[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 165 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8153-S8158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1197.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1197) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2014 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Reid (for Levin-Inhofe) amendment No. 2123, to increase to
$5,000,000,000 the ceiling on the general transfer authority
of the Department of Defense.
Reid (for Levin-Inhofe) amendment No. 2124 (to Amendment
No. 2123), of a perfecting nature.
Reid motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed
Services, with instructions, Reid amendment No. 2125, to
change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 2126 (to (the instructions) amendment
No. 2125), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 2127 (to amendment No. 2126), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30
p.m. will be for debate only.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think everyone is aware that we have a
lot of differences on both sides of the aisle. Quite frankly, I just
had a meeting with some of the House people. There are some problems
right now. I am anxious for Chairman Levin to come back, perhaps after
our conferences, and I will do the same thing, and hopefully we will be
able to do it. I understand there has already been a statement made
about the Ayotte amendment on Guantanamo. She is ready to debate, and I
think Senator Levin has a side-by-side amendment he is ready to debate
as well. So that, in my opinion, is about as far as we have come as far
as progress. I will withhold any other comments I will make until the
chair has made his comments, which will probably be after lunch.
By the way, I ask our Members to continue to file all amendments they
have in anticipation that we will, as we have in the past, ultimately
come to that conclusion, that we will have amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. THUNE. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Senator Thune pertaining to the introduction of S.
1724 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we need to be moving forward with the
Defense bill. It is very important. I am a member of Armed Services
Committee, and we had a good bipartisan vote out of committee to bring
the bill to the floor. Chairman Levin has been fair to us in committee,
so we got a good committee process. But there are some disagreements
over a number of issues that the full Senate needs to discuss and vote
on. They just should be able to do that.
We are drifting into a process that is absolutely contrary to the
history of the Senate--the real concept of the U.S. Senate--where we
bring matters up and vote on them. Just because it cleared our
committee does not mean the full Senate does not get to vote on some of
these differing opinions.
I voted in the committee on a number of amendments that did not pass.
We had amendments up in committee that we decided not to vote on, and
the phrase was: Well, we will carry that to the floor. In other words,
it will be brought up and the whole Senate will vote on it, not just
the committee. Maybe in the interim something could be worked out. But
if not, it would go to the full Senate, and the full Senate would work
its will, would have its debate and vote.
We are going days now with nothing happening, no amendments being
voted on. They could have already been voted on. So Senator Reid has
filled the tree, and that means he has complete control over the
process. He has the ability to say we will not have a single amendment.
In fact, except for, I think, two, all he has agreed to in this process
is to have maybe two amendments up, and that is unacceptable. Senator
Reid ought to know that. You cannot move the Defense bill of the United
States of America, spending $500 billion, and not have amendments and
Senators actually offering suggestions on how to spend that money
better and do better for America. What are we here for?
So I am really worried about this. I am afraid that this whole thing
could collapse over the failure of amendments to be offered. I look
here at a chart. Back, basically, when Republicans were in charge, we
had 27 amendments, 25 amendments, 13 amendments actually voted on. The
average number was 11.5 amendments voted on.
We already have well over 100 amendments filed. Over half of them,
two-thirds of them, will eventually be withdrawn or the managers of the
bill will agree to some form of that suggestion with different language
and we would move on. But we should have already started on amendments,
and we should recognize that a good Defense bill is going to require an
open process where we can actually discuss how to fix it and make it
better.
In addition, we are facing, under the Budget Control Act and the
sequester, some real financial challenges for the Department of Defense
that are historic. It is significant. We need to be able to talk about
that and work on that and try to figure out a way to strengthen the
ability of the Defense Department to function in a rational way and not
do unnecessary damage to them while they work to contain spending. That
is a critical thing.
So I would say to Senator Reid, who has a tough job--there is no
doubt about that--Senator Reid, you should not attempt this dramatic
reduction in the ability of the Senate to actually have amendments to a
bill as large and as important as the Defense bill. You are
overreaching, Senator Reid.
We cannot agree to that. The loyal opposition, the Republican
opposition--I say, the bill that came out of committee was bipartisan,
overwhelmingly bipartisan, with a big vote in the committee. But there
are things that need to be voted on here, and we are not going to agree
to a handful of amendments. So if you try to move forward with this
bill without allowing at least a legitimate amendment process, you are
not going to go forward because we are not going to agree to go forward
when you fill the tree and block amendments and have the power to deny
amendments of any significant degree on the floor of the Senate.
I am worried about that. I hope my friend, Senator Levin, and Senator
[[Page S8154]]
Reed, who is here, and others, can talk with the majority leader and
reason with him, and let's get on with the business of proceeding with
these amendments and some actual debate about the future of America's
defense posture because we do have challenges in the years to come--a
lot different than we have had--and we need to reconfigure defense, and
we need to be asking ourselves honestly and in a bipartisan way, what
will we need to do in 15 years, what will we need to be doing in 2025.
I had the honor to be at the Reagan Library this weekend for a
national security conference dealing with what our defense structure
should be in 2025. Senator Levin, along with former Secretary of
Defense Gates, was given the first award they give for patriotic
service. So our Armed Services chairman, let me note, was honored--our
Democratic chairman--was honored at the Ronald Reagan Library for his
commitment to national defense.
But I am just saying, ladies and gentlemen, in a bipartisan way we
need to be thinking about what our future defense policy should be. We
need to be thinking about how to move this bill. But it will not move,
and I will not support going to a bill that does not allow this Senate
to have a reasonable opportunity to have amendments.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I have come to the floor today to
moderate a colloquy between my colleagues for the next 20 minutes or so
regarding a very important amendment that has been filed to the Defense
authorization bill we are considering. The colloquy will be between
myself, Senator Wicker, Senator Warren, Senator Cochran, Senator
Hoeven, Senator Nelson, and Senator Merkley. I ask unanimous consent
that we have the next 20 minutes to conduct the colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Flood Insurance
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I really appreciate the courtesies of
the manager of the bill on the floor, Senator Reed. I really appreciate
his courtesies because those of us who have come to the floor today to
speak about this issue are extremely concerned about this problem that
has presented itself based on a bill that was passed 2 years ago called
Biggert-Waters. With all the best intentions, a bill was passed 2 years
ago to try to fix and reform and reauthorize the Nation's Flood
Insurance Program, which is a very important program that allows
millions of people who live not just along the coast but along our
rivers and bayous and streams--from coast to coast, inland and coastal
communities--to live safely and to live affordably and to have flood
insurance they can count on. That was the intention of the bill, but
something went awry through the passage of the bill, and the
consequences are devastating.
Now, as we look back 2 years, and we see how FEMA and some of these
Federal agencies are implementing the law we passed, we have some very
serious concerns not only about how they are implementing it, but about
the law itself.
So a group of us have come together to change that law so we can
provide opportunities for our families, for our individuals and our
businesses, to be able to buy and keep the kind of flood insurance they
need to stay in business and to keep their communities intact.
In the last couple of weeks all we have heard about is health care
insurance, and that is important, and we have some things to fix and
move forward on, providing the country with a health care system they
can depend on, but we also have a real challenge in flood insurance and
affordability to our communities.
In Louisiana alone we have 400,000 flood insurance policies.
Florida--I see my good friend, Senator Nelson from Florida, on the
floor. His State has the largest number of policies; followed by Texas,
with the second largest number; and, of course, Mississippi has quite a
few as well. Senator Wicker joins me on the floor.
I want to start by showing this map I have in the Chamber so everyone
who is following this debate--and there are literally millions of
people following this debate; not only homeowners, business owners, but
bankers, realtors, developers, et cetera--because if we do not get this
right, these communities where you see these dots on the map, which are
shown in the Mardi Gras colors--purple, gold, and green--these dots
represent communities that are being affected by this program that
needs to be changed and reformed.
These are flood maps that are being issued. Look how many there are
in Oregon, Washington, California, Texas. What really surprised me--
because I know the gulf coast well; that is the area, of course, that I
represent, Louisiana; and I know Texas and Mississippi and Florida very
well--but the area that surprised me was Pennsylvania and Illinois and,
of course, New York, New Jersey, and the east coast because of
Superstorm Sandy. But this is a national issue. It is not a Louisiana
issue. It is not a gulf coast issue. It is a national issue.
You will notice that these flood maps are not just along the coast.
Some people say to us who are working on this: Well, I am not concerned
because I do not represent a coastal State. Well, heads up, everyone.
Even if you do not represent a coastal State, you are having flood maps
issued from North Dakota, South Dakota, interior States, Kansas,
Arkansas, et cetera, because you have rivers and flood zones.
If we do not change this bill in a significant way--what we are
asking for in the Menendez-Isakson bill, which we are here offering as
an amendment to the defense authorization bill--many of these
communities will be devastated. That is because the Biggert-Waters bill
has mandated fairly steep and unsustainable and unaffordable--to the
middle class--rate increases that will simply prevent people from being
able to stay in their homes.
My friend Senator Wicker is following me in this colloquy. He wants
to speak specifically about the hardships that some of our people are
experiencing as they are getting these notices about the rate
increases. I ask Senator Wicker, what is he hearing in Mississippi?
Could the Senator elaborate a minute about the unintended consequences
of Biggert-Waters and the increases that some of our people are seeing
in their primary homes as well as their businesses.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for
asking that question.
What I am hearing from Mississippi, and what I think we are going to
be hearing from all across the United States of America, is that this
is about to be a disaster for property owners in the United States of
America. So I join my colleagues today--and perhaps there will be
others besides the three of us on the floor--in saying we need to
address the very real problem of increases in flood insurance premiums,
which will unfairly hurt homeowners and businesses in my home State of
Mississippi and across the United States of America.
I appreciate my colleague presenting the map to show that this is
indeed a national problem and not just a regional or coastal problem.
The severe onset of unaffordable rates--unaffordable rates--could have
a devastating impact on the livelihood of homeowners and communities
throughout the Nation and on our economy. Moreover, they could
jeopardize the long-term solvency of the National Flood Insurance
Program, which covers some 5.6 million Americans.
There is no doubt that NFIP faces enormous challenges. The damages
wrought by storms such as Katrina, Rita, and Sandy have left the NFIP
in the red for nearly a decade, amounting to nearly $24 billion at the
last count.
In the early years of the NFIP, when bad storm years were roughly
offset by light storm years, taxpayers effectively carried
policyholders through years because of the NFIP's authority to borrow
from the Treasury. However, the catastrophic 2004-2005 hurricane
seasons put the program more than $20 billion in debt and disproved the
notion that the finances would balance out over time.
The principles for NFIP reform are worthy goals. Premiums need to
reflect risks more accurately, flood risks must be projected and mapped
more accurately, and the purchase of flood insurance needs to be
encouraged and enforced in order to enlarge the risk pool.
[[Page S8155]]
We cannot expect the NFIP to continue as a viable program without
addressing the huge imbalance between premium revenue and payments for
losses. At the same time, Congress cannot sit by in the face of these
dramatic unaffordable rate increases facing many Americans.
The manner in which these reforms are being implemented is alienating
the very people the program is intended to help. The new rates penalize
people who have followed the rules, while placing the heaviest burden
on those who are only now recovering from recent disasters.
In communities still recovering from recent Mississippi River
flooding and in communities along the gulf coast, where the aftermath
of Katrina still lingers, a financial burden of this magnitude could
force homeowners either to leave their property unprotected or to move
away altogether.
Ensuring the long-term success of the NFIP means taking an honest
look at how the reforms Congress enacted last year are being
implemented and whether they are unfairly hurting citizens--and I
contend they are. Allowing rates to go from a few hundred dollars to
tens of thousands of dollars is hardly a reasonable approach to reform.
Reform should not be unnecessarily painful, unfair, or
counterproductive to the goal of solvency. Premium increases that make
the coverage literally unaffordable could lead to a net loss in program
revenue. Nobody benefits from that. Nobody benefits, neither the
homeowner nor the taxpayer, when NFIP premium increases result in
foreclosure.
I am concerned that NFIP may well have overestimated net revenue
increases. They may have underestimated the burden of the program going
forward. That alone would be a good reason to delay the increases, if a
longer phase-in would result in a net increase in revenue to the
program, as I suspect it would.
A delay would also allow time to study the effects of premium
increases and it would allow us, as policymakers, to look for less
harmful approaches to reform. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
should be able to complete an affordability study and ensure that its
technologies and methodologies accurately assess risk.
I thank my colleague from Louisiana and I thank my colleague from
Florida for joining us. I urge all of my colleagues to support action
that provides immediate relief to Americans facing these steep rate
hikes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his comments
and engaging in this exchange on the floor this morning.
The Senator from Florida has been particularly concerned because
Florida has a very robust population as one of our largest States. I
think the Senator has over 2 million policies in Florida.
Through the Chair, I wish to ask what the Senator is hearing in
Florida about this situation.
Mr. NELSON. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for inquiring.
I can say that Federal flood insurance that is not affordable is not
Federal flood insurance. To go from a position that one is paying rates
at one level and all of a sudden go to a higher position, people are
completely priced out of the market and all of the ancillary things
that go with it because people can't sell their homes. When one puts
that ripple effect through the entire economy, especially in a State
such as mine that has more coastline than any State save for Alaska and
where we have 40 percent of all the flood insurance policies.
I dealt with this, I would say to the Senator from Louisiana, because
in my former life I was the elected insurance commissioner of Florida.
Fortunately, I had no jurisdiction over the Federal Flood Insurance
Program, but other insurance companies that offered it privately or
supplemented the Federal flood insurance we did have jurisdiction to
regulate.
People cannot build a house--if they are going to a bank to get a
mortgage--unless they have flood insurance. Now that the maps, as the
Senator has pointed out, have been expanded showing there are a lot
more areas that are inundated by water, by flood, at times of the year,
then this becomes, for the engine of commerce, a critical component.
One can't be charging one price and suddenly say we are going to be
charging people four times as much.
Let us have a little common sense. A little common sense says we want
FEMA to do an affordability study and, in the meantime, until we
receive that study, we want this put on hold. It does not say it is not
going to go up in the future, but availability of insurance is directly
proportional to the ability of people to pay for that insurance and to
continue the American dream, which home ownership is.
I would ask if the Senator from Louisiana remembers how long we have
been trying to get this going. To the great credit of the Senator from
Louisiana, who has taken the lead, she saw the problem early before
people started complaining in my State and other States. They were
complaining in the State of Louisiana. Senator Landrieu was on top of
it. We have only been doing this for about 8 months. We have a vehicle
on the floor that is a must-pass vehicle. It is the Defense
authorization bill. We need to get this legislation amended onto it and
have it signed into law.
I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Florida.
The Senator is correct about urgency. As the Presiding Officer knows,
in her own home State, we are hearing from people who are stuck
literally between a rock and a hard place because they can't get their
insurance renewed. They can't afford the premium increases.
If they were thinking about selling their home, their home basically
has become literally worthless, losing what equity they have--
temporarily we hope because we intend to fix this--because no one can
purchase a home if the flood insurance went from $300 a year to $13,000
or $15,000 a year. It is affecting home ownership.
This is why I am proud to say--I see the Senator from Mississippi on
the floor.
I wish to say how grateful I am to the great coalition of Senators
who have come together, 24 Senators and 128 House Members. In addition,
we have the National Association of Realtors, the National Association
of Home Builders, and the Independent Community Bankers of America.
I wish to ask the Senator from Mississippi, through the Chair, does
the Senator think we have a better chance of getting attention for our
bill with the national strong support of the realtors, the
homebuilders, and the bankers?
What is the Senator hearing from them in his State of Mississippi?
Mr. COCHRAN. If the distinguished Senator would yield, I would be
pleased to respond.
It is a fact that the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act,
which we are discussing, seeks to protect homeowners from increases in
the cost of flood insurance premiums until the administration reviews
and reports to the Congress on the flood mapping technologies,
methodologies, and insurance affordability that are being issued under
the authority of existing laws.
One problem we are concerned about is that the program was supposed
to protect taxpayer investments, communicate perceived flood risks to
homeowners, and encourage communities to protect themselves against
flood risks.
The reform legislation enacted in 2012 made some positive changes in
the program. Today some of those changes are now working in opposition
to the broader goals of reform; hence, the importance of this
legislation. These shortcomings existed in the law and they actually
threaten to weaken the National Flood Insurance Program.
The success of flood insurance is so important to many inland and
coastal States, such as mine and Louisiana, the State of the
distinguished Senator. Communities there continue to work to overcome
damages caused by the greatest natural disaster in our Nation's
history, the effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010 and now
skyrocketing flood insurance premiums.
Under the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, the
administration would be required to provide assurances to Congress that
it is using sound mapping methods to make flood insurance rate
determinations. A study by the National Academy of Science produced in
March of this year has called into question some of the engineering
practices the government uses to determine rates.
[[Page S8156]]
Before allowing unaffordable flood insurance rates to devalue private
property and harm local communities and economies, we should be
absolutely sure the government's engineering practices and procedures
are as sound as possible. It will be very difficult to rebuild
communities or restore home equity once they are lost, so we had better
get it right.
Our bill does not create new programs to address rising premiums. It
simply leaves in place some current practices so we can make sure the
reproductive reforms we enacted last year will actually improve the
credibility of the program among communities and homeowners.
Our bill would not affect positive reforms related to expanding
program participation or the phaseout of subsidized flood insurance
premiums for vacation homes and homes that have a history of repeated
flooding.
My principal purpose of coming to the floor was to thank the
distinguished Senator from Louisiana for her leadership as she
continues to be our outfront person in dealing with some of the very
challenging facts and decisions that are coming from those who are
trying to improve the program at the Federal level but also at the
State and local level, which is where the action is. I am pleased to
join her in this plea to the Senate.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. I
appreciate his hard work as well as the staff. It has been a real team
effort and without him we wouldn't be where we are today.
The Senator from Massachusetts is scheduled next in this colloquy.
She has brought a particularly spectacular view, a different view, and
a much needed view from the east coast, not only in light of the
devastation from Hurricane Sandy but the ongoing challenges to that
region.
I wish to ask unanimous consent, as it is 12:30 p.m., when we were
supposed to end, if each of us takes 4 minutes in the order of Senator
Warren, Senator Hoeven, and Senator Merkley, we could then recess for
lunch as was required earlier.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. What is the Senator hearing at home from the people of
Massachusetts about this, and how important does she think it is for us
to have the support of the realtors and the homebuilders and other
national organizations that understand the dire consequences if we are
not able to get some of these fixes in place?
Ms. WARREN. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for the question, but
most of all I thank her for her energetic leadership on this issue; she
will help us find the right way forward.
I am here today because of what I am hearing from families in
Massachusetts. I also thank the Senator from Mississippi. This is
something that is hitting us all around the country--this change in the
flood maps. So I am here today to support my colleagues' bipartisan
efforts to help homeowners across the country who are getting hit with
newly revised flood maps and increased flood insurance premiums.
Families purchase flood insurance to prevent the loss of their homes
during a natural disaster, but now many of these same families fear
that the price of flood insurance could be just as devastating and
could actually cost them their homes.
I understand why Congress changed the national flood program to more
accurately reflect the true costs and risks of flood damage, and I
agree that over time we need to move to a more market-based system for
setting flood insurance rates, providing we adequately take into
account the affordability concerns for working families. But that is
not what is happening right now. These new maps and rate increases are
having as big an impact as a big storm.
When FEMA released these flood maps earlier this year and last, they
knew they were placing hundreds of thousands of homeowners into a flood
zone for the very first time. Yet there was inadequate warning to
homeowners. Many have started receiving letters from their mortgage
companies and are learning for the first time that they must now
purchase flood insurance. We have heard about the costs--$500, $1,000 a
month, even more. Most hard-working families and most seniors don't
have that kind of extra money on hand to spend on flood insurance
premiums they never knew they needed.
One Massachusetts resident wrote to me and said:
I have owned my property for over 33 years. Twelve years
ago I built a house according to the codes at the time.
Recently, flood maps were redrawn, putting my home in a new
flood zone and out of compliance. The implementation of the
Biggert-Waters act is going to raise our flood insurance to
$10,000 or more per year. I follow the rules, and now the
rules are changing, leaving me few options to comply.
The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act that I have
cosponsored along with Senator Landrieu and so many others will provide
relief to this homeowner and to others who built to code and were later
remapped into a higher risk area. This critical bill will delay rate
increases until FEMA completes affordability studies mandated by the
Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act and until subsequent
affordability guidelines are enacted.
There is a second problem with FEMA's actions. The reclassifications
have taken place in some areas without a careful and complete analysis,
but for those who believe they haven't been correctly classified, it is
a tough challenge to get their flood zone status changed.
I received another letter from a Massachusetts constituent who lives
in Brockton. She was informed that her only way out of this mess was to
pay more than $1,000 for an engineer to come and conduct an elevation
study of a nearby brook. Now, let's be clear. She had to spend this
money even though the city of Brockton and the nearby Army Corps of
Engineers have no record of the brook ever flooding. If her appeal is
successful, she is still out $1,000 due to FEMA's mistake.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. WARREN. Then I will just say I am pleased to join my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle in calling for this commonsense delay which
will give FEMA time to get this right. I thank Senator Landrieu for her
leadership, and I thank Senators Menendez, Isakson, Cochran, and all
the cosponsors of this bill. Time is running out. We need to get this
done.
I yield back.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank the Senator so much.
Senator Hoeven has joined us, and he has been particularly forceful
on the issue of basements in a State that doesn't have an ocean
anywhere around it but has some serious flooding challenges. I would
hope the Senator would take a minute to explain to everyone what he has
been telling us and how important this particular piece of this bill is
for the basement situation in his State.
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank the good Senator from Louisiana.
I am very pleased to join in this colloquy with my cosponsors of this
very important piece of legislation.
This is about affordability of home ownership. The American dream is
about home ownership. It always has been, and we want to make sure that
continues. So it is about affordability, but it is also about getting
it right.
Look, if we are going to reset flood insurance rates, we need to get
it right. This affects people across this great Nation. It affects
their ability to own and continue to own their own home. We need to
make sure, as we make this transition, which we are all working on--we
are all working on it--that we get it right. So that is why we see this
bipartisan legislation, and we urge our colleagues to join us in this
effort. This is about home ownership, this is about affordability, and
this is about getting it right.
To the point the good Senator from Louisiana just made and as the
Chair knows well, in the great State of North Dakota we have the Red
River Basin, the Cheyenne River Basin, we have the James River Basin,
we have the Missouri River Basin, the Devils Lake Basin, and more. So
we know flooding, and we have seen it from year to year.
There are a number of provisions in this bill which the Senator has
already identified which are critically important, and I will not
repeat those, but I wish to focus for a minute on the basement
exemption.
Legislation to preserve the basement exemption was included in the
Hoeven-Heitkamp Flood Safe Basements Act, S. 1601. That has been
incorporated
[[Page S8157]]
into this bill. As sponsors, we appreciate that very much because this
is a collaborative effort to get it right as we make this transition in
flood insurance rates and make sure we protect the affordability on a
fair basis as we move to financial viability for the long term for
flood insurance rates.
When a homeowner has put the cost into making sure they have a flood-
proof basement, if we don't take that into account in the insurance
rates, we are penalizing them and we are charging them twice. It makes
no sense. It makes no sense at all. That is why we have to have the
basement exemption continued in this legislation, and that is why its
sponsors, on a bipartisan basis, are not only pursuing this as stand-
alone legislation, but we are also introducing it as an amendment to
the Defense authorization bill or other legislation that can move,
because we need to address it and we need to address it now.
As the Chair well knows, the mayor of a small community in northeast
North Dakota, which has seen repeated flooding, contacted our
congressional delegation and said: Hey, look. What is going on with
FEMA right now is they are changing these flood insurance rates, and we
have examples of homeowners who are going from less than $1,000 a year
to more than $5,000 a year--a fivefold increase--and it is not a new
home. The home has been there a long time and it has never been
flooded.
It has never been flooded, and they are going to go from less than
$1,000 to $5,000 on a home that has been there for a long time and
never been flooded? That is not how this is supposed to work. That is
not how it is supposed to work, and that is why we need this
legislation.
Again, I thank the good Senator from Louisiana. All of the sponsors--
and we have a great bipartisan group going already--urge our colleagues
to join us, and we urge them to join us without delay. We seek a common
objective: We will adjust the flood insurance rates to make sure the
program is viable for the long term, but we need to get it right, and
that is what this is all about.
I yield the floor.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, we have all been extremely helpful, of
course, as a team in bringing this issue forward and crafting a bill,
but literally we would not be here if it were not for the leadership of
the subcommittee chairman who has jurisdiction over this issue--if he
had not said yes when we asked him for a hearing in his committee to
allow us to present the facts in hopes that we could find a way, as all
of us have said, to make this program self-sustainable for the
taxpayers but helpful to the people who need it. These are twin goals,
both of which must be met or there won't be any program because no one
will be able to afford to be in it. I thank the Senator for getting to
that so quickly.
He is the last in our colloquy. Again, what is he hearing from home
and can he give us, as chair of the subcommittee, some insight into how
he thinks this will affect real estate markets if we are not able to
fix this.
Mr. MERKLEY. I thank my colleague from Louisiana for her tireless
efforts in this regard. We can tell from the commentaries that have
just been put forward from the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator
from Mississippi, the Senator from North Dakota, of course our
colleague from Louisiana, and now representing Oregon, that these are
folks representing blue States and red States and all types of
different terrains, and they have the common purpose of addressing the
dysfunction of the Biggert-Waters bill that was passed.
Just to give a small feeling for this, the Hay family from Eagle
Creek, OR, wanted to sell their home. They had a nice young couple with
solid financials who wanted to buy it. It was all approved except for
the insurance policy. When the couple found out the insurance policy
would not be the $500 the current family has been paying but $5,000 a
year, the deal fell apart because for every $1,000 you pay in flood
insurance, the value of the home drops by $20,000. So not only is the
couple who wanted this home unable to buy it because of the home's
value dropping, but the family who owned the home, who had equity in
the home, and who hoped to take these funds into retirement to be their
nest egg, has lost that nest egg due to these outrageous additional
costs, these dramatic increases.
So the point of sale is one particular problem that has a big impact
on the real estate market, but we also have the situation of someone
who has a policy lapse. Maybe an individual thinks their mortgage
company is paying the policy, the mortgage company thinks the owner is
paying it, and it defaults for a few days. When everyone finds out no
one has paid the bill, suddenly that family might be going, in that
situation, from $500 to $5,000. Or perhaps the mortgage company has
never enforced the provision requiring flood insurance and now they
have checked their records--and they are checking their records because
they are now being charged a significant multithousand-dollar fine if
they do not check their records--and they find you should have flood
insurance under the law but you don't, so they contact you. Well, now
you are facing this unsubsidized rate as a new policy.
So we have all of this, and then layered on top of that is the fact
that across the Nation the flood zones are being remapped. So folks who
were outside of the 100 years and have been outside and have had their
homes for 15 years are suddenly getting notified that they are inside
the flood zone and required by their mortgage company to get a policy.
They may say: But wait, I looked at the map, and only the corner of
my property is in the flood zone and my house isn't.
Well, the mortgage company says: We are sorry. You have to get this,
and you have to then prove you are not in the flood zone.
It may cost those homeowners thousands of dollars to get an elevation
survey and be able to demonstrate they are outside the flood zone. The
homeowner carries this burden of proof.
So this is a big challenge, and we should recognize how uncertain and
what an art form it is to establish these 100-year zones because a
company comes in and does a model, and they say: Well, a 100-year flood
will look like this, and they will point out what tributary, what
watershed that contributes to the confluence of creeks is going to end
up flooding that particular town.
Based on their model, the flood zone might look as though it is in
the eastern section of the town or the western section of the town, and
so on and so forth, that uncertainty where just inches can change
whether you are inside a 100-year or outside a 100-year. Some of these
areas are very flat. A few inches water rise can cover many additional
square miles, and this can have a huge impact on our business
districts, because what business wants to reinvest in a business
district when now they feel that any improvements they make are going
to be in an area where no one else is going to want to buy their
company because they are in a situation where they have unaffordable
flood insurance.
This is why we have come together--Democrats and Republicans, States
from the North, South, East, and West coming together--to say we must
change this situation which is creating so much unfairness and economic
damage. I am delighted, as the chair of the subcommittee, to be fully
engaged in partnering this. A special thanks to my colleague, the
Senator from Louisiana, who is doing such a fine job of championing
this issue.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Our time has come to an end. In conclusion, I thank the
Senator from Oregon again, the subcommittee chair, for his leadership.
I also particularly thank Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson, the two
lead sponsors of this bill, who have come together to provide the
leadership to move this bill forward. They will be looking for a
vehicle. We filed it on this bill in the event we have an opportunity
for an amendment on the Defense bill. If not, we will be looking for
the next possible opportunity.
I thank the Presiding Officer for her cosponsorship and her
leadership for North Dakota.
This is a map of all the counties which have levees. I was surprised
when I saw this map. I am very familiar with the levees in Louisiana. I
helped to build a lot of them. I am very familiar with the Mississippi
River generally because we have so much commerce along the Mississippi.
I am generally familiar with Missouri, Illinois, and Arkansas. But what
really
[[Page S8158]]
stood out for me was the levee systems in Montana, Arizona, and
California. A lot of these are levees, dikes, and dams that are
different from the river levees that we see. But look at Pittsburgh,
New York, North Dakota, Montana, Washington. There is not a place in
this country--not on the coast, not on the interior--that doesn't have
a threat of flooding. Either a levee can break, a dam can break, a
river can overflow, or there can be flash flooding because of droughts.
Even in Texas where there is a lot of flash flooding. So not only on
the coast, but inland as well, in Kansas.
The conclusion is this is a real challenge for our whole Nation. We
have a bill led by Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson that costs and
scores zero. We have written this bill in a way that just postpones
these draconian rate increases so we can take a little more time to
study it, do some modeling, and get it right. This bill was passed with
very good intentions, but prematurely, without the data we need to make
smart decisions for our communities. This is giving us time to get it
right. There is zero cost the way this bill is structured.
Again, I appreciate the courtesies of our leader managing this bill
on the floor.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
____________________