream. one of the debates we should have had earlier but for the majority leader denying us an opportunity to offer any amendments and debate and vote on the unemployment insurance extension that i suppose we'll see that again, one of the debates we did not have and should have had is how can we help people learn the skills they need in order to qualify for the good high-paying jobs that exist? there's not enough trained

workforce with the skills they need in order to qualify for those good, high-paying jobs. we know there are a lot of workforce training initiatives. our friend and colleague from oklahoma tells us that there's some 40 different worker training programs, and he's proposed they ought to be consolidated and perhaps streamlined so that more of that money could be focused on giving people the education and the tools they need in order to qualify for these good jobs. what i saw is a glimpse of what could happen and thafrpbfully is happening -- and thankfully is happening back in houston, texas at san jacinto college where i had the opportunity to meet some of these inspiring texans, people who are pursuing their dream. well, i met an iraq war veteran named jordan shawvette who went back to school with the help of the hazel wood act.

it is a state law that provides tuition benefits to veterans and their families. his goal was to learn the skills that he would need in order to live a better life, earn a better income for his wife and his family. he recently graduated from san jacinto college and now is working at an engineering and construction company based in the city of la porte. by the way, i might interject, mr. president. one of the reasons why there is so much construction and manufacturing and economic boon taking place in this part of our state is because of the shale gas revolution. this is one of the bright spots in our economy, our energy sector. domestic energy production producing cleaner natural gas. the president talked about that a little bit last night that is creating these manufacturing jobs because natural gas happens to be the feed stock necessary for the petrochemical industry.

and so many of the jobs that exist that need these technical skills are the sorts of jobs these young men and women are training for at san jacinto college. everything is connected to everything else, but this is how domestic energy production, some of which the president talked about last night, is so important in terms of bringing that manufacturing back onshore. and then we need to have the job training to teach people the skills we need in order to qualify for these good, high-paying jobs. take the case of deanna harper who received a kos me -- degree in cosmetology. she is a wife and mother and now earning a six-figure salary.

it is a terrific story. i remember a few years ago in amarillo, texas, meeting a young hispanic woman, a single mother. she had been working as a prison guard in amarillo, texas; a dangerous, tough job. but thanks to the degree she got at amarillo community college, she was able to go to work on the b-22 osprey assembly line making, i believe it was well in excess of somewhere on the order of $25 an hour, with a great career ahead of her. what it took was the opportunity for her to go back to school and learn those skills, match those skills with a job and lift herself up by her own bootstraps. like so many other texans, jordan and deanna around this young woman i mentioned from am

amrillo benefited from their private investment in chemicals and manufacturing. the skills that they acquired and the job training they had at san jacinto prepared them not just for a good job but for an upwardly mobile career in a fast-growing industry at a time of stubbornly high national unemployment and people giving up and dropping out of the workforce, we should be doing everything we possibly can to ensure that such jobs and careers are available to all americans who want them. in that sense, we should be doing everything possible to bring this sort of example to washington, d.c. and to spread it nationally. but the truth is there are stories like this occurring everywhere but there's more we could do and certainly one of the things we could do is take up one of the suggestions of our friend from oklahoma when he talks about the duplication and the waste and inefficiency built into our job training programs and to make them more efficient,

to make them more streamlined and to deliver better value to the people who need that training so they can qualify for these kinds of good, high-paying jobs. that is a much better idea than the federal government trying to make a political fix by fixing wages between an employer and a worker that artificially elevate those wages beyond what the market will bear and in the process limit the number of new people that that employer can hire. these are just some of the ideas that i think any reasonable person would say that's not completely over the top. that's not a crazy idea. that kind of makes sense. but that's exactly the sort of debate we are not having as a result of the restrictive way under which the majority leader is letting us take up consideration of some of this legislation, from the unemployment insurance bill -- and i predict soon he will bring

a minimum-wage increase bill to the floor. and the question is, is he going to allow this side of the aisle and the democratic side of the aisle too, when he cuts off amendments from the floor of the senate, it doesn't just hurt the minority. we don't like it, but it doesn't just hurt us. it hurts our friends on the other side of the aisle because they're not allowed to offer their constructive suggestions for what could improve the legislation. and i thought that's what we're here for, to try to produce the best product we can for the american people right here on the floor. and we don't do it by writing bills in the majority leader's conference room, bringing them out here and trying to shove them on through. that's why we have the debate and the checks and balances and the deliberative process we have here in the senate. that's what we have not been having. but i just wanted to raise a few examples of what we could be

doing that would be enormously constructive and would help a lot of these struggling workers during a time of high unemployment and low labor participation, help them get back on track. well, mr. president, i came away from that experience at san jacinto college rejuvenated and encouraged that there is a lot we can do. we do know that people don't want to collect unemployment. now maybe some do, but most people, the vast majority of people want a job. again, to repeat what the president last night, he talked about the dignity of work. that's what most, the vast majority of people want. they want a good job. and if we give them the opportunity to learn the skills and we give them a growing economy that's creating jobs,

not fewer jobs, then they will be able to find that. so i came away even more committed to adopting progrowth economic policies that will make it easier for all americans to find work when they finish school. and i would just close on this note. i know the president last night -- the press leading into the president's speech last night, it sounded like it was going to be a whole lot more "i'm going to go it alone." but he did at least offer an olive branch of trying to do things constructively in the legislative branch recognizing our constitution doesn't authorize the executive to do this all by himself. that is what checks and balances are all about, and that is what doesn't happen when he tries to -- quote -- "go it alone." and there's danger in trying to go it alone when things are poorly thought out and rammed through without adequate deliberation. but there is one area where the president can use that phone and that pen that he talked about.

he could use that pen to sign the authorization for the keystone pipeline to connect the pipeline to canadian oil reserves that would extend from canada all the way through the united states down to port arthur, texas, down in what we call the golden triangle, where we have a lot of refineries that would turn that crude oil into jet fuel and gasoline. and in the process, a lot of jobs would be created. and for those, my friends, who say my gosh, we can't build another pipeline, i would invite them to go on google or bing or any other search engine and just type in oil and gas pipelines and just see what they get. you will be astonished at the number of planes that -- pipelines that crisscross this country and safely transmit their product without our even knowing about it, by and large. and i realize occasionally there

are accidents and those are to be deplored and regretted and we should try to prevent those, but the idea should not be to cut our nose off to spite our face and deny ourselves this safe source of energy from a friendly country like canada so we don't have to get it from dangerous, volatile regions of the world, and also to take with it the jobs that are created as a result of this great renaissance in american and north american energy. so i'd say to the president in conclusion, after listening to him last night, trying to listen to his words, i would say look at the states that have actually -- are the successful laboratories of democracy. that's the phrase that louis brandeis coined, to say that's the great thing about our federal system, where we have 50 states that are sovereign, they conduct their own business subject to those -- those

matters that are delegated to the federal government under the constitution, but the states are great -- a great place to see what works and what doesn't work. i might add the two lowest unemployment rates in the united states are bismarck, north dakota, and midland, texas. not unrelated to the shale gas renaissance that i mentioned a moment ago. but we ought to look at what works from the tax code to making it less burdensome, more logical and more conducive to economic growth, and we need to take a look at how do we address the unkempt promises of things like obamacare which have created uncertainty and increased costs and a lot of disruption in the lives of americans and replace it with patient-centered reforms that actually reduce the cost, expand quality coverage and improve access to care. i believe that's the kind of debate we ought to be having and that's the type of agenda the

american people are asking for and the type of agenda they deserve. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i come today before the senate to speak on the importance of passing the homeowner flood insurance affordability act. i'm a cosponsor of this legislation because without it millions of homeowners across the country will see significant increases in their flood insurance premiums. homeowners insurance protects a family's investment from damages and losses that come as a result of accidents or tornadoes or burglaries, but that same homeowner's policy, as we all know, does not cover damage resulting from flooding. sadly, too many americans learn of this gap in their policy after it is too late. in recognition of this major gap in coverage, congress created the national flood insurance program in 1968 to give

homeowners and businesses protection in the event of a flood, and this program has helped them to protect their property, their families and their livelihoods. all regions of america are susceptible to flooding. we see it with seasonal rains, hurricanes and thunderstorms, and it's a powerful force of nature that we cannot escape. when you have flood insurance, you have the peace of mind that the tools you have to rebuild will be there for you. for minnesotans who live in areas susceptible to flooding, the flood insurance program is absolutely vital. each spring in northwestern minnesota, we know that the red river of the north will top its banks and the floodwaters will threaten morehead, minnesota, and fargo, north dakota. leading up to the flood of last spring, i visited the region twice to watch the flood preparation, to urge on our volunteers, to ensure that the residents were receiving the federal assistance and cooperation that they needed.

just as i have seen each and every year since 2007, i saw once again how hard friends and neighbors worked to prepare for the potential flood. these people aren't idly sitting by. in fact, i would bet that in towns that are in other areas of the country, the kinds of floods that they faced in certain of the years in the last decade had come to other towns, i'm not sure they would have been saved. in this case, the residents of morehead and fargo incessantly would bag -- would create sandbags. they had huge warehouses filled with volunteers, everything from teenagers to seniors to inmates would be stuffing those bags full of sand. residents fought heroically to save not only their homes but their businesses and their families. across the red river, we always say that the rising river doesn't divide the two states of

minnesota and north dakota, it unites us. this is not the first time the red river has risen and it certainly won't be the last. as honorable, tireless and commendable as these efforts are, homeowners can't do it alone and they deserve our help. that is why we need a national flood insurance program that offers affordable premiums for homeowners who are trying to do the right thing. and i would say, mr. president, that on the minnesota side, many, many homeowners have relocated. dozens and dozens. in fact, across our state, hundreds of houses have literally been moved or been destroyed because they are too close to flooded areas, but still the need for flood insurance remains. so what are these people seeing? fema is increasing premiums to levels that do not fairly reflect the risks associated with the flood coverage that is being provided. the consequences of these increases can't be understated. 1.1 million homes and businesses across the country that were built before fema published a

flood map of their community that now might be able to sell their property. another 2.9 million homes and business owners across the country who have followed their rules but were remapped into a higher risk area are now seeing significant spikes in their premiums. rate increases are not just numbers. they can have substantial impacts on real families and even price them out of their homes. sharp increases in premiums are devastating for a place like roso, minnesota, where 75% of the homes are located in the flood plain. one roso resident who recently wanted to purchase flood insurance for a home valued at $75,000 was shocked with the changes in the premiums. this individual's new annual policy would cost $3,726, not the $985 it had been previously. that's nearly four times as much, and that is sticker shock. when calculated for 30 years,

length of a typical home loan, the flood policy on that $75,000 home would cost more than $110,000, more than the value of the home itself. crookston, minnesota, residents are currently seeing premiums they can't afford. one resident who recently purchased a home for around $100,000 was stunned to learn his annual flood insurance program would be $5,800, not the $800 he had anticipated based on the past. this isn't the way the national flood insurance program is supposed to work. our national flood insurance program should provide peace of mind, but instead these changes create a disincentive for families and businesses in flood-prone areas to do the right thing. roso recovered from a flood in 2002 that caused widespread damage and is working on permanent flood protection to reduce the flood stages in the city. once complete, the project will include a restriction structure to remove the city from the

100-year regulatory flood plain and reduce future flood damages by nearly 86%. it makes no sense that fema would be pushing these premium increases on consumers before the congressionally required study on affordability has even begun. the bill that the senate is considering today and that i support supports these priorities. it stops the proposed rate increases until the affordability study is done and the flood maps being used are verified as being accurate, and only after all of this critical information is reviewed should fema move forward and consider the costs of premiums that encourage participation in the flood insurance program while ensuring its long-term stability. the national flood insurance program has given protection to homeowners and businesses from catastrophic flood losses for more than 45 years. we shouldn't hit them now with an outrageous premium increase. i commend senators menendez, isakson and landrieu on their great work on this legislation

and urge my colleagues to support it. now, mr. president, i would like to discuss another critical priority for my home state of minnesota, and that is the farm bill. i rise today to speak in support of the farm bill conference agreement. i was a member of the conference committee, and this bill is good for farmers, it's god for rural economies, and it's good for taxpayers, which the house recognized earlier today when they voted to pass the farm bill by a strong vote of 251-166. now it's the senate's turn to pass this critical legislation and get it to the president's desk as soon as possible. i would like to thank chairwoman stabenow for her determination to get us to this point. she has been tireless in her advocacy for america's farmers and ranchers and has made it a priority to work in a bipartisan way with ranking member cochran to put together a farm bill that strengthens the safety net for our nation's family farmers and

ranchers and preserves critical food and nutrition programs and brings down the deficit. senator stabenow couldn't have been a better partner in this effort, and the same goes for senator cochran. i greatly appreciate the expertise that they both bring to agriculture policy, and i thank them for their leadership. i also want to thank the ranking member of the house agriculture, colin peterson. no one knows more about truer than colin peterson who serves as a representative from my state. he has the longest district in the united states of america, stretching literally from the canadian border nearly down to the iowa border. i guess that's why he flies his own plane, mr. president, when he visits the towns. there is no other way to visit many places in one day. it's been a privilege for me to work with congressman peterson on this issue. it's the second farm bill we have worked on together. i also want to thank my other congressman, tim walls, for his

service on the conference committee. we worked hard to make sure this bill is strong for our country, for our state and for the people of america. farmers, ranchers and world communities in minnesota have been waiting for this farm bill for more than two years. it's a good bill for our state and it's a good bill for the country. it provides the certainty family farmers need to succeed and thrive, and that's why it has the strong support of both the national farmers union and the american farm bureau. that's not to say that everyone got what they want in this bill. some concerns remain about potentially retaliatory actions regarding exports. as a senator from the state that is first in turkey, second in pork and sixth in agriculture exports, i will continue to work with the administration and producers to ensure that our agriculture policies are implemented in a manner that avoid potential disruptions and ensure agriculture exports remain in american -- an american success story. as a member of the conference committee, i worked with my colleagues on both sides of the

aisle in the house and the senate to build on the strong farm bill that the senate passed just last year. in the conference report, we first of all eliminated direct payments in transition to crop insurance to help manage risk. we provided $880 million in mandatory funding to promote home-grown energy. we maintained the successful sugar program that is so important to the sugar beet producers in the red river valley. we reduced the deficit by $23 billion, making this an important bill for all americans. we kept nutrition programs strong for nin families. we have provided permanent disaster relief for our nation's livestock producers. we have streamlined the conservation programs and still managed to come out with a pro-conservation bill that is supported by environmental and conservation groups across the country. i wanted to focus on the disaster provisions of the bill, mr. president. the disaster provisions are all the more critical when we consider just how much our

farmers and ranchers have been through recently. the worst drought since 1956, a devastating blizzard that killed thousands of cattle in my neighboring state of south dakota, a wet spring that led to a shortage of alfalfa that hurt beef and dairy producers in minnesota. in this farm bill, we ensure that permanent disaster relief will be there for livestock producers that were left stranded when the farm bill expired last september, and this assistant will be there for producers when they face the next disaster. the farm bill also includes an amendment that i led with senators hoeven and heitkamp that addresses critical priorities by providing an additional $300 million, and this came out of our committee in the senate before we passed it in the senate, $300 million to boost agriculture research, address the backlog of water and waste water projects and support energy projects in rural areas. the amendment also supported

funding for conservation projects that can help reduce flooding or protecting -- while protecting wildlife habitat. the farm bill authorizes a joint study by the u.s. department of agriculture and transportation to examine rural transportation issues, including captive shipping, something that i pushed for, seeing what i'm seeing with some of our producers, agriculture producers, with our manufacturers that are at the end of the line and are finding that they don't really have a lot of choice over what rail rates are for that last leg, and many times are being charged outrageously high rates which makes it difficult for them to produce goods. today families and farmers are facing a severe propane shortage in my state, mr. president. i believe that is more important than ever that we understand the vulnerabilities and shortcomings of our transportation infrastructure so we can ensure the fuels we need to keep our homes and barns warm are available and affordable. i fought to include each of these provisions