the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, we don't know all that this day holds, but we know that you hold this day in your sovereign hands. lord, we praise you that even though we only have a feeble hold on you, you have a mighty grasp on us.

guide our lawmakers across their toiling hours, illuminating their moments with the light of your wisdom. lord, empower them to live with integrity and wisdom amid the corruption that seeks to keep them from glorifying you. may they be unafraid to contend steadfastly for truth, as you give them the ability to see it use their labors to hasten the day when justice and understanding will encompass our world. we pray in your great name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., january 30, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher murphy, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, earlier this week president obama explained to the american people what he hopes to accomplish in the year ahead. and i think it's safe to say that despite the hype, there wasn't a whole lot in this year's state of the union that would do much to alleviate the concerns and anxieties of most americans. it wasn't anything in there that would really address the kind of

dramatic wage stagnation we've seen over the past several years among the middle class or the increasingly difficult situation people find themselves in trying to find stable, good-paying jobs. there was no creative proposal for increasing mobility or opportunity for folks who need it most. even more remarkable, the president completely ignored the serious hardship that folks in kentucky and just about everywhere else in the country are dealing with right now as a result of his health care law. blew right past it like it wasn't even happening. there are serious issues that demand a serious response, and if for some reason the president doesn't want to face up to them or offer meaningful solutions, republicans certainly will. we've got a lot of creative ideas on our side that speak to the day-to-day concerns of

middle-class concerns. in the months ahead we'll keep talking about them. in fact, just this morning the house republican leadership reached out to the president in an effort to solicit his hem in encouraging the democratic leadership in the senate to do the house-passed bills to do the things the president says he supports. maybe that would be a good use of the president's phone and his pen. but this morning i'd like to take a moment to address something else the president didn't address on tuesday but that his administration is already quietly planning to do in the months ahead. i'm referring to the administration's radical new proposal to codify the same kind of targeting of grass roots groups that an independent inspector general determined the i.r.s. had engaged in in the run-up to the 2012 election. i realize it just doesn't seem possible to a lot of people that the obama administration would even think of touching an issue this radioactive after last

year's scandal. but those who think that underestimate the extent to which this administration and its allies are willing to go to keep those who disagree with them from speaking out or participating in the political process. they underestimate the extent to which they are willing to go to hold on to power and they forgot how speech is usually stifled. james madison once wrote, i believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual, silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. that was james madison. and that's what's going on here. the fact is right now the obama administration is getting ready to codify the same kind of intimidation and harassment of its political opponents that stunned the nation last year. and hardly anybody's talking about it, certainly not the president, on tuesday night.

well, it's time we start talking about it because what the administration is planning here is nothing less than declaring a war not just on its opponents but on free speech itself. here's their plan. the administration proposes to redefine political activities so broadly, so broadly that grass roots groups all across the country that exist for the sole purpose of speaking out on issues of liberty or limited government or free enterprise or anything else that the administration doesn't want to hear about will be forced to literally shut down. just by speaking out on these issues of broad public concern, they would be ruled out of bound under new i.r.s. rules. just in time, by the way, for the midterm elections. if you think that this is the kind of -- if you think that this kind of speech is precisely what the first amendment was willing -- was written to protect, you'd be entirely

right. this is exactly what the first amendment was about. so this is a hugely important issue, and that's why groups all across the political spectrum and the folks that support them are increasingly concerned. now as usual, the folks who are pushing this new assault on speech tell us that it's some kind of good-government proposal that increases transparency. but the truth is the only thing transparent here, the only thing transparent here is the administration's thuggish attempt to shut down critics. democrats think 2014 shaping up to be a tough year for them politically, so instead of trying to persuade the public that they've got the best answers to the problems we face, they try to shut everybody else out of the political process. they try to shut them up. and they have no problem using the powers of the government itself to do it. less than a year after presiding

over one of the biggest abuses of government power in modern memory. the arrogance here is literally breath taking. breath taking. but we've seen this kind of thing again and again from our liberal friends over the years. they can't accept a public that disagrees with their plans for the country. they can't seem to accept a society in which we the people establish the rules; not them. and whether it's the fairness doctrine or the disclose act, they want those who disagree with them to sit down and shut up. they want those who disagree with them to sit down and shut up. their view is you can fight for your ideals. you can speak out. but only if you agree with me. if you're on the other side, you don't have a right to speak out. and not only that, i'm going to put you out of business. i'm going to use the i.r.s. for goodness' sake.

the i.r.s., to identify anybody who disagrees with me and shut them up. and i'm doing it through regulation, because i can't pass it through legislation. this is just one way the president plans to go around the people's elected representatives this year. and every american needs to know about this abuse of power. let me be clear, what the administration is proposing poses a grave threat to the ability of ordinary americans to freely participate in the democratic process. rather than reform the i.r.s. and root out any hint of corruption or targeting of political opponents, they're now proposing to codify it, fearful of losing the senate, they've decided to double down. instead of getting the i.r.s. out of the business of policing speech, they want to make it the final arbiter of political

speech. some may ask why is the i.r.s. an agency whose purpose is to collect taxes even involved in muscling speech? how did that happen? it's a very good question. it shouldn't be. and the administration needs to start explaining to the american people why it's engaging in this abuse of power especially after last year. the administration may believe the smoke has cleared, but i don't think the american people see it that way at all. i think that if the american people knew what the administration was really up to, they'd react with the same kind of outrage they did last year about the targeting of conservatives by the i.r.s.. that is why the new i.r.s. commissioner has a simple choice. a new i.r.s. commissioner over there; he's got a simple choice. he can either restore the public's trust in an agency whose reputation was already in doubt, or he can allow himself to be used as a political pawn

by an administration that now seems willing to do anything to keep those it disagrees with from fully exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech. after recent scandals, the i.r.s. shouldn't be getting more involved in what people can and cannot say, but less involved. commissioner koskinin must take a stand against this thuggery and make it clear his agency will not stand against any more government crackdowns on spaoefplt the -- on speech. the president was asked about his inability to break through with certain republicans. rather than concede they may have a different world view or that they disagree with his approach to the issues of the day, the president blamed fox news and rush limbaugh of

somehow convincing folks that he's somebody ep -- somebody he isn't. what i think a far more likely explanation is when the president does stuff like this, i think the more likely explanation is that in the sixth year of his presidency he'd rather blow kisses to his liberal base than work with the republicans to increase jobs and create opportunity and prosperity for millions of americans who are really, really struggling out there. rather than let people from one end of the political spectrum to the other duke it out through the robust public debate, he wants to use the i.r.s. to drive conservatives right off the playing field. that, mr. president, is a better explanation for why ordinary conservatives across the country aren't buying the idea that you're some sort of pragmatic problem solver instead of a liberal idealogue who seems more interested in shutting down your critics than in working with us to address the nation's most

urgent problems. just two nights ago the president sought to unite the country around the argument that as americans we never give up. what i'm saying this morning is that even while he's saying that, he's also busy kicking the ladder out from under anybody who disagrees with him. that's just what this new i.r.s. proposal does. and republicans plan to fight it every step of the way. now, mr. president, i say to my friend, the majority leader, who deferred to me this morning, i have two more statements. so i'm sorry to detain him. it's my sad duty to report to my colleagues on a brave young kentuckian who has been lost while serving his country. staff sergeant ryan d. austin of the u.s. air force passed away on august 6, 2013, in may stone

in the united kingdom. he had been stationed at ramstein air base in germany and he was 25 years old. for his service in uniform, staff sergeant austin received several medals, awards and decorations, including the air force achievement medal, the meritorious unit award, the air force good conduct medal, the national defense service medal, the global war on terrorism expeditionary medal, the global war on terrorism service medal. the air force expeditionary service ribbon, the n.c.o. professional military education graduation ribbon, the small arms expert marksman ribbon, the air force training ribbon and the cyberspace support badge.

ryan enlisted in the air force in january of 2010. he was deployed to germany with the 435th air ground operations wing first communications maintenance squadron. being with the air force was the best career move he ever made, said ryan's brother nathan. the air force gave him the chance to go overseas, learn new cultures and serve his country just like our father did. it made him feel he gave something back to his country as well as protect america. ryan was raised in laurel county, the son of karen long and doug austin who also served in uniform. he graduated from south laurel high school in 2006. friends remember that he enjoyed golf, cooking, working for charities and traveling. when ryan was around, he was fun to be with, nathan remembers.

we included each other in our hobbies like tennis, basketball and video games. we had our friends and we always had great times. it's really a heavy burden on my heart to know that i have lost a brother. while in high school, ryan worked as a teacher's aide for joey markham, a science teacher. ryan was such an awesome young man, joey remembers, he was honest, hard working and dependable. he could depend on him for literally anything. he was just a real good guy. ryan leaves behind his wife jessica. the two of them were married on december 6, 2009. at the time of ryan's death, jessica was pregnant with their first child. she had a boy named brayden caine austin. brian was really looking forward to being a father, his brother

nathan said. charles kohler is a friend of ryan and jessica's who lived across the street from them when ryan was stationed at offett air force base in omaha. she remembers the couple's joy when they learned they would have a baby. when they both found out they would be parents, they were so overjoyed to start that new segment of their lives. ryan was a family man devoted to his job and he was very dedicated as an airman. a baby son lost his father and will never know him. ryan's funeral service in corbin, kentucky, was officiated by the pastor daniel carmack of hawk creek church. county health care workers, friends, family, and even those who did not know ryan but wished to pay their respects lined, literally lined the town's streets as the funeral

procession passed by. ryan received full military honors from the honor guard of wright patterson air force base. ryan austin was not only a soldier but a leader that has left an indelible mark on this generation, manufacture carmack says. the pastor continued, ryan will long be remembered as a devoted husband, loving son, leader to his generation and always a friend. although he was only 25, he proved the statement true that life is not measured in quantity but in quality, and he lived his life to the full, with integrity and honor. pastor carmack who was ryan's youth pastor and watched this young man grow up remembers that ryan was a kid that always served others. and, mr. president, i think it's clear that as an adult, a husband, a father and an airman, ryan's commitment to serving

others only grew stronger. we in the united states senate are thinking today of ryan austin's loved ones, including his wife jessica, his son brayden, his father doug, his brothers nathan austin and dillon wall, his sister rachel austin and many beloved family members and friends. ryan was laid to rest next to his mother, karen long. i would like ryan's family to know that the united states senate honors sergeant ryan d. austin's life of service. we're saddened by this very tragic loss, and we are grateful for his supreme sacrifice which reminds us of the meaning of valor. finally, mr. president, i wish to speak briefly on a tragedy that happened this morning in

kentucky. news reports are still developing, but we do know that a large house fire occurred in greenville, which is in mul mulenberg county in western kentucky. fire official reports say multiple lives were lost in the fire, including children. there are two survivors who have been flown to vanderbilt university medical center for treatment. personnel from three fire departments, greenville fire, graham volunteer fire and beachmont volunteer fire responded to the blaze. i want to thank these brave firefighters as well as the emergency medical technicians, police officers and other responders who heroically leapt in to save lives. elaine and i are hopeful for a speedy recovery for the two victims still alive, and we extend our prayers and condolences to the families of the souls lost in this destructive fire. i will pay close attention to this story as events further develop. the entire commonwealth stands

beside mulenberg county right now and we will do whatever we can to help recover from this horrific loss. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm sure not many people care, but the reason i didn't go first today is those of us who serve in office depend on other people to prepare materials for us so we can make a reasonably good presentation. well, i came here today and looked at my stuff, it was yesterday's, so i figured i would be better off waiting until i got the right one, which kind of reminds me, mr. president, of something i heard as a very young lieutenant governor of nevada. he had -- this is a story that's not true, but i have always remembered it -- or it may be

true. it didn't happen to me, but it's always made me aware of the great work my staff does. a man is used to his staff preparing these remarks, flowery remarks and always so very, very good, and he has a long speech he is delivering. he gets to page 5 and it says okay, you s.o.b., you're on your own and the rest is blank. i remembered that today and figured i better wait and get my office to bring the right speech. mr. president, i now move to proceed to calendar number 297. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 297, s. 1950, a bill to improve the provision of medical services and benefits to veterans, and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, following my remarks, there will be the time until 11:15 is going

to be equally divided and controlled, dealing with flood insurance. at 11:15, there will be up to four roll call votes in relation to the amendments to that bill. following those votes, the senate will recess until -- i ask unanimous consent that the recess was originally scheduled until 1:50 -- until 2:00. and that will still be the case except, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that on the passage of s. 1926 as amended, the vote start at 1:50, following the provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: we expect to receive momentarily a conference report to accompany the farm bill today. we'll work on getting an agreement to move forward on this today. mr. president, here in the senate, we work closely with so

many people, but no one do we work more closely with than the court reporters. they are right in here, they are right in our face every time we talk, taking down a verbatim transcript of what we say. they work extremely hard. i mean, we went through a period of time when we were working through all these nominations that they went for days without going home. they had a cot in their office. and they never missed a beat. i always watch very closely the court reporters because my brother who is 22 months younger than i am was a court reporter. he retired from doing that, but it was -- i watched him work so hard. court reporting is extremely difficult. it's very tense. if you are in court, we rarely have court reporters who take what we call a daily.

they will have a couple of court reporters and they will -- during a trial, they will transcribe their notes sometime later. but here in the senate, they transcribe their notes now, immediately. and the reason i mention that today is we have one of our reporters is going to retire. joel breitner has been here for three decades in the senate. prior to coming here, he was a court reporter. he has this designation now, as this young woman in front of me is transcribing what i say, as an official reporter for the united states senate. joel began working here in this body in 1987 after having been a court reporter already for 23 years. during his time in the reporters' office, he has witnessed both innovation and a

lot of history. he was one of the first reporters to use computer-aided transcription, which is a modern miracle, it really is, because the stenographic notes they take down, at the same time they take down those notes, it's already transcribing the shorthand notes into english, and that is the way it used to be. i can remember my brother and of course joel who was one of the first here in this body to use the computer-aided transcription did what my brother did -- took down the -- with your machine, you took down what people said and then you would go back to your office and you would look over your notes and transcribe them and then either you would type them up or have someone do so. so it was a lot of work. it's still a lot of work, but it's a lot different than it used to be.

he is one of the first if not the first in this body to use this computer-aided transcription, and it really helped modernize the office of official reporters. he has reported historic events, countless numbers of them. president clinton's first inaugural address, his impeachment. over the years, he has been a friend and resource to the senate pages. joel is a very nice, quiet person who i will miss. i always -- when we cross, i always see them, i say saddling up again, putting on the heavy equipment that they wear during the time they are here. they work very, very hard, and they transcribe every word that we say. there are times i wish they hadn't, but they did. mr. president, it's no surprise

with the affection that he has shown, joel has shown for the pages that jamie, one of his children, has been a senate page. so i thank him on behalf of the entire senate for his years of service. not only senators but everybody for his years of service in the reporters' office, and i congratulate him on a very distinguished career. i wish him the best in retirement and know he will -- i know that ellen joy spending more time with his children and with carol, his wife of almost three decades. mr. president, i think -- i need to comment on not all of what my republican counterpart said, but i do have to comment on a part of it. the president gave a good state of the union address to the

president -- to the country, i'm sorry. on tuesday night. but it was a dramatic speech, and he called upon us to work together. you would never know that from what the republican leader said today, but he also said that as president of the united states, he has the power to do things when the senate finds itself bogged down as we have been with countless filibusters. during the years i've been leader of the senate, mr. president, there's been more than 470 filibusters conducted by the republicans. is it any wonder that the president is going to do some things administratively because of the logjam that we have here? hopefully we can do better than we have done. i hope that's the case. but this country has really been hurt by their constant

obstruction that we had. i'm surprised but not too much that my republican colleague would say the president has to do something to help create jobs. one need only reflect on when president obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month -- a month -- and because of his patience and wisdom and the fact that he had a democratic senate and congress the first two years of his presidency, we were able to do some terrific things for the country. since then, as we know., the republican leader said his number-one goal was to defeat obama for reelection. and that is how the republicans have legislated. for three years they have done everything they can to stop the

country from moving forward. they actually did it during the first two years he was president but they didn't have the power to do much then except obstruct and we had the votes to overcome the obstruction. i don't know if my friend, the republican leader, understands in spite of his number-one goal to defeat the president that he was reelected overwhelmingly because the american people agreed with his view of the country. so i'm not going to go into more detail about how i believe my republican colleague is wrong on what has happened with bogging down the senate, but i do say this, mr. president, about one aspect of his presentation. because of a united states supreme court decision called citizens united, there's been some really untoward stuff going on in the political world. we have two brothers who are

actually trying to buy the country, mr. president. last year they made billions of dollars, the koch brothers. what they're doing is spending their pw-fls dollars on governors races, and on the state level and of course spending huge amounts of money around the country attempting to defeat democrats both in the house and the senate. mr. president, the republican leader has long been an opponent of the campaign finance reform. this has been part of his career. so it is no surprise he opposes the administration's efforts for greater disclosure. the abuse here is not the administration enforcing the law but folks like the koch brothers pretending to be social welfare organizations.

the presiding officer has dedicated much of his life to improving the social welfare of people from his state, and these social welfare organizations are extremely helpful to do things to help people who have problems. but the koch brothers aren't a social welfare organization but they're plainly acting as political organizations, spending tens, hundreds of millions of dollars. they act as if it is nothing dealing with social welfare. folks who have political organizations should have to disclose where the money comes from. as you know, mr. president, the koch brothers hide all their campaign efforts. they disguise themselves with rare exception as social welfare

organizations, with all these fancy names going after people who are trying to improve the country. so, mr. president, we have today the good fortune of being able to complete legislation on an extremely important part of our country -- i'm sorry, i didn't say that right. we have an important piece of legislation we're going to pass today to improve the ability of our country to prosper. the bipartisan measure called the flood tions bill will -- flood insurance bill will save consumers money. i thank senator landrieu. i look forward to a strong bipartisan vote on this measure this afternoon.

i would note that the bipartisan agreement to vote on a reasonable number of relevant amendments and on final passage of the flood insurance measure is exactly the kind of agreement republicans have rejected on other legislative priorities. for example, when democrats offered to vote on 20 relevant amendments to a full offset extension of unemployment insurance a couple weeks ago, republicans refused. since then 150,000 more americans have lost emergency benefits. in all, more than 1.6 million out-of-work americas have lost benefits to help them put food on the table and gas in the tank so they can focus on their job search. i hope in the coming week democrats and republicans will be able to reach a bipartisan agreement to have an up-or-down vote on an extension of unemployment insurance as well. i hope it again is not bogged down with obstruction.

i'm confident that we have the opportunity to do that and we should do it. millions of fellow americans are counting on to us do this. while we work toward an agreement to restore unemployment benefits, the senate will also consider the farm bill conference report. america's farms and ranches are the most productive in the world. smart farm policy will help american farmers thrive, an important part of our work to keep the economic recovery rolling. the farm bill will create jobs and cut taxpayers subsidies and save $23 billion which will be used to reduce the deficit. i would also note, mr. president, we've done an admirable job of reducing the debt. we need to do more? of course we do. but we've already reduced the debt during the obama years by almost $3 trillion. and if we get the republicans in the house to agree on a bill we

passed here dealing with immigration reform, it would be another $1 trillion to reduce the debt. and i would also note, as i indicated earlier, with 700,000 jobs being lost, during the obama years we created more than eight million jobs. we need to do more. the farm bill will create jobs, cut taxpayer subsidies and save $20 billion which will be used to reduce the debt and deficit. the bill includes porn reforms of the -- important reforms of the farm programs. while it does not reduce hunger as a number of us would like it will help needy families. senator stabenow from michigan has been the chairman this have committee. she has worked so hard for years to get this done. we passed it twice here in the senate. we have struggled to get something done here in the house and finally we were able to get

this done under her leadership. would the chair announce the business of the day? tproeup under the previous order the leadership time is reserved -- the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1926 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 294, s. 1926, a bill to delay certain provisions of the biggert-waters flood insurance act of 2012 and to reform the national association of registered agents and brokers and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 11:15 a.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with senator menendez and toomey or their designees controlling the final ten minutes. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. i today rise in strong support of the homeowner flood insurance

affordability act and urge my colleagues to vote today to pass this legislation that will help millions of americans across the country. first i want to recognize the admirable leadership of senators menendez, isakson and landrieu for helping put together such a strong coalition amidst some of the most challenging political headwinds. senator landrieu particularly has been like paul revere in the night, calling our attention to the detrimental elements of the biggert-waters bill but for continuing to emphasize this bill's importance of states from coast to coast. senator menendez and i share the new jersey coast -- the new york-new jersey coast, as do you, mr. president, and that of course has been devastated. so let me just say briefly what has happened here. literally thousands, tens of thousands of americans will lose their homes, middle class

americans, working-class americans, poor americans, if we don't pass this legislation. very simply, biggert-waters was not followed before increases were to go into effect an affordability study was to be done. it was not. and as a result, we are having thousands of dollar increases. homeowners who paid $500 a year for flood insurance -- it's mandatory -- now pay $4,000 or $5,000. there are some who pay as much as $30,000. and even worse, worse, many more will lose their homes when they sell them because of the flood insurance goes so high. so they'll lose tremendous value in their homes. a home is a middle class' piece of the rock. people struggle long and hard to pay their mortgage. and when they're in their later

years -- 50's, 60's, 70's -- i guess 50's isn't later years these days. but when they are in their 50's, 60's, 70's. this is what they have. to all of a sudden pull the rug out from under them and say when you sell your home the next person will have to pay $15,000 on flood insurance which lowers the value of their home, so unfair. we have additional unfairness in the state of new york as well as the neighboring state of new jersey. people who were devastated by sandy struggled to rebuild their homes and all of a sudden are getting walloped with huge flood insurance bills which they can't afford. they're in debt already. so to allow this to go on makes no sense. if americans ever want the government to act, it's in these types of situations where an unfairness unrelated to any individual action of these homeowners clobbers them, takes

away their financial security, takes away their home, makes life miserable. and so the bottom line, mr. president, is that we have to pass this bill. it makes no sense when we required a study before imposing devastated rate increases on homeowners to see what the effect would be to put the rates into effect. it's putting the cart before the horse. it's not backward thinking; i don't know what it does t. makes no sense to do this. the toomey amendment will come forward and it is basically not passing any bill because the toomey amendment says put all the costs on these middle-class and working-class homeowners quickly. doesn't have any limits and would do the same exact thing. so anyone who thinks the toomey amendment is good may as well vote against the bill. the good news here, democrats

and republicans have come together. this is how this body should work. we've allowed a limited number of amendments on each side. i was glad to hear the minority leader the other day talk about how this is how the senate should work. we agree. and i hope this will set the precedent for future bills where we can come together on the floor, have a reasonable number of amendments, hopefully relevant, germane, that relate to improving the legislation and then we'll have the bill be given an up-or-down vote. this bill will pass this afternoon. and when this bill passes, and when it passes the house, millions of homeowners across america will breathe a sigh of relief. they will be able to keep their homes. they will be able to sell their homes and they will know that there is a process to put flood shaourpbs -- insurance on an

even keel that won't be all on their backs. with that, mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my remarks be put in the record. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i understand that senator toomey and senator menendez will be coming down to the floor to have the last ten minutes of this

debate, so i wanted to take just a moment to come to the floor to thank all of my colleagues for their -- those that helped so much, particularly in the early days a year and a half ago, to help make this bill possible today. this truly was a team effort, and i really appreciate the compliments from my colleagues about the leadership that i provided, and i'm happy to do so, but believe me, this never would have happened without a great team that was built to spread the word about the disastrous consequences of a law that had good intentions but really horrific ramifications on people all over the country. and because this is not just a coastal issue that affects your state, new jersey, or my state, louisiana, we had some extraordinary senators step up like senator heidi heitkamp, like senator joe manchin from

west virginia, not an ocean around or in sight. we had other senators step up that do not have coasts but that have states and subdivisions and communities and cities and rural areas that are in desperate need of a strong, good, solid, affordable and sustainable flood insurance package for this country, a flood insurance program. some people thought that's what we were getting in biggert-waters, but it soon became clear, literally before the ink was dry, that it wasn't going to work. and sometimes mistakes are made, and when they are, we have to step up and fix them as quickly as possible. it's taken us longer than it should have because some senators have not had an open mind or an open heart. they have not really dealt in the best of faith. but despite all that, we're here today because a number of

senators stood up. and i want to read their names into the record. senator thad cochran from mississippi, senator jeff merkley from oregon, senator john hoeven from north dakota, senator tim scott from south carolina, senator heidi heitkamp from north dakota, roger wicker from mississippi, senator vitter from louisiana, senator chuck schumer was particularly strong and a leader, senator kirsten gillibrand from new york, senator ed markey from massachusetts, as well as elizabeth warren from massachusetts who were early supporters of this bill. senator bill nelson of florida. senator rubio of florida, particularly senator nelson who got on this bill early and began educating people, not only in florida but around the country. senator al franken from minnesota. senator joe manchin. senator bob casey from pennsylvania. another senator that has no ocean but pennsylvania has i

think the most new fema maps of any state in the union. the people of pennsylvania would really be affected if our bill doesn't pass. even the amendment that is being offered by one of the senators does not solve their problem, and it's unfortunate, and i hope that people will vote strongly against the toomey amendment. senator kay hagan from north dakota. of course yours truly in the chair. senator corey booker who came on early and was a huge supporter as soon as he got here. i think this is one of the first bills that you cosponsored. i couldn't be more grateful, and i know the people of new jersey are grateful for your leadership. senator linder see graham of south carolina. -- senator lindsey graham of south carolina. jack reed of rhode island. blumenthal of connecticut. senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island. lisa murkowski from alaska. ron wyden from oregon. susan collins from maine. and senator debbie stabenow from

michigan. obviously, senator menendez was our leader on the democratic side, and we would not be where we are today without his leadership and without the commitment of senator harry reid, who from nevada but recognizes that he has a flooding problem as well, that this is not just a coastal issue that stood up early to tell us if we can build a strong coalition, if we can build 60-plus, he would help us to get to a point where we could actually have a debate on amendments, vote them up and down, and then move this bill with the strongest vote possible to the house of representatives, where i'm proud to say there are 131 cosponsors on this bill. and that number is growing every day because as people hear about what's happening, understand, get notices from their insurance companies, which by the way are

taking 30% of every policy off the top and assuming virtually no risk, which is an issue we have to address. it's not addressed in this bill. but as people understand that they are going to be clamoring for real change, something that helps taxpayers for it to be sustainable, that understands the climate issues that are affecting this program, that helps middle-class homeowners be able, as chuck schumer said, as senator schumer said to stay in their homes and not lose all the equity that they have literally worked for, not only their entire life but potentially for two generations of work have gone into building equity, sometimes three generations of work have gone into building equity in homes just for a misguided piece of legislation to swipe away from them in the blink of an eye. so i hope that people will vote strongly against the toomey amendment. a vote for the toomey amendment will signal a vote against our

efforts for reform. now, he will say that his efforts are here to reform, it will only allow raises of 25% a year. there is no cap on his bill. there are no requirements for the affordability study. there are no requirements for accurate fema mapping. his bill is a red herring and a distraction from what we're trying to do. so our bill, the menendez-isakson bill -- and johnny isakson deserves on the republican side so much credit for organizing his team and for the minority leader, the senator from kentucky, for his help in getting us to this point, i wanted to thank him. i also want to thank a very important group that's the gnoinc, greater new orleans inc, which is an economic, 16-parish economic coalition in our state

made up of parish presidents and elected officials and university presidents that really focus on the economic vitality of our region. michael hecht is the executive director, extremely talented young leader. they recognized immediately, as i brought to their attention the problems in biggert-waters, they recognized immediately the disaster that it would be to the 16 parishes that they represent. not only did they step up and help us organize all of our 16 parishes, but they began immediately to reach out to new jersey and to new york and to pennsylvania and to california and to oregon, to reach out to the bankers, to the realtors, and that began an extraordinary development of a very strong coalition. i want to thank them for their leadership. i want to thank the national association of realtors, the national home builders association. naco, the president of naco, national association of county executives was in my office on

several occasions, working very hard with elected officials all over the country to raise the flag about this issue and to say it's time to take a pause on biggert-waters, not a complete repeal, not moving back on our reforms but to take a pause to get it right. it's important to get this right. there are too many homes that will be lost, too many families impacted, too many businesses hurt, too many communities that will see a downward spiral from a housing market that is just now recovering after a very difficult national recession. the national league of cities, the american bankers association, the independent community bankers and the independent insurance agents and brokers of america, i really want to thank them. now, there are hundreds of other small organizations, neighborhood groups i'm sure from new jersey to new york, louisiana, homeowners groups that have spoken out and are

educating people about this challenge, but in a congress where it's hard to come to a consensus on singing "happy birthday" to one of our members, which is unfortunate today, this is a real accomplishment for such a broad, deep and strong coalition, bipartisan, bicoastal, to come together and pass a bill that will bring relief to millions and millions of families. this will be a great victory today. i believe we'll have a strong vote in the senate. i'm confident of that. but we have work to do. this bill has to go to the house where maxine waters and congressman grimm from new york are leading this effort. we need all the senators to talk with their delegations in the house and get them to really step up, and we need a lot of communication to the speaker to say, mr. speaker, this can't wait. there's already too much time, too much anxiety, too many real

estate agents being put out of business. too many for seam signs coming down. too many people making business decisions because of equity lost in their home. i want to thank senator merkley who will be the subcommittee chair as this new reform is written. i want to thank senator menendez and senator isakson for their extraordinary knowledge of the subject, their leadership and helping us get to the point we are. i don't see any other colleagues on the floor. when i do, i'll yield the floor. i understand senator toomey and senator menendez are going to come close out this debate. but i do want to say again that the biggert-waters bill was built backwards and upside down. it authorized immediate rate increases on responsible homeowners without any understanding of how it would impact their individual policies. and i want to also say this, mr. president, and i think you've heard me speak about this

both publicly and we've talked privately. the people in louisiana that have been the victims and survivors of massive hurricanes and storms and levee breaks are well aware of the weather changes we accepted as a reality. we are building our levees as fast as we can with very little help over time. after emergencies, the federal government comes in with a lot of money but year in and year out we're having a hard time getting infrastructure from the corps of engineers budget which is woefully underfunded for the whole country. we're building levees as fast as we can with a lot of our own money and a lot of our own tax dollars. we're raising our homes, elevating them as fast as we can. we are putting in new zoning and people are very mindful of not developing low-lying areas. but we have to have policies that are well thought out and

well balanced to accommodate communities that have literally been here for 300 years. new orleans will be celebrating its 300th birthday in a few years from now, in 2018. this isn't about a group of people that went down there 20 years ago for sun and for vacation. this is about people who came 300 years ago to secure the mouth of the greatest river system in north america, and one of the greatest river systems in the world. this is not fun and games. this is work and empowerment and wealth building and opportunity that the president talked about the other day. that's what this bill is about. we need to start with building a flood program partnership with the private sector that works for average middle-class families. and we do not have that, and we're going to get the first step towards that today. i see my colleagues on the floor, so i'm going to yield time. i know the time has been set aside. but please, we'll vote on the

toomey amendment. please vote a strong "no." we'll vote that on final passage, vote a strong "yes," and there are a few other amendments senator isakson and senator menendez will speak to more directly as we wrap up this debate today. and i yield the floor. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: thank you, mr. president. it is good to see my colleague from new jersey in the presiding chair. i rise in support of this legislation we're about to consider, the homeowner flood insurance affordability act, which, again, is unique insofar that it is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation to ensure families will be able to afford flood insurance so they can stay in their homes, so

that businesses can stay open and property values won't plummet. and i also want to rise in opposition to the toomey substitute amendment which would completely undermine our bill and perpetuate a failed policy. while we support putting the national flood insurance program on a path to solvency, current law hikes rates so fast and so high that it will actually undermine the solvency of the program. these drastic increases will act as a de facto eviction notice for homeowners who have lived in their homes and played by the rules their entire lives. that's going to drive down property values as the housing market is struggling to recover. and what's most a large is the fact that fema doesn't even know the size or scope of this problem. they were supposed to complete a study until aformat of rates

increased -- until fordability of rates increased but they failed to do so. there is no question we need to put the program on a more solvent trajectory but first need to understand the impact these dramatic changes in biggert-waters will have on the market and be sure the mapping process they used to set these rates are accurate. that's why our bill would impose a moratorium on the phaseout of subsidies and grandfathers included in biggert-waters for most primary residences until fema completes the a aaffordability study mandated in biggert waters. whether fema does that in six months, one year, whatever period of time, as soon as they do that and proposes that

regulatory framework, we're ready to go. so those who say that this is somehow an inordinate amount of time, that's going to be determined by fema's promptness in getting the affordability study that was supposed to have been done under law by last april. it would also require fema to certify in writing that it has implemented a flood mapping approach that utilizes sound scientific and engineering methodologies before certain rate reforms are implemented. the reason that's important, mr. president, is because we saw in new jersey where fema maps were put out and ultimately heard a hew and cry from communities and counties across the state and said, look, that can't be right. we've had properties that have never flooded, even in sandy they didn't have virtually any flooding and now they're in the zone. and particularly in the most difficult zones called v zones

where the consequence of being in a v zone may very well be whether or not you can keep your house or not. and when we challenged and brought municipal and county engineers to bear, what did we find? in some counties we had an 80% reduction. had we not challenged those maps, where would those families be today? so we want the basis of these maps to be scientific and engineering methodologies that are sound. also this new legislation would reimburse qualifying homeowners for successful appeals of erroneous flood map determinations. if we're going to say these maps are somehow sacrosanct and you go and challenge them and you find out that they were wrong, you should be able to not have to bear the burden of that. and it would give communities fair credit for locally funded flood protection systems. it would continue the fair treatment afforded to communities with flood-proof

basement exemptions and provide for a fema ombudsman to advocate for and provide information to policyholders. it would streamline the registration process for insurance pwroebgs -- brokers and agents. just as important as what this bill does is what it will not do. the legislation would not stop the phaseout of taxpayer-funded subsidies for vacation homes and homes that have been substantially damaged. it would not stop the phaseout of taxpayer-funded subsidies for properties that have been repetitively flooded, including the 1% riskiest properties that account for over a third of all claims. it would not encourage new construction in environmentally sensitive or flood-prone areas. and it would not stop most of the important reforms included in biggert-waters. this legislation reaches a delicate balance that recognizes the need to improve solvency and

phase out certain subsidies but tries to do so without discouraging program participation. finally, senator toomey acknowledges that biggert-waters, i think is totally flawed and must be changed but basically his amendment falls far short of what all of us who have come together to support will do. and i ask the balance of my statement be included in the record, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: thank you. without objection. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thanks, mr. president. i rise to discuss my bill and briefly -- my amendment and the underlying bill. first i want to thank my

cosponsors, senators coats, mcconnell, kirk and johanns. and i want to thank the bipartisan coalition of senators who are supporting my approach. mr. president, there is a real problem with our flood insurance program as a result of the reforms and it needs to be addressed. and the problem is that in the process of reforming this program so that it would actually be sustainable, so that it actually could become solvent, in the process of making those changes, some people's premiums go up very, very dramatically and pretty suddenly. the phase-in is very quick and the increase is very high. and that's a huge problem and it needs to be addressed. the menendez bill addresses it the wrong way. what this bill does is it does kill the meaningful reform. it completely suspends for four years; there is no adjustment of premiums towards an actuarially sound market-based level of premiums that don't require

taxpayer subsidy. so we'll be going back -- it busts the budget, by the way, and we'll be going back to a system where literally warren buffett can buy a home as long as he makes it his primary residence, he can continue to have taxpayers subsidize his cost of flood insurance. i just don't know how that's even remotely defensible. but that's what we would be heading back to if we adopt the menendez bill. in addition, by throwing out the reform, by throwing out the movement towards an actuarially sound system, we go right back to the insolvent unsustainable program we had before which means the nfip under the menendez bill will that much sooner reach the day when it cannot honor its claims, when the people who have been paying their insurance premiums discover that there is no money to honor their claim when the flood occurs because it doesn't have the reforms that put it on a sustainable basis.

finally, it's flawed because it can't become law. this approach is not going to become law. we know that. it's not just me who opposes this. the administration does not accept this approach. this is what the statement of administration policy put out this week by the president of the united states about this bill. he referred to this bill specifically and said delaying implementation of these reforms, reforms referring to the biggert-waters reforms, would further erode the 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. the speaker of the house and the leadership in the house feel the same way. they're not willing to throw out the reforms and leave us with an nfip that cannot honor its claims. they're not going to do it. so if you really want to do something for the people who are facing these big premium increases, you've got to support a program and approach that actually works. that's why i've offered this

amendment. and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. what we do is simple. we phase in the premium increases gradually for people facing a big premium increase, we phase it in very gradually. it gives people time to adjust, time to mitigate, time to challenge if the map is drawn wrong, they can do that. we preserve the important valuable ideas in the menendez bill, such as the ability to recoup the cost of a successful challenge to a mapping problem for an individual homeowner, also for a community. that's there. that's important. we preserve the opportunity to have the benefit and force nfip to recognize the benefit of mitigation measures that have been taken by others. so if your community has built a levee or dam or some kind of flood mitigation system with or without federal money, that needs to be acknowledged. that needs to be reflected. if your community, your home is safer because of that

investment, your premium needs to reflect the fact that you have a safer situation. we cover that as well. finally, the administration supports this approach. in the very same statement of administration policy, president obama's administration stated this. the administration strongly supports a phased transition to actuarially sound flood insurance rates. the menendez bill absolutely does not do this. my amendment absolutely does, because this is what makes sense. this is how we soften the blow, we create a reasonable transition, and we maintain a fiscally sound, actuarially sound program that doesn't bust the budget. that's what my amendment does. finally, let me just conclude with this, mr. president. there are a lot of members of this body on both sides of the aisle who have spent a lot of time, especially in recent years, in sincere, concerted, ongoing efforts to address one of the biggest challenges we

face as a country, and that is the fiscally unsustainable position of our federal government, driven by mandatory spending. we've cut discretionary spending significantly as a percentage of our budget, as a percentage of our economy, any way you measure it, discretionary spending has been squeezed. mandatory spending has been almost completely untouched, and it's growing far too fast. recently, this body, including every democrat who supports this menendez bill, voted for a reform, a reform of one mandatory program that makes it sustainable, makes it viable. we shouldn't be walking away. i mean, if we are at all serious about getting our mandatory spending under control, we shouldn't walk away from this reform. please, i urge my colleagues, support the toomey amendment, and i yield back my time. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on

amendment number 2707 offered by the senator from pennsylvania, mr. toomey. mr. menendez: mr. president, my understanding -- parliamentary inquiry. is it my understanding that senator toomey has used his minute as part of his presentation or is there a minute still pending for each side? the presiding officer: there is a minute still pending for each side. mr. toomey: mr. president, i think i made my case. i will yield back the remainder of my last minute. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: first of all, let me clear up some things. the united states administration does not support mr. toomey's amendment. it is my understanding the administration has called around and said they do not oppose our legislation. a place where we have an actuarially sound flood insurance program. you know, there is a c.b.o. score out there of over ten years of zero. so look, the reality is if you want the real estate markets to take a real hit, if you want people, families to be displaced from their homes, you adopt the toomey amendment. if you want to do what on a bipartisan basis has been the focus of this legislation, to keep an actuarially sound flood insurance program but at the same time make sure that we don't drive people out of their homes and make sure that we get the study done before we get the actions done, then you will

oppose the toomey amendment and support the underlying bill. i yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote, anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas

are 34, the nays are 65. the amendment as modified is not agreed to. without objection. the senator from new jersey. under the previous order, there will be two minutes -- under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment number 2797 offered by the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn. a senator: mr. president? mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: what the sponsors claim about my amendment is factually incorrect. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: all the states and everybody wants to do the narab

bill. i agree, we should do it. but if all the states really want to do it, my amendment has no effect whatsoever because it allows an opt-out for a state that they want to dpoivment either it's true they all want to do it or it's not true they all want to do it and we're going to force some state not to do it. an opt-out keeping the 10th amendment privileges of the state is highly required to make sure we do not go outside the bounds of our legal obligations and i reserve the balance of my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: mr. president, we've been here before. gram-leech-bliley 15 years ago offered what the good senator from oklahoma is offering and it's why narab has never been successful. this empowers state regulators. that's why they support this bill. notice you haven't heard from states taking away the rights here because it does not.

it empowers them, creates more competition in the marketplace and helps consumers. this is a good thing. i kick it over to my cosponsor, the good senator from nebraska, senator johanns. mr. johanns: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order, please. the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: i thank my cosponsor. senator tester is 1,000% right on this. we've been down this roatd. a senator: mr. president, could we have order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. please take your conversations out of the well. mr. johanns: we have worked so hard to get everybody on board. states are on board. it does empower states. it does allow them to do what they need to do. and i just urge my colleagues to be a no vote on the coburn amendment. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: if this is true with no optout then why not do it for lawyers, why not do it for credits, why not for every other thing that's licensed that would be better for consumers to not give an optout is not right to the individual states. so you can say -- i support the bill. i just think we need to have a protection for the states. and the reason there's opposition to this is because there's obviously some people who don't agree that everybody is on board. i yield back. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question occurs on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there is. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: yo

vote: