[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 132 (Monday, September 30, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7042-S7047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, as you know, we are only 2 hours now
from a shutdown. I am sure those who are mesmerized by our behavior saw
a group of Senators on the floor who looked like they were smiling and
enjoying themselves. Let me tell the Presiding Officer what was going
on.
Senators were actually having a conversation. We were talking about
is there a possibility of a compromise. What you saw there is what I
hope eventually would become a committee of 100, people actually
thinking what could get us to a situation where we could begin to focus
on the fiscal problems of the United States. There is a difference
between the House appropriations bill and the Senate bill. I chair that
committee. So there is a difference with us. But what I want people to
see is that there are good people on both sides of the aisle who would
like to get something done.
The first thing we would like to get done tonight is not to have a
government shutdown and to lay the groundwork for a continuing funding
resolution that would be short term, that would enable us to come up
with a compromise on discretionary spending, where we could reduce our
public debt, fund our government at a smart, frugal level, and also do
it in the way that promotes growth. This is what I think the mood of
many in the Senate is. I think it is the mood on the majority of both
sides of the aisle.
So what do we need from our friends in the House? We do not need one
more politically provocative, veto-bait rider on the funding
resolution. The Senate passed a bill that essentially laid out a
framework exactly for what I said, a continuing resolution to November
15, and a fiscal level that is their level now. We want to negotiate
up. I certainly do.
If they would just take up the Senate bill which is neat, clean,
clear, and gets us moving forward, we could be able to do this. So we
were not just ha-ha-ha'ing over there. There is nothing here tonight to
ha-ha-ha about. But there is a mood on both sides of the aisle to stop
the shutdown, stop the shutdown and stop the slamdown. Let's be able to
pass something tonight that gets us to a way that we can keep the
government open, keep our processors functioning for compromise and
negotiation and be able to get the job done.
I think it would be an outstanding achievement. I believe the mood is
here. I said it earlier. I think there is the will. I even think there
is the wallet. Please, if the House cooperates, we would even have a
way forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wish to follow the comments from
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. This has been a tough
week. It has been a tough weekend. It has been a tough day. I think as
Members of the Senate, as we approach the showdown of a potential
shutdown, it is important for us to recognize what is at stake. This is
not just me staying here holding the floor late on a Monday evening. I
have neighbors here in Washington, DC, who work for the Federal
Government. One works for Homeland Security. One works for the
Department of Defense. They asked me over the weekend: Am I working on
Tuesday? What is happening on Tuesday? Are we shutting the government
down?
When we talk about those who are uncertain about what happens this
next week with their jobs, I think it is important to recognize it is
not just jobs we are talking about; it is the reality that if I am not
at work is the childcare facility my kids go to going to be open? What
does that mean to me?
If I am the local sandwich shop owner around the corner from where
the Fish and Wildlife Service building is and most of the folks who
work for Fish and Wildlife are not working next week, what does that
mean to me? How many loaves of bread do I make over this next week? I
think we need to appreciate and understand, when we are talking about a
government shutdown, it does not just mean those who receive a check
from the Federal Government. The ripple effect from what we do has
consequences.
As we debate, as we ping-pong back and forth between this body and
our colleagues on the House side, I think we need to recognize that
there are real lives, real families who are lying awake tonight
wondering what the rest of the week is going to mean to them. This is a
difficult time for us. There are stakes that are very high.
I have not hidden the fact that I am not a supporter of the
Affordable Care Act. I have voted against it every time we have had the
opportunity to do so. But do I believe we should shut down the Federal
Government at this point because we have not been able to shut down the
Affordable Care Act? I think we have a responsibility here. We have a
responsibility to govern. We are not doing that right now.
Folks back home are talking about a lot of things, talking about the
fact that they had a tough fish season in certain parts of the State,
talking about the fact that winter is coming on, and our energy costs
are still as high as they ever have been. They are worried about what
is coming forward for them and their families. What they do not need is
to see that their government cannot operate.
So as we deal with these very weighty decisions at this very late
hour, we need to remember whom we represent, what we are doing here. It
is not just about the next election; it is about making sure those
people whom we work for are not stressing and are not anxious about
what tomorrow is going to bring for them.
So I am hopeful in the less than 2 hours we have, we will be able to
figure out how we keep the government running, how we keep the wheels
on the bus, and how we get back together.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. I wish to thank my colleague from Alaska Ms. Murkowski
and also the chair of the Appropriations Committee Senator Mikulski for
their comments because I think, as Senator Mikulski said, the majority
of the Members in this body believe it is important for us to keep the
government open.
We may disagree about the Affordable Care Act, but one aspect we
ought to be able to agree on is that it is in the best interests of
this country to keep government open. I believe the same is true in the
House; that if the Speaker would bring up the Senate-passed CR, that is
clean, that does not have any amendments on it, that extends funding
for government through November 15, that accepts the top line numbers
for the amount of money we would spend during that period, accept the
House numbers, if the Speaker would let that be voted on, on the floor,
I think it would pass the House.
It is unfortunate that he has been unwilling to do that. But the
reality is, as both Senators Mikulski and Murkowski said, a shutdown of
the government is not just about what we are doing on the floor tonight
or what the House is doing, it will have ramifications way beyond that.
We had a meeting last week with some economists that included former
Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin. One of the things he said to us was that
unlike the last government shutdown in 1995, when there was not a real
long-term impact from that shutdown, we are looking at a real long-term
impact from a potential shutdown. We have already heard Mark Zandi, an
economist, say that if it continues longer than a few days, if it
continues for weeks, as it did in 1995, it could affect our growth in
the fourth quarter over 1 percent.
At a time when the economy is struggling, we cannot afford to have
that kind of a hit to our economy. Families who are seeing their
401(k)s just beginning to recover, pension plans that are beginning to
see recovery, cannot afford to have that kind of a hit. We have already
seen the stock market reacting. So we know there is going to be an
impact.
[[Page S7043]]
In New Hampshire we have 4,000 Federal employees who are going to get
furloughed starting tomorrow if we are not able to keep the government
open. That affects not just them and their family, that is bad enough,
but it affects the grocery stores they frequent. It affects the gas
station. It affects every business they are shopping in.
We know 1,000 small businesses are not going to be able to go to the
SBA and look for loans if the government shuts down. We know people are
not going to be able to get their mortgages through the Federal Home
Loan Agency because it is not going to be operating.
We know in New Hampshire, as in Alaska, that tourism is going to be
hit because visas are not going to get processed. We know that at the
Department of Defense, half of their civilian workers are going to be
furloughed; in New Hampshire, our Portsmouth Naval Shipyard--in New
Hampshire and Maine. I see my colleague from Maine. The shipyard
workers are going to get furloughed.
So this is going to have a huge impact on families, on businesses, on
the economy. We cannot afford this kind of political gamesmanship. We
have to work together. We have to solve these problems, not just for
the future of this country here in America but also for our standing in
the world, where the rest of the world is looking at us, asking: What
is the matter with the Congress that they cannot solve an issue that
they ought to be able to come together to address?
I certainly hope in the next couple of hours we can see some progress
in the House. I hope the Speaker will bring a clean CR to the floor,
will let the Members of the House vote on that so we can keep the
government operating for the good of the country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we have a number of serious
difficulties in our country. The most serious is a lack of jobs and a
lack of economic growth. The Affordable Care Act is devastating to that
situation, making it much worse.
Our colleagues need to understand, as we talk about the difficulties
that would happen if there would be a shutdown--and there will be
difficulties, for sure. But the idea that this is not an important
matter that needs to be addressed when we confront the Affordable Care
Act, ObamaCare, is wrong. We have to address this question.
One thing I would say to all of us, the numbers are in and it is
quite clear: 77 percent of the jobs that have been created since
January of this year are part time. Every economist has said that is in
large part driven by the Affordable Care Act. They have no doubt that
this is a major factor and is an exceedingly unusual and dangerous
trend that businesses are hiring people part time, not full time--77
percent of those hired this year are for part time work.
When we look at the job numbers that will come in tomorrow and at how
many people found jobs, maybe it will be 180,000, maybe it will be
210,000. They will brag about that I'm sure. But has anybody thought
about the fact that to an unprecedented degree those jobs will be part
time, without health care, without retirement benefits, and less job
security? Somebody needs to be thinking about this. The health care law
is absolutely a driving factor. Businesses told me that as I traveled
my State in August. They say they are trying to keep small businesses
below 50 employees too. They are not hiring people only to stay below
50 employees so they don't have to comply with some of these rules.
What have we heard all year? We are not going to talk about fixing
the Affordable Care Act. We are not going to bring it up. We are not
going to get a single amendment in the Senate.
The House has repeatedly legislated on the Affordable Care Act. The
Senate refuses to take up their bills, refuses to allow votes, refuses
to have a full debate. We are at the end of the year, and nothing has
been done about it. We could expect some tension to build up here.
What I hear the House saying is: Delay this bill for 1 year. It is
not working. Delay the individual mandate and give ordinary Americans
some relief from this law. The President has already delayed parts of
ObamaCare--probably without lawful authority--and delayed it for a year
for Big business. But the President and Senator Reid have, in effect,
said: We will shut down the government before we delay the law for
ordinary Americans.
The House has passed a bill to fund the government, but the bill that
was just voted down would simply have delayed the individual mandate in
the Affordable Care Act for 1 year. Maybe this time we could actually
fix some of the problems or change some of the provisions in ObamaCare
that are so damaging to America.
One thing I wish everyone to know--and I am the ranking Republican on
the Budget Committee and we deal with the numbers--I wrote to the
Government Accountability Office. They are an independent group, and I
asked them what the long-term costs of the Affordable Care Act would
be. The President said, unequivocally, this bill will not add one dime
to the debt of the United States. Do you remember him saying that? He
said it many times. His aides and Senators said the same thing many
times. The President went on to say, however, you may have forgotten:
Not now, not ever, period.
Well, is that true? Will the Obama administration health care law not
add one dime to the United States debt now or ever?
What did the Government Accountability Office say? This is a chart
that reflects what they told the Budget Committee in response to my
question.
They said over the 75-year period, it adds $6.2 trillion to the debt
of the United States. That number is huge, as $1 trillion is a lot of
money.
How huge is it? How do we compare it? All of us know that Social
Security is in great difficulty and under serious threat. We have to
reform it and put it on a sound basis. It is not going to be easy to do
that. Why? Well, it has unfunded liabilities. We don't have enough
money coming in to pay for the commitments we made to pay out in the
future.
Remember, Social Security has a dedicated source of revenue as well.
It is on your paycheck every month. It is the FICA we pay. It goes to
Social Security and there is a Medicare withholding too. Those funds
are dedicated for Social Security or Medicare. But people are living
longer, and the benefits are such that we are going to have a shortfall
in the future.
How much is that Social Security shortfall we have been wrestling
over how to fix? It is $7.7 trillion. In the ObamaCare bill that passed
on Christmas Eve, that they rammed through the Senate on Christmas Eve
on a party-line vote before Scott Brown could take office and provide
the vote for Massachusetts that would have killed the bill. They rammed
it through the Senate without any amendments, and it added at least
another $6.2 trillion to the long-term debt of the United States of
America. It is worse than that, and I can explain why it is even worse.
That number does not consider interest on the $6.2 trillion over 75
years. I suspect the interest is going to be many trillions of dollars
more and it adds to the debt.
As we borrow the money, we pay interest on the money we borrow. It is
not free. We borrow the money on the market or from trust funds. This
is a big deal. The American people need to know that the promise this
law will not add to the debt is absolutely false.
This is based on, the GAO said, accepted accounting principles and a
realistic scenario of what is likely to happen over time should the
plan be implemented. One of the things they say is the cuts they made
to Medicare providers, hospitals and doctors, that provide health care
to seniors are so large they will not be sustainable. If they continue
to cut in that fashion over a period of years, hospitals would close
and doctors would quit practicing. You cannot do it. We are already
dealing with a doc fix now on a bill that cut doctors more than they
could reasonably be cut. Every year we have to find up to $20 billion
to get the money to fund the doctors because we can't cut below a
certain amount. So I would say this GAO number is low.
As we wrestle with the great responsibilities we have been given as
Senators, yes, we need to think about what would happen in the next few
days if the government does not function. I hope we avoid that. We
absolutely should avoid that because it is not good.
[[Page S7044]]
We need to be asking ourselves what are we doing to our children,
grandchildren, and the financial stability of the United States of
America with a new entitlment program that is going to commence now, by
January 1, that will add more than $6.2 trillion to the debt of the
United States. This is a huge amount. I ask our colleagues to consider
it.
One more matter that shows how we get in trouble financially is when
the numbers get so large nobody can quite follow. The larger the
numbers get, the harder it is to follow.
Under the legislation of the Affordable Care Act, the plan was to cut
up to $500 billion over the next 10 years from Medicare by cutting
providers while promising patients would receive just as good health
care as they always did. We are not cutting your benefits, we are only
going to cut providers. We have done this before. At some point you
can't sustain that.
On December 23, the night before this bill passed, I spoke with the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, our own accountant, and
told him in a conference call words to this effect: It is absolutely
unbelievable to me, Mr. CBO Director, Mr. Elmendorf, that we are about
to vote tomorrow morning, we are told, on the largest health care bill
since Medicare and we don't know how to count the money. I think they
are double-counting the money. This is unbelievable, how many hundred
billion dollars we are talking about, it seems to me. I could hear
somebody on his end of the conference call say: It is double-counting.
I heard someone say it in the background.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent of the Chair for 1 additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. Elmendorf, by the next morning, gave us a letter. It laid out and
contained this language. He said:
The key point is that savings to the HI trust fund--
That is the Medicare trust fund.
--of $500 billion over 10 years, the savings from the HI
trust fund by cutting providers and increase Medicare taxes
under PPACA--
That is the Affordable Care Act.
--would be received by the government only once, so they
cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and,
at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of
the legislation or on other programs.
You can't simultaneously say you are using this money to support
Medicare by making Medicare more sustainable and then spend the money
on a new program because then it is not going to be available to
strengthen Medicare. That double-counting is not even taken into
account in the $6.2 trillion figure derived from the GAO study.
I would conclude by saying the unfunded liabilities in this law are
huge. They are a direct threat to the future of the United States
financially. At this point in history, we need to be saving Medicare,
we need to be saving Social Security, and we need to be saving
Medicaid. We don't need to be starting another program without
sufficient funds to pay for it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I am happy to have an opportunity to speak for a
minute, particularly following my good friend, the Senator from
Alabama. He and I have worked on so many issues. It shows one day you
can work together and agree on something and the next day you can have
different points of view.
He and I worked successfully on the RESTORE Act. We worked on the
FAIR Act where we can get a portion of our revenues to bring back to
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, from offshore oil and gas production.
I have to say I have enjoyed working with him many times over the years
we have been in the Senate.
Tonight I take issue with some of the things he said. To
recapitulate, with much due respect, if everything the Senator said
about the Affordable Care Act was actually factual--and it is not--if
everything he said about the act was true, this time and method of
shutting down the government to prove his point is still wrong.
You should not hold Federal employees, the economy of the United
States, the governments of the United States--Federal, State, or local
which will be affected by this--hostage because you agree or think that
the Affordable Care Act is a bad act. It is the wrong method and it is
the wrong time for that debate. That is the issue.
They are on the floor debating whether the Affordable Care Act is
good or bad. This is not the debate we are having tonight. The debate
we should be having tonight, whether it is good or bad, is, is it worth
shutting down the government of the United States tonight? The answer
is clearly no.
Secondly, the Senator from Alabama said this bill was passed in the
middle of the night. It was passed late one night several years ago. It
has been passed by the House and the Senate, signed into law as every
bill by the President of the United States. In the case of this law, it
was upheld by the Supreme Court and is being implemented by a majority
of States in the United States. This bill, law, concept, and approach
was debated for 40 years in 20 Congresses. This wasn't debated in 1
night, in 1 week, morning, noon, or midnight, but 40 years across many
Presidents, both Republican and Democratic. The question was, How does
the richest Nation in the world, the most developed democracy on Earth,
a Nation with 1 million-plus workers, provide affordable health care
without bankrupting the country and putting too much burden on either
individuals or businesses?
There were ideas thrown out for the 40 years this was debated--not 1
night, not just on Christmas Eve. There were hundreds of hearings,
thousands of documents, millions of pieces of paper and studies done on
the subject, and there were about four options:
One, Medicare for all--lots of opposition to that. It is expensive--
popular but expensive.
The second option was a single-payer system similar to Canada's. It
was very popular with some, deemed too socialistic by others.
The third option was Medicaid savings accounts, health care savings
accounts. Republicans love it. Democrats don't like it, don't think it
is fair to the middle class. It would only really help those at the top
2 percent. We said No.
So we compromised on an idea that came not out of the Democratic
caucus but out of the Republican caucus, not out of a Democratic think
tank but a Republican think tank--the Heritage Foundation--and we
passed a private sector, market-based insurance choice for all
Americans.
But that debate is over. At least the bill has passed; the debate
will go on for a while--but not about shutting the government down. The
debate as far as the bill passing, it is done. It is signed into law.
And contrary to arguments made on the other side that nobody is
interested in amending anything, I don't know if they have read their
Congressional Record. It is right in the Congressional Record. We have
already amended the law twice on a vote in the House and the Senate.
Remember a year and a half ago we passed the 1099? We repealed that. It
was a part of the way we paid for the bill. We reviewed it after we did
it and thought that wasn't a very good idea, and we changed it. There
has been another change to the law. It is not as if this law will never
be changed. But for Republicans--particularly the extremists--every
time we come up to a budget debate or the full faith and credit of the
United States, to reengage in this debate, it is not fair to the
American people, it is not fair to the workers of the United States,
and it is not fair to the businesses in the United States. It is just
simply not the right way to legislate.
So I would like the chairman from Alabama, as the ranking member of
the Budget Committee, I wish he would get on the floor and urge his
colleagues to go to conference on the budget he was talking about
because I do agree with him. We do have a deficit problem. We do have a
debt problem. We do have some entitlements that need to be looked at.
We have to get our budget in balance. But the way to do it is not to
hold the American people hostage, to take their jobs away from them and
shut the government down. That is not
[[Page S7045]]
the way to operate. It is to go to conference.
We have tried 18 times to go to conference, and we have been blocked
by the Senator from Texas. The Senator from Texas Mr. Cruz has objected
to going to conference to debate the budget.
Let's debate the budget. Let's debate the appropriations bills. I am
an appropriator. I am the chair of the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee.
Tomorrow thousands of people are going to be laid off. People who
protect our borders, who help navigate international trade, help keep
our hospital industry going, passports, et cetera, are going to be
impacted. But instead of the Senator arguing and urging us--as the
ranking member of the Budget Committee--to go to the Budget Committee
to negotiate, they have objected. We can't go to a conference.
Senator Murray passed her budget months ago. We passed a budget. The
House has passed a budget. They aren't the same budget, but it is their
version and our version. Let's go to conference and work it out. But,
no, we have to now threaten the shutdown of the entire government of
the United States because the Republicans after 40 years of debate feel
that was not enough. Forty years of debate was not enough. Two
Presidential elections, which they lost, was not convincing enough. The
majority of the Senate fell to the Democrats. That was not convincing
enough.
The people who voted that way, their votes, their actions as a
democratic nation are being disrespected by our colleagues on the other
side. It is not as though this is a dictatorship. We were elected. I
was even elected in a State where this is a difficult issue. It is not
clear-cut. I have people for it and against it. But after studying and
after soul-searching and after looking at all the options and
understanding that I have 800,000 people in my State who are uninsured,
that I have hundreds of thousands of small businesses that had been
dropping their insurance because they couldn't afford it, and that 85
percent of our market is taken up by one company with virtually no
competition, I said there has to be a better way. This may not be
perfect, but the status quo is worse.
We had that debate, and their side lost. So instead of just trying to
fix what they can or suggesting changes or finding a time where we can
debate--and we have already changed two things; the President,
administratively, has already pushed back one--they want to shut the
government down. It is on their shoulders.
So I came to the floor--and I will ask for 5 more minutes--to talk
about two things because I have hesitated to speak on this big issue
because I have been focused for the last year on a real problem--not
that this isn't a problem; it is a problem, but this is a real issue
that with a little bit of attention from everyone and a lot less
rhetoric, we could fix this, and that is helping to amend a bill that
did pass and does need to be amended, and that is the Biggert-Waters
bill.
I am not threatening to shut the government down over this; I am
simply asking and raising attention to the fact that at some point we
would like to have a debate on this floor and in the House on Biggert-
Waters. This was a bill that was passed through here--it wasn't debated
for 40 years, it was debated for a very short time. At the time the
bill passed--Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5
additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. The bill passed out of the committee on the Senate
side. It never did come to the floor at all for debate. It went to the
House, was changed pretty dramatically, and then was put in a
conference committee. This happens sometimes. It is not usual, but it
does happen. I am not complaining about that except that as a result of
that, hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana, Texas, Florida,
North Dakota, New York, and New Jersey, tomorrow morning--as I guess if
the government is shutting down, they may not be able to go to work, if
they have a government job--they will have a big fat bill coming on
their flood insurance because Biggert-Waters, the bill in the House,
had several very pernicious provisions.
There are about 5 million flood insurance policies in the country.
There should be about 17 million, but there are only 5. There will be
17 million, or some such universe as that, but there are 5 million now,
and we have many in Louisiana.
When a person goes to put their house on the market and they sell it,
the act of selling, according to Biggert-Waters, removes their
grandfathered status. They then go from that grandfathered status,
which was below market rate--and that was done purposely to help people
who live in coastal areas--not necessarily in secondary homes, not in
condos, not in million-dollar mansions, but people who work on the
rivers, who fish, who live in coastal communities, hard-working
individuals and small businesses. This allowed them to live where they
have lived, in our case, for 300 years. They didn't just move there in
the 1980s. They didn't move down there for sunbathing. They have been
there for 300 years, and this was to give them an opportunity to live
in their homes with reasonable insurance.
In the Biggert-Waters bill, that trigger--the act of putting up a
``for sale'' sign or selling your house--eliminated the subsidy,
virtually rendering a person's house valueless. And it is not just
paying 25 percent more, 100 percent more, or 400 percent more. That
would be hard enough, but in some cases it literally will render a
house valueless because let's say, for instance, you paid $1,200 a year
for insurance, but let's say the real rate is actually $15,000. The
trigger mechanism means their flood insurance will go from $1,200 to
$15,000 overnight. No one will buy a home that has a $15,000 annual
premium for insurance. So if they have $400,000 in equity in their home
or $500,000 or $150,000 in equity or perhaps they have $1 million in
equity, it is gone because their house will not be able to be sold for
virtually any price close to what it is worth. And that is not right.
That comes close to a taking.
When this bill passed, I put an objection in the record. I said then
that we would be back talking about it. There are ways we can fix
bills. We need to get Biggert-Waters fixed and changed, and I want to
submit that if we don't shut the government down, we can do it. We can
negotiate, we can meet in conference and bring amendments to
committees, and we can work together.
I want to read for the Record for a few minutes. I don't see anyone
else on the floor.
Many in Congress were led to believe that the flood
insurance program was unsustainable, that it consistently
paid out more in losses than it collected in premiums, and
that the only way to balance the ledger was to eliminate
subsidies and raise rates. That simply isn't the case.
During 3 of the past 5 years, the program has actually
collected more in premium revenue than it paid out in losses.
In fact, the program has tabulated an annual surplus 18 times
during the 42-year period for which we have data.
Now, there were times, after Florida had that terrible year--2004, I
think--when four hurricanes hit and of course after Katrina, where the
program took a very strong hit, like when our levees broke and caused
so much to drain from the fund. But if we look over time, it was about
a $19 million average loss per year--not great but not horrible; not
enough to generate the kind of bill that was passed here that is so
draconian.
Continuing to quote:
I also think that most Members of Congress would be
surprised to learn that 40 percent of all properties which
are required to maintain flood insurance do not have an
active policy. This violation of the law costs the program
hundreds of millions in lost revenue. Stricter penalties
under Biggert-Waters for lenders who fail to enforce
mandatory purchase requirements will help to address this,
but it is difficult to justify these exorbitant rate
increases for people who are participating in the program and
playing by the rules when millions of property owners are
bucking their legal obligation to pay into the program.
I also think most Members of the Congress and the general
public would be shocked to learn that only 44 percent of the
money collected by the program is used to cover flood losses
in a given year. In fact, the program spends more money
paying the insurance companies and agents who administer the
program but don't incur any risk and servicing the debt
created by the Corps of Engineers than it spends on annual
flood losses.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the complete
document from which I just quoted.
[[Page S7046]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Truth About Program Sustainability
Many in Congress were led to believe that the flood
insurance program was unsustainable, that it consistently
paid out more in losses than it collected in premiums, and
that the only way to balance the ledger was to eliminate
subsidies and raise rates. That simply isn't the case.
During 3 of the past 5 years, the program has actually
collected more in premium revenue than it paid out in losses.
In fact, the program has tabulated an annual surplus 18 times
during the 42-year period for which we have data. Over the
26-year period between the time that the federal government
took over the program in 1978 and the catastrophic losses in
2004 when Florida was struck by four major hurricanes, the
program collected $10.2 billion in premiums and paid out
$10.7 billion in claims, resulting in a modest deficit of
just $500 million or $19 million per year on average.
I also think that most members of Congress would be
surprised to learn that 40% of all properties which are
required to maintain flood insurance do not have an active
policy. This violation of the law costs the program hundreds
of millions in lost revenue. Stricter penalties under
Biggert-Waters for lenders who fail to enforce mandatory
purchase requirements will help to address this, but it is
difficult to justify exorbitant rate increases for people who
are participating in the program and playing by the rules
when millions of property owners are bucking their legal
obligation to pay into the program.
I also think most members of Congress and the general
public would be shocked to learn that only 44% of the money
collected by the program is used to cover expected flood
losses in a given year. In fact, the program spends more
money paying the insurance companies and agents who
administer the program but don't incur any risk and to
servicing the debt created by the Corps of Engineers than it
spends on annual flood losses.
The fiscal structure of the flood insurance program is
definitely broken, but it isn't because of subsidies. Taken
in combination, these facts paint a very different picture of
the National Flood Insurance Program than the one that
prevailed during the debate last Congress when Biggert-Waters
was presented to us.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, these are several reasons why this
bill needs to be amended. Again, I am not threatening to shut the
government down. That is not appropriate to get amendments to this
bill. There are ways to amend a bill, and we can work on that.
Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a quote from Michael Hecht. Michael Hecht is the executive
director of GNO, Inc. He is leading a great delegation or a group of
people--realtors, bankers, gulf coast residents and many others.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Michael Hecht Quote
I would like to read a statement that was made last week by
the President of Greater New Orleans Inc., a regional
business organization in Louisiana, which I believe conveys
the sentiment of thousands of people who I represent that are
facing steep rate increases in the midst of so many
unanswered questions and misconceptions about this program's
underlying problems.
``It is irresponsible to introduce drastic reforms that
will potentially devastate hundreds of thousands of American
home- and business-owners, before basic questions about
forgone revenues and high costs are answered. To proceed
otherwise, destroying the wealth of innocent Americans--who
have done exactly as the government has told them, maintained
insurance and often never flooded--is both economically
unwise and morally unjust.''
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, let me read this quote from Michael
Hecht. He said:
It is irresponsible to introduce drastic reforms that will
potentially devastate hundreds of thousands of American homes
and business owners before basic questions about forgone
revenues and high costs are answered. To proceed otherwise,
destroying the wealth of innocent Americans--who have done
exactly as the government has told them, maintained insurance
and often never flooded--is both economically unwise and
morally unjust.
I know my time is almost to the end. There is no one else on the
floor, so I would like to speak until someone else gets here. But this
is what we should be working on. We should be working on fixing the
flood insurance. Tomorrow morning, October 1, these rates go up. These
trigger mechanisms go into effect. It is devastating for people in our
States. But the Texas Senators seem to be more concerned about the
Affordable Care Act. I understand in their mind it is a problem and in
their heart they are sincere. I understand their constituents are
complaining. But it is the law, and we should not shut down the
government over this.
I wish they would turn their attention to the Biggert-Waters bill,
which the House and Senate passed. It needs to be amended. It needs to
be fixed, and we need to negotiate a way forward.
No. 2, if people do want to fight about changes to the budget--I am
an appropriator. We have been negotiating for years with Republicans
about how much to spend, how little to spend, what programs to fund,
what not. We do that in a budget conference. We do that in the
appropriations bills. In fact, on this measure we are debating tonight
the Democrats accepted the House number. Talk about negotiate. We just
accepted the number they gave us for the continuing resolution. It was
below our number. We want to fund the government in this month a little
bit higher, but we even accepted their number. We said, fine, we will
take your number.
We usually don't do that. We usually cut it in half or split the
difference or say, you want this, we want this. We just took it. We
just said yes. They can't even take yes for an answer because they are
so committed to using the Federal Government as a hostage, or the full
faith and credit of the United States as a hostage to change a bill
they had every opportunity to change and didn't change or couldn't
change, didn't have the votes to change. Maybe one day they will. But
they don't have those votes in this Chamber tonight and they don't have
those votes in the House. If they would let the whole House vote, they
most certainly would not. They are just allowing the Republicans to
vote. But if they would allow the House to vote in its entirety,
representing the country, they would support the position of the Senate
and they know that.
I end my remarks by saying let us focus on what we can do to fix some
bills, the Biggert-Waters flood insurance bill being one of them. Let's
not hold the American public and government hostage over a bill that
passed, that was signed into law, and upheld by the Supreme Court and
is being implemented by a majority of States in America. We can debate
it and not shut down the government over it.
I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to put something else on the Record as well that
is important for us to think about tonight, besides the underlying
debate which I have spoken about and the Biggert-Waters reform which
unfortunately is going to go into effect tomorrow. We are going to do a
press conference tomorrow on it and try to get as much support as we
can for Republicans and Democrats to fix it. But there is another issue
I wish to bring up to the body tonight while we are waiting for the
leader.
I think with the consent of both Republicans and the Democrats, we
could allow the District of Columbia--which is one city that is going
to be more impacted than others should the budget of the United States
not be able to be negotiated in the next hour or hour and a half. So
what I am hoping by raising this issue is that Members will consider
that every city in the United States is going to operate tomorrow
morning, every State is going to operate tomorrow morning, even if the
Federal Government shuts down. They will be impacted, but they will
continue to operate with their own money, on their own steam, under
their own laws. I would like the same thing for the District of
Columbia.
The District of Columbia's budget is 75 percent local and 23 percent
Federal. So most of their money is local money raised by local taxes,
not the taxpayers of the United States. More impressive than that, they
have balanced their budget--unlike us--for 18 years. People may be
surprised to know this, but the District of Columbia, which is about
650,000 people, does not have a Senator to speak for them. They have a
House Member, but the House Member has no vote. So I wish to speak on
their behalf for just a few minutes. They have balanced their budget
for 18 years and they have well over $1 billion cash in the bank.
So I am raising this to my colleagues to ask for us to consider a
unanimous
[[Page S7047]]
consent resolution that several of us are putting together now. I would
love for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to simply allow the
District of Columbia to use their own money--even if the Federal money
doesn't come forward, to use their own money raised by their own
taxpayers to keep their own government operating, because they are
under a special provision to us and have been for many years. People
argue whether that is right. That is not the point of this. Whether it
is right is of no consequence. It is the law. If we can give them some
relief, it would be very helpful to the thousands of people who need a
signal from us that just because we can't get our budget straight, just
because our budget is in deficit doesn't mean we can't honor the fact
that the DC budget is in surplus, $1 billion in the bank. It has been
balanced for 18 years, and 75 percent of their budget comes from their
own taxpayers. We should allow them to use their money to stay open.
I hope we avoid a shutdown. It doesn't look we are going to. It could
be 1 day, it could be 2 days, it could be 3 weeks, it could be 4
months. Who knows how long it is going to be. I hope it doesn't happen,
and I hope it is a very short period of time. But whatever it is, there
is no reason in the world for the District of Columbia--as Mayor Gray
said: We have balanced our budget for 18 consecutive years. We have
well over $1 billion in the bank. Yet we cannot spend our own money to
provide our residents with services they have paid for unless we get
permission from a Congress that can't even agree to pay its own bills.
If we can't agree how to pay our bills, I think it is unfortunate. We
should. But this is a big city. It is an important city. It is the
Capital of the Nation. They should be able to operate tomorrow morning.
I am hoping in the next hours we can find a way. All it takes is a
unanimous consent. I know tensions are running high. We can be angry at
each other or frustrated, but we should not be angry with the District.
They have done nothing wrong. They have balanced their budget. They
need to be able to operate. Many people all over the Nation depend on
the District government. So let's not shut them down while we are
shutting ourselves down.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________