[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 15, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3496-S3497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H. CON. RES. 25
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I appreciate Senator Reid yielding me
this time and Senator McConnell being on the floor for this, and I will
be brief.
As I discussed earlier this morning, yesterday's new report from the
Congressional Budget Office highlights why it would be so important to
have a conference committee between the House and the Senate go to work
on the budget. What the Congressional Budget Office reported yesterday
was a 24-percent reduction in the budget deficit--quite a remarkable
projection. That, coupled with the improving jobs and housing numbers,
we now have economic experts across the political spectrum--for
example, people such as Glenn Hubbard, a leading Republican economist--
saying it is important for the Congress to look at these long-term
economic challenges. In fact, we have economic experts of both
political parties saying Washington ought to be doing more about the
long-term economic challenges and not just have the day-to-day
battling.
Going to a budget conference will give us that opportunity. It will
give us the opportunity to look at the 10-year budget window and
particularly issues such as health care and taxes.
So in the name of dealing with the long-term economic challenges
highlighted by yesterday's projections, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con.
Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con.
Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu
thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate
insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and the Chair be authorized to
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; all with no intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senator modify his request that it not be in order for the
Senate to consider a conference report that includes tax increases or
reconciliation instructions to increase taxes or raise the debt limit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. WYDEN. I do not. The point I have tried to make is the
Congressional Budget Office didn't talk about the Senate relitigating
past discussions.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Is
that an objection?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object to the modification?
Mr. WYDEN. I do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Is there objection to the original request of the Senator from
Oregon?
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. If I could be recognized for another brief moment this
highlights how unfortunate it is that we don't look to the future as
the Congressional Budget Office projections laid out for us yesterday.
The Congressional Budget Office didn't talk about relitigating past
votes here in the Senate. They said specifically the deficit was
significantly lower than earlier projected, and, on the basis of what I
have cited, economic experts of both political parties are saying it is
time to look to the long-term challenges, particularly Medicare and
taxes. I came today to say that a budget conference would provide that
kind of window: the opportunity to look particularly at long-term
health care challenges such as chronic care and Medicare.
I see my colleague from the Senate Finance Committee, who knows we
have been talking about tax reform, Democrats and Republicans; again, a
bipartisan opportunity we could achieve through a conference. I
proposed that today, based on the new evidence from yesterday.
Regrettably, we can't go to conference because it seems the leader on
the other side will only go to conference if we can relitigate the
stuff that happened in the Senate which he lost.
I hope colleagues will look at that new Congressional Budget Office
report. I hope they will look at the jobs picture, the housing starts,
all of which seem to be improving in the short term. I hope they will
pay more attention to what economic experts of both political parties
are saying, which is we ought to be looking to our long-term
challenges--particularly in health care and taxes--with the budget
conference between the House and the Senate providing an opportunity to
look at that 10-year window. We could do exactly what economic experts
of both political parties are talking about. I think it is unfortunate
we have not been given that opportunity today and I hope we will be
given it in the days ahead.
[[Page S3497]]
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I thank my colleague from Oregon
for offering his proposal and am sorry it was rejected. We should be
going to conference on the budget, there is no question about it. It is
hard for us to understand how, on the other side, people have been
railing for 4 years: You do not have a budget. And now we have a budget
and they do not want to move forward. But that is not what I rose to
speak about today.
FLOOD INSURANCE
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I also want to say to the
Senator from California and the Senator from Louisiana, job well done.
The WRDA bill is a very good bill, and it will help both the port of
New York City--one of the great ports of the world--as well as our
Great Lakes ports, which are having their own troubles in terms of
dredging.
But there was an extreme disappointment in the bill--no fault of my
colleague from California. I am extremely disappointed at the objection
some of my colleagues raised to even allowing a vote on the Landrieu
amendment to the WRDA bill, and I, along with Senator Landrieu and
others, will keep fighting until this commonsense amendment passes. I
am speaking of amendment No. 888. I was proud to cosponsor it. Very
simply, it would delay for 5 years any premium increases resulting from
revised flood maps. The purpose of the amendment was to provide FEMA
enough time to complete the study it was required to complete over a
month ago on the affordability of increased premiums.
Senator Toomey is right that we passed a flood insurance
reauthorization bill just 10 months ago, but it was always the intent--
and many of us worked hard on that--under Biggert-Waters that FEMA
would conduct an affordability study before higher premiums would go
into effect. That way Congress could review the findings and
recommendations and address important issues relating to affordability
and neighborhood sustainability.
Senator Landrieu's amendment was carefully crafted to give FEMA time
to complete its study, then allow Congress 6 months to respond. For
technical reasons, she amended it to a straight 5-year delay--I thought
that was better--but the purpose was the same. The logic is
irrefutable: Why bother to do the study at all if we are going to allow
FEMA to charge ahead and start raising premiums all over the country?
I say this to my colleagues--the Senator from Louisiana knows it
well, and we know it well in New York--you are going to be finding out
across the country that flood insurance premiums are going to rise so
high that they will be unaffordable to average middle-class people.
What do you say to the homeowner who is forced into the choice of
either paying crushing flood premiums or leaving their home and their
neighborhood? Do we say to them: Sorry, we just couldn't get around to
thinking about difficult cases like yours just yet.
That is not going to stand. That is not fair. It is not acceptable.
I note for my colleagues who might think this is just a Hurricane
Sandy-related issue, it is not. New Yorkers are facing this situation
because our flood maps are being revised--a process that was well
underway before Sandy. So the increased premiums many New Yorkers could
well face will face all of your constituents. As FEMA starts revising
flood maps--and they are increasing the number of homes included and
increasing the level at which homeowners have to pay--every one of you
is going to be facing the same problem we are facing in New York.
Madam President, $9,500 for flood insurance for someone who makes
$40,000 or $50,000 and lives in a modest home? Forget it. We cannot
have that, and I will tell FEMA right now that will not stand.
Something will give because the situation is untenable.
The original bill provided for a study, and then Congress could act
on that study and modify the bill. But now we are moving forward
without even the study being done. In fact, people in some States are
already seeing their premiums rise up to 25 percent a year, and many
more States will be covered over the next 2 years.
If you think it is just coastal States, such as my State of New York
and the State of Louisiana, it is not. In fact, according to FEMA, my
friend Senator Toomey's home State is one of the States that rely most
heavily on flood insurance. Pennsylvania ranks seventh in the total
amount of NFIP payouts, seventh in the number of claims filed since the
program began.
So we all have an interest to get this right, that we proceed with
eyes wide open in attempts to bring the Flood Insurance Program onto
sounder financial footing; that we have the benefit of all the data and
analysis we need. My prediction: If we do not change this, there will
be no flood insurance or at the very minimum we will let it be optional
for everybody and let people decide because to force people between
paying an amount they cannot afford and forcing people to leave their
homes is a choice this Congress will ultimately not abide for.
It is important to remember that if people cannot afford flood
insurance, they are going to drop out of the program. Their communities
might not adopt new flood maps when proposed because they know the cost
is prohibitive. When future disasters hit, these families and
communities will be entirely dependent on Federal aid to help them
rebuild, and that will cost the taxpayers even more.
So it is important that we ensure the program is both financially
sound and accessible to ordinary middle-class families. Something is
very wrong with a program that requires middle-class families to pay
over $10,000 a year for a policy with coverage that is capped at
$250,000.
You may ask why I am so passionate about this issue. Because I have
visited too many families, too many communities in New York City and in
upstate New York where the prospect of higher premiums is causing
residents to rethink whether they can even afford to remain in the
homes in which they have lived, many of them, for their whole lives,
whether they can afford to live in the neighborhoods in which they grew
up, where their families and friends live, where their children go to
school. Families are being forced to make this choice in neighborhoods
from Staten Island to the Rockaways to Massapequa and east and upstate
in places such as Schoharie County and in the southern tier counties
such as Broome and Tioga and in north country counties such as Essex.
It would be a shame if we allowed this to happen--all because FEMA did
not get around to studying the impact of higher flood rates and
Congress did not have a chance to respond.
So I hope that by the time New York's maps are completed and New
Yorkers have completed the process of rebuilding in the wake of Sandy,
fears of $10,000 flood insurance premiums for middle-class homes will
prove to have been incorrect. But right now those fears are very real,
and they are putting the future of some of New York's most tightly knit
middle-class neighborhoods at risk.
As I noted previously, New York's flood maps were in the process of
being revised before Sandy hit. But in the wake of Sandy, it adds
insult to injury when families who are spending their entire savings to
repair their homes are told that in a year or two they may not be able
to afford to live there.
In conclusion, I am disappointed that we did not get a vote on this
issue, but I will keep pushing and pushing until this awful situation
is rectified. I know Senator Landrieu will. I know Senator Vitter will.
The issue is too important to too many New Yorkers and too many
Americans, and I will not stop until we get a vote and until we
ultimately succeed.
I am confident many more of my colleagues will begin to hear from
their constituents about the challenges they are facing as flood
premiums are increased, and they will see the wisdom of Senator
Landrieu's amendment and Congress will ultimately act to fix this
problem once and for all.
With that, I appreciate my colleagues giving me time, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
____________________