[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 175 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8616-S8625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             The Farm Bill

  In this atmosphere of uncertainty and new Senate order, I would like 
to talk about another subject that is related, for the lack of any 
progress we might have.
  This is becoming an all too familiar situation for Kansas farmers and 
ranchers and all of American agriculture. In some respects we are 
closer to signing a farm bill into law than 1 year ago, but we still 
have not yet completed this important task. As 1 of the 41 Members 
named at the conference committee in October, I was able to give a 
quick opening statement outlining my biggest priorities for the farm 
bill, including addressing regulations that protect crop insurance and 
reforming SNAP; i.e., food stamps.
  Unfortunately, that was the one and only time the full conference 
committee has met to date. With time in short supply, the four 
principals of the agriculture committee both in the House and the 
Senate--the ranking member, the chairwoman, the chairman, and the 
ranking member in the House--are trying to make the majority of 
decisions as best they can among themselves and behind closed doors.
  Sometimes you can get things done behind closed doors without 37 
people offering their opinion. I understand that. But with all due 
respect to those Members, we have real policy differences that deserve 
to be debated publicly, particularly in the commodity and the nutrition 
titles. The other 37 of us have been ready and willing to be put to 
work. Yet the conference committee has only met once with no future 
meeting scheduled.
  I am very disappointed that an agreement on the farm bill may be 
close and yet some of our ideas and suggestions and concerns will go 
unheard or unanswered, such as the new environment we live in, in the 
Senate.
  As I said during the agriculture committee markup and our only 
conference meeting, I have real concerns with the direction of the farm 
programs in this year's bill. We have what are called target prices--we 
might as well just say subsidies or countercyclical payments or adverse 
market payments--which have proven to be trade and market distorting.
  For some commodities these prices are set so high that they may cover 
a producer's cost of production. That is right. We have a government 
subsidy over the producer's cost of production. That will essentially 
guarantee that a farmer profits if yields are average or above average.
  In this budget environment, and at a time when we are looking to make 
smart cuts, I simply don't know how to justify this subsidy program 
that can pay producers more than the cost of production and essentially 
becomes nothing more than an income transfer program, not a risk 
management tool.
  After the committee markup, I had hopes we could improve the farm 
bill to more resemble the risk-oriented and the market-based approach 
the Senate had previously taken, working with the distinguished 
chairwoman from Michigan and myself as ranking member.
  Last year I worked with the Senate leadership from both parties to 
consider the farm bill through, of all things, regular order. Everybody 
had a chance to offer an amendment. The first amendment that was 
offered had nothing to do with the farm bill. That amendment was by 
Senator Paul. Regular order gave all Senators the chance to improve the 
bill or make their concerns known.
  However, this year we considered a mere 15 amendments. The last time 
around it was 73 with 300 offered. Although 250 amendments were offered 
this time, we only had 15 amendments. All amendments regarding the new 
target price program were blocked from consideration and votes on the 
Senate floor--all of them. Senator Thune had amendments, Senator 
Grassley had amendments, Senator Johanns had amendments, and I had 
amendments. We all serve on the agriculture committee.
  Of course, the real problem with farmers planting for a government 
program and not for the market is that these programs only serve to 
extend the period of low prices due to overproduction.
  Besides high target prices for all commodities, the House wants to 
recouple payments with current production for the first time since 
1996. The Chamber of Commerce has warned that if we go down this road, 
we will quickly invite other Nations to initiate dispute settlements 
against the United States and do so with a good chance of success.
  I also have longstanding WTO, World Trade Organization, concerns, and 
the United States lost--and I mean really lost--in a case to Brazil in 
part because of the decoupled price program. We are still paying for 
that.
  I am hopeful we will come to some agreement that works without 
further setting us up for a further trade dispute not ruled in our 
favor.
  Another sticking point seems to be SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program. I think everybody is aware of that. It is important 
to note that at least 80 percent of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's budget goes to nutrition programs. SNAP was exempted from 
across-the-board cuts known as sequestration.
  The Senate bill only trims $4 billion out of a nearly $800 billion 
program in a 10-year budget. That is less than 1 percent of a 
reduction. It doesn't cut anybody's benefits. It looks at eligibility 
and other problems that are within SNAP.
  We have the responsibility to do more to restore integrity to SNAP, 
eliminate fraud and abuse, while providing benefits to those truly in 
need.
  I offered an amendment during the committee markup and on the floor 
that would have saved an additional $31 billion for SNAP. I thought it 
was a smart and responsible way which would not take away food from 
needy families.
  The House took a similar approach and also included work requirements 
for food stamps and found a total of $39 billion in savings. That is 
about a 5-percent reduction over 10 years.
  It has also been mentioned that SNAP has already been cut by $11 
billion this year. However, the end of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 stimulus boost for food stamps was a temporary 
increase in benefits to assist individuals and families hurt by the 
recession. The end of this temporary increase is in no way related to 
the farm bill, and the Congressional Budget Office agrees that no 
budgetary savings are achieved. Reconciling the difference between $4 
billion and $40 billion in savings has proven very tough so far, if not 
impossible. However, unlike the majority of the programs in the farm 
bill, if we don't have a bill signed into law, the Food Stamp Program 
or SNAP will go unchanged and there will be no savings or reform to the 
program.

  Last week I spoke with the Kansas Farm Bureau--800 members of the 
farm bureau and their families--and once again the No. 1 priority for 
virtually every producer was crop insurance. Even after the devastating 
drought over the last few years, crop insurance has proven to work. 
Producers from Kansas to Illinois and all over the country are still in 
business helping our rural families and our communities.
  In 2013, producers across the country insured a record number of 
acres, covering nearly 295 million acres and over $123 billion in 
liabilities. The takeaway message is clear: More farmers are purchasing 
crop insurance policies to protect their crops than ever before. In 
both versions of the farm bill, we are able to strengthen and preserve 
crop insurance. We need to keep that commitment through the final 
legislation.
  The farm bill is the appropriate time and place to also address 
regulatory overreaches by the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
rest of the administration that impacts farmers and livestock 
producers. In that respect, I appreciate the House addressing several 
burdensome regulations that I worked on in the Senate, including 
pesticides, farm fuels, tank storage, the lesser prairie chicken--bless 
their heart--GIPSA, mandatory country-of-origin labeling, also called 
COOL.
  Overall, I am disappointed that it looks as though we will not finish 
the

[[Page S8617]]

farm bill before the end of this year, despite the need for certainty 
and predictability all throughout farm country, not to mention the 
Department of Agriculture. Our folks back home have to make business 
decisions regardless of the status of negotiations.
  Just one example. Kansas wheat growers have already planted their 
2014 wheat crop and have been required to certify their acres; they 
just don't know what programs will be available to them. While we all 
want to provide long-term certainty to farmers, ranchers, their 
families, and American consumers, we have already let one extension 
expire in September, and the House may pursue extending the 2008 bill 
yet again. However, our Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said 
yesterday that even if the House passes a short-term extension of the 
farm bill, the Senate will not pass it.

  A year ago in August I went to the floor, upset with the leader for 
failing to consider a bill the House passed to reinstate the livestock 
disaster programs from the 2008 farm bill in response to the 
devastating drought in the Midwest. It went on for 3 years. At the 
time, I called it shameful and an abdication of our duty to the 
cattlemen and women who feed the world and warned of the costs of 
inaction. We were able at that time to finalize a farm bill--still the 
same farm bill a year later--and our livestock producers are continuing 
to work to rebuild their herds after multiple years of drought. Yet 
livestock disaster programs remain on hold. Then the devastating 
blizzard hit the Dakotas and Nebraska this year, and those producers 
were left with little Federal support--a problem we could have 
addressed a year ago.
  All of us on the conference committee and every Member throughout 
Congress should be equally troubled if we leave this year without 
addressing the farm bill. I am committed to resolving these difficult 
differences in order to provide certainty and a forward-thinking farm 
bill that is responsible to Kansans and farmers and ranchers and 
consumers as well as taxpayers.
  We have to end this environment here where this so-called nuclear 
option has really gotten us into a hole that we keep digging, whether 
we are trying to get a farm bill done, whether we are striving to 
improve the affordable health care act or repeal it, or whether we have 
a commission that nobody has heard of in the rules committee that is 
sitting doing something, but we know not really what or what to do with 
it.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, who I think would 
like to be recognized at this time, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1610

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I see my good friend the Senator from 
North Dakota on the floor today, and I wish to yield to her to begin 
this very important discussion on the importance of flood insurance 
relief for the country. She has been an outstanding spokesperson and a 
true advocate to help us get this right, this Flood Insurance Program 
that can help sustain the program itself for the benefit of the 
taxpayers as well as for the people in North Dakota, Louisiana, 
Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey who depend on it so much. So let 
me turn to our leader, Senator Heitkamp.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, we are here today to talk about 
something that is critically important to very many middle-class 
families who enjoy home ownership across the country, and business 
ownership, and it is the truly bipartisan Homeowner Flood Insurance 
Affordability Act, which seeks to address the recent flood insurance 
rate escalations across the country.
  This bill is measured, it is reasonable, and it allows for FEMA to 
complete a study on flood insurance affordability and provides Congress 
with assurance about FEMA's ability to accurately determine flood risk 
before implementing pieces of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform 
Act. I think it is true in many cases that the Congress has good 
intentions. They passed the Biggert-Waters provisions, they passed the 
act, but implementation has been a nightmare. I don't think we are 
exaggerating in saying it has been a nightmare for very many of our 
community members, especially across the coastal areas. I think it is 
important that I speak as someone from a Plains State who has told 
people repeatedly that flood insurance is a huge impediment to success 
and to home ownership in North Dakota, in very many of my communities.
  I wish to mention some of the provisions of the bill. The bill would 
delay a rate increase for the following properties: primary, non-
repetitive loss residences that were grandfathered; all properties sold 
after July 6, 2012; and all property that purchased a new policy after 
that date. It is important that the folks out there who have already 
gotten these tremendous flood insurance bills understand that our 
effort is to make this bill retroactive to October 1 of this year so 
that those rate increases that were mandated by that date don't take 
effect.
  The basement provision is something we have spent a lot of time 
educating other Members about. It is a provision that affects very many 
communities across the country, including 14 in North Dakota, where 
some of our largest communities have flood-proof basements. They have 
lived by the rules and they have done all that they should do, so they 
have been granted an exemption from flood insurance, taking a look at 
where the foundation is as opposed to where the basement floor is when 
they determine vulnerability. That basement exemption is in danger of 
being repealed by FEMA, and we want to make sure that whatever we do 
recognizes that when those homeowners have played by the rules, have 
done what is right and flood-proofed their basements, it is recognized 
in a flood insurance program.
  Generally speaking, I came to the Senate to fight for North Dakotans. 
I have to imagine most of the Senators are here because they want to 
fight for the people of their States. A major way to do that is to 
protect American families and their homes and stop putting undue 
pressure on them. It is a simple idea, but it is proving much harder to 
implement than I would like.
  Flooding is a reality far too often in North Dakota, and there are 
many other communities across the country that see the same kind of 
plains flooding. Just in the past few years we have seen communities 
such as Fargo, Minot, Grafton, and others impacted by severe flooding 
that has destroyed homes and businesses.
  This fall flood insurance rates went up for millions of families. 
This puts families at risk. So many of them have to struggle to pay for 
flood insurance or they have to walk away, literally walk away from 
their investment in their home.
  Biggert-Waters is having an immediate impact on homeowners in my 
State. I will give one example. There is a woman I know from Grafton, 
ND, named Alison Skari who, with her husband Kyle, purchased a home in 
that small community about a year ago. At the time, the flood insurance 
rate was $901 for $100,000 worth of coverage. But when the policy 
recently came up for renewal, their flood insurance skyrocketed to more 
than $4,200 a year. Let me repeat those statistics. Their flood 
insurance cost when they bought their home was at $901. Today their 
bill is $4,200--a 375-percent increase for the same amount of coverage. 
In an email to me, Allison expressed a desire to raise her children in 
Grafton, but unfortunately they no longer can afford their home--not 
with these new rates. She said had she and her husband known about 
these rates when they bought their home, they would never have 
purchased their home.
  This story reinforces that we need to take a new look. We need to 
take a new look at this Flood Insurance Program. We need to take a new 
look at affordability of home ownership.
  Everybody knows that in the last--certainly since 2008 we have seen a 
slow recovery in home ownership. We have tried to make sure people can 
realize the American dream, and a big part of that is, in fact, the 
owning of their own home. Yet here we are in the Congress making it 
virtually impossible for middle-class families to buy and live in and 
enjoy their homes. That was never the intention of the Biggert-Waters 
provision. The intention was to bring the Flood Insurance Program to a 
more reasonable, market-based evaluation.

[[Page S8618]]

But I don't think anyone in this body anticipated these dramatic and 
very devastating increases.
  I believe we absolutely need to do something to send a message that 
we in this body are listening to the middle class. We are listening to 
the middle class. When every person who runs for office--in their 
campaign, I bet there isn't one person in this body who didn't say: I 
am there to help protect the middle class. This is our opportunity, in 
a bipartisan way, to step up and protect the middle class and to tell 
people that grasp of home ownership, that piece of the American dream 
is within their reach, and it is within their reach because we aren't 
doing devastating things here in Washington, DC.
  I thank my great friend from Louisiana. As a new Member, I preside 
frequently on the floor of the Senate, and I think that if there has 
been a canary on this issue, that early bellwether whom we look to and 
who said we are going to have problems, it was Senator Mary Landrieu, 
who alerted this body from the very beginning, who knew these increases 
were coming and so ably advanced her leadership on this issue. I 
applaud her for that. I applaud Senator Menendez and Senator Schumer 
and so many people on the other side who have worked with us to try to 
develop a bill that truly has bipartisan support. I urge this body to 
send a very important holiday present, a Christmas present to the 
middle class of America by passing this reform bill, by delaying these 
increases and making that dream of home ownership possible in the 
future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota 
for her very kind and very generous comments. She underestimates her 
own tremendous leadership skills. Arriving here as a new Member, she 
jumped right into this issue. She didn't need a lot of prep work. She 
understands her State. She understands basements, which we don't have 
in Louisiana because if we dig down even a few inches, we will hit 
water. So I had to become very well educated by my good friends, the 
Senators from New York, New Jersey, and North Dakota, about true 
basements. It just goes to show that when we work together, we can come 
up with good legislation that can really help our people, give them 
relief, being in partnership with them, helping them to keep and 
strengthen the equity in their homes and businesses as well as do right 
by the taxpayer. So I thank the Senator very much for her kind 
comments.
  I wish to through the Chair recognize the Senator from New York, who 
has been an absolutely outstanding advocate for the people of the east 
coast--particularly New York but the entire east coast in the aftermath 
of Sandy. It was so helpful to that region to bring them the relief 
they needed, which has worked, and I understand it is still going on 
and we have to do more. But if we don't fix this flood insurance issue, 
which, in fact, was a manmade disaster, it is going to make the natural 
disaster of Sandy that much worse.
  I wish to ask Senator Schumer if he has any comments to add to what 
has already been said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I wish to assure my colleagues 
that they don't have to be wearing a blue jacket to be supportive of 
this legislation, as the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from 
Louisiana, and I happen to be wearing this afternoon.
  Second, I thank my friend and colleague from Louisiana. What my 
friend from North Dakota said is exactly right. She has been the Paul 
Revere of this issue, running up and down the aisles of the Senate, if 
you will, letting people know--``flood insurance increases are coming; 
flood insurance increases are coming''--because she saw it in her home 
State. She has been a great leader, and I hope we will pass the measure 
she has helped so importantly to craft when it is offered a little 
later by my colleague from New Jersey.
  I wish to say to her that she is exactly right about Sandy. We have 
families who were devastated by Sandy. They struggled to rebuild their 
homes. Then, all of a sudden, because of remapping and because of 
changes in the flood insurance law, they are hit with a flood insurance 
bill of $800, $900, $1,000. Let's make no mistake about it. These are 
not wealthy people. Lots of people in New York State who live along the 
water in Long Island and Queens and Brooklyn and Staten Island are 
working-class and middle-class people. Their homes are modest. Their 
jobs are modest. They can't afford $9,000 a year. For those who were 
told: Yours isn't going to rise, but when you sell your home it will, 
now they can't sell their homes.
  There are some things that make the rest of the Nation scratch their 
heads in wonderment, saying: What the heck is going on in Washington, 
DC? There are too many things, and one of them is flood insurance. How 
can we demand that average, middle-class people pay up to, in some 
cases, $25,000 or $30,000 a year for a policy that is capped at 
$250,000? How can we have so many homeowners have to pay $5,000, 
$8,000, $10,000 when they can ill afford it? We cannot do that. That is 
why this legislation is so important. It is just wrong.
  When we wrote the original Sandy bill, we put in an affordability 
provision, and there was supposed to be a study about how people could 
afford the insurance before any increases were put into effect. That 
did not happen.
  I have to say, the people at FEMA are good people, but they do not 
understand affordability. They are not measuring affordability. They 
are not paying attention to affordability.
  What is the job of Congress? One of our jobs--when an agency does not 
do what it is supposed to do--is for us to correct it and oversee it, 
and that is what has happened with FEMA and flood insurance.
  So we call for a delay until an affordability study is done, until we 
can figure out a new way to avoid average folks, middle-class folks, 
from being forced to either not have flood insurance, abandon their 
homes, or not sell their homes when they desperately need to do so.
  FEMA is saying: If we do not charge these people, the program will 
not be solvent. I will tell you something. If they continue to charge 
these rates, no one is going to buy flood insurance. People will drop 
out of the flood insurance program, and it will be even less solvent. 
So we have to come to a reasonable, thoughtful, and careful solution.
  As the first two of us who have spoken have shown--and my colleagues 
from Louisiana, New Jersey, Florida, New Hampshire, who are all here to 
discuss this issue--this affects every part of the Nation. It does not 
just affect Florida, although they have hurricanes. It does not just 
affect Louisiana, although they have hurricanes and floods. It affects 
our great river basins--the Missouri and Mississippi River basins. It 
affects the west coast, where flash floods can be very, very dangerous. 
It affects any place that is near water, which is most of America.
  We have so many issues. The maps that are drawn are way off base. I 
have areas in my State that are 5 miles from water and have never been 
flooded and are included in flood insurance. FEMA actually did not even 
measure the flood plains in Nassau County and imposed Suffolk County's 
flood plain. We had to force them to go back and start over.
  There is so much wrong with the way the program is now existing that 
it must be put on hold so we can come up with something better than 
FEMA is doing.
  So I hope my colleagues will support us. We have bipartisan support. 
The Senator from Georgia has been a great advocate. Others have been 
great advocates on the other side of the aisle. If you say to yourself: 
I am going to object because this is not affecting my State, believe 
me, it will. As FEMA draws maps in State after State across the 
country, the very same thing that is now afflicting North Dakota, 
Louisiana, New York, Florida, and New Jersey will afflict your State. 
You will be coming back to us 2 years from now saying: Hey, let's move 
that legislation.
  Let's avoid that problem. Let's do what we have to do. Put this on 
hold, go back to the drawing board, and create a FEMA program that both 
works and is affordable. I believe we can, if this Senate and this 
House will give us the chance.

[[Page S8619]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The senior Senator from Florida is 
recognized.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, before the Senator from New York departs, 
I want to say this is a real-life example. In Pinellas County, FL, 
which is the county that houses Saint Petersburg and Clearwater, a 
current flood insurance premium for a homeowner: $4,000. A new flood 
insurance premium--10 times as much--$44,000.
  Do you think that homeowner can afford that? Do you think that 
homeowner can now sell their house since that is the flood insurance 
premium that is facing a potential buyer? And, of course, the real 
estate market dries up.
  So it is a question of affordability, and I merely underscore what 
the Senator has already said and what the great Senator from Louisiana 
is going to talk about; that is, that you have a pause, you get FEMA to 
do an affordability study, and then you phase this in over time.
  It just so happens that 40 percent of these policies are in my State 
of Florida. We have more coastline than any other State, save for 
Alaska, and they are not afflicted by the same things we are, and they 
do not have a population of 20 million people. Lo and behold, our 
people are hurting, and we have to give them relief.
  So I beg anybody in the Senate: Please, when this unanimous consent 
request comes up, we have to have this relief for our homeowners and 
for the real estate market.
  The maps are a different question, and eventually we need to address 
the issue of the maps because they are obviously drawing some areas 
that are not flood prone. They are well above the flood stage, and 
somehow these maps have gotten misaligned. We can address that. But 
right now we have to address the affordability question.
  This is no fooling time, and I beg the Senate to let this legislation 
go by unanimous consent. I am anxious to have my colleagues make their 
statements.
  Mr. President, I am chairing the Aging Committee hearing right now. I 
look forward to the Senator from Massachusetts joining us after her 
statement.
  So with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, in deference to my colleague, who I 
understand may object--and although I have a statement--let me first 
precede it by making this request. As in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority 
leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the banking 
committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1610, the 
Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2013, and the Senate 
proceed to its consideration; that an amendment, which is at the desk, 
making technical changes to the bill, be agreed to; that no other 
amendments be in order to the bill; that there be up to 2 hours of 
debate equally divided between proponents and opponents of the bill; 
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third 
time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; finally, 
the vote on passage be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I object on behalf of the ranking member 
of the banking committee. This bill has not been through the committee 
process and would undo the important rate reforms to the National Flood 
Insurance Program that were put in place in the most recent flood 
reform bill to address the program's $25 billion debt to the taxpayer. 
We must ensure that all Members have the opportunity to understand and 
weigh in on the changes being made by this action. This unanimous 
consent request would bypass this important step in the legislative 
process, and I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have to say, I am disappointed to hear 
an objection because this is a bipartisan effort that is being pursued 
in the Senate and the majority leader has been very gracious to offer 
us time to debate and vote on an important proposal. I am sure we will 
be back here again to try to achieve that. This is not a Republican 
bill or a Democratic bill. It is not a Republican or Democratic 
priority. It is a commonsense measure that has broad bipartisan 
support--exactly the type of support and cooperation the American 
people are yearning to see from their elected officials. More 
importantly, this legislation is critical to the lives of hundreds of 
thousands homeowners, and we should not simply let Senate procedure get 
in the way of finding solutions.
  Let me just briefly speak in support of S. 1610, which is the 
Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act that we just asked consent 
to bring to the floor. It is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of 
legislation that would help people afford flood insurance so they can 
stay in their homes and businesses can stay open--all the while 
preventing property values from plummeting.
  At a time when there is far too little bipartisan cooperation, this 
bill stands as a notable exception. It currently is cosponsored by 23 
of my colleagues, including 7 Republicans, representing States from all 
corners of the country.
  It is supported by the National Association of Realtors, the National 
Association of Homebuilders, the American Bankers Association, and the 
Independent Community Bankers Association.
  You have heard from several of my colleagues who have spoken to this 
issue--and there are others, such as Senator Warren and my fellow 
colleague from New Jersey, Senator Booker, who I am proud to say has 
chosen this bill as the first piece of legislation to cosponsor in what 
I am sure will be a long and illustrious career in the Senate.
  The reason for that broad support is because flood insurance is not 
just a coastal or Northeast issue, it is an issue that affects the 
entire country. Every State in the Nation has properties covered by the 
National Flood Insurance Program, and every State in the Nation will 
see premiums on some of these properties increase as a result of 
Biggert-Waters.
  Some of these increases will be modest. Others are going to be 
prohibitively expensive and act as a de facto eviction notice for 
homeowners who have lived in their homes and played by the rules their 
entire lives. We certainly know this because we are already hearing 
from our constituents, and many more of our colleagues are hearing the 
same desperate cries from across the country, and many more will hear 
them as flood insurance maps get outlined by FEMA under the 
legislation, as renewals come up, and all of a sudden they are going to 
hear an outcry from their homeowners, who are going to say: This 
ultimately creates a set of circumstances for me where I am going to 
lose my home.
  The value of their homes will be dramatically reduced. Their ability 
to sell it will be dramatically altered, and they will, in essence, 
have taken what they have worked a lifetime to achieve and have it 
become a human catastrophe--made by the Congress.
  This is going to drive property values down. The housing market is 
still struggling to recover, and we all know that declining property 
values have a domino effect, causing neighborhood properties to decline 
in value, which, in turn, hurts the broader economy.
  We need to understand the impact that these dramatic changes in 
Biggert-Waters will have on the housing market before it is too late. 
We need to understand the impact these rate reforms will have on 
program participation, which is already dismally low. In fact, recent 
reports suggest that only about 18 percent of properties in flood zones 
participate in the program. If rates are raised too high and too 
quickly, people will simply opt to drop their insurance, decreasing 
participation, and the risk pool in the National Flood Insurance 
Program will ultimately feel the consequences.
  One study has shown that for every 10-percent increase in premiums, 
program participation decreases by approximately 2.6 percent; and the 
sharper the increases, the higher the proportion of dropouts.
  As with any flood insurance fund, the smaller the risk pool, the 
greater the risk. So increasing rates could have the

[[Page S8620]]

unintended consequences of actually making the program less solvent.
  Reduced program participation would also increase the amount 
taxpayers are on the hook for in disaster assistance payments. Since 
FEMA grants, SBA loans, and other disaster assistance are reserved for 
unmet needs, more uninsured homeowners mean more disaster assistance 
payouts.
  We should be incentivizing people to purchase insurance so they have 
skin in the game and they will be motivated to take proactive 
mitigation measures--not pricing them out of insurance so they are 
forced to rely on taxpayer-funded disaster assistance.
  There is no question that we need to reform the National Flood 
Insurance Program in order to put it on a long-term path towards 
solvency and sustainability. But, unfortunately, Biggert-Waters forces 
changes that are far too large and far too fast. It requires FEMA to 
increase rates dramatically, even before FEMA knows the scope of these 
changes or how they will impact program participation.
  Think about that for a second. We are making dramatic changes in 
policy which could impact more than 5.5 million policyholders and have 
ripple effects throughout the housing market in our entire economy 
before we even know the extent of these changes or their impact.
  I have heard from countless New Jerseyans, many who have come to me 
in tears, who are facing this predicament. These are hardworking 
middle-class families who played by the rules, purchased flood 
insurance responsibly, and are now being priced out of their home.
  That is why we collectively introduced the Homeowners Flood Insurance 
Affordability Act that would impose a moratorium on the phaseout of 
subsidies and grandfathers included in Biggert-Waters for most primary 
residences until FEMA completes the study--that I offered as an 
amendment that was included in the legislation--completes the 
affordability study that was mandated in the law and proposes a 
regulatory framework to address the issues found in the study.
  So we are going ahead with all of these actions and all of these 
increases without--without--knowing the consequences of that study.
  It would also require FEMA to certify in writing that it has 
implemented a flood mapping approach that utilizes sound scientific and 
engineering methodologies before certain rate reforms are implemented. 
We saw this in New Jersey where, in fact, large swaths of communities 
were put in what we call the V zone, which is the most consequential 
zone in the opening maps. But when we pressed FEMA and brought 
information to them, those universes were dramatically reduced.
  The difference between being in that V zone and not can mean the 
difference between being able to continue to own your home or not. So 
we believe that this legislation is critical.
  Why do we come and ask unanimous consent? Why do we ask unanimous 
consent? Why did we ask unanimous consent? Why will we continue to ask 
unanimous consent? Because there is an urgency of ``now.'' If we do not 
act, and we go out of session and we come back next year, unless we get 
to this early on and make it retroactive, we are going to see the 
consequences of this take place across the landscape of this country. 
That is why we have Members from coast to coast; that is why we have 
Members from the South; that is why we have Members from the Midwest 
who all understand the consequences of not acting. That is why we have 
taken the unusual step, on a bipartisan basis, to ask for that 
unanimous consent request.
  For any property sales that occur during this period, the homebuyer 
would continue to receive the same treatment as the previous owner of 
the property unless they trigger another provision in Biggert-Waters 
not covered by my bill.
  For prospective homebuyers, the certainty that they will not see 
their rate dramatically increase simply because they purchased a home 
is critically important to maintaining property values.
  Also, this new legislation would give FEMA more flexibility to 
complete the affordability study.
  It would reimburse qualifying homeowners for successful appeals of 
erroneous flood map determinations.
  It would give communities fair credit for locally funded flood 
protection systems.
  It would continue the fair treatment afforded to communities with 
floodproof basement exemptions.
  It would provide for a FEMA ombudsman to advocate for and provide 
information to policyholders.
  Just as important as what this bill would do, it is also important to 
note what this bill would not do.
  This legislation would not stop the phase out of taxpayer funded 
subsidies for vacation homes and properties that have been repetitively 
flooded. It would not encourage new construction in environmentally 
sensitive or flood-prone areas. And it would not stop most of the 
important reforms included in Biggert-Waters.
  This legislation simply provides temporary relief to a targeted group 
of property owners who played by the rules and are now poised to see 
their most valuable asset become worthless, all through no fault of 
their own.
  This bill does not include everything I wanted and I know there were 
many other ideas that other cosponsors wanted to include. But in order 
to reach a true consensus, we limited the provisions in this bill to 
those that had broad, bipartisan support. That is why we are here 
today--Democrats and Republicans--calling for debate and a vote on this 
vital piece of legislation.
  I must say I am very disappointed to hear objection from the other 
side of the aisle.
  My friend the majority leader has been very gracious to offer us time 
to debate and vote on this important proposal and we will be back here 
day after day to try to do that.
  Because as I said before, this is not a Republican bill or a Democrat 
bill--it is not a Republican priority or a Democrat priority. It is a 
commonsense measure that has broad bipartisan support, exactly the type 
of support and cooperation the American people are yearning to see from 
their elected officials.
  More importantly, this legislation is critical to the lives of 
hundreds of thousands of homeowners. We should not let arguments about 
Senate procedure get in the way of finding solutions to their problems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, there are several other Members. Senator 
Menendez is the leader of our efforts. He and Senator Isakson have 
joined and have put together an extraordinary coalition. I would like 
to read the names into the Record because it is a testimony. In a place 
that cannot get three Members to agree on anything, we have over 20 
Members who agree to change the Biggert-Waters law. I want to read this 
into the Record and then ask through the Chair for the Senator from 
Massachusetts--both Senators are here--the senior Senator to be 
recognized for just a moment and then the junior Senator to speak on 
this issue.
  But Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson are our leads--again, New 
Jersey and Georgia. They are two very different States but have very 
similar challenges. They have people--middle-class families, small 
business owners--who have poured their life savings into homes and 
businesses, only to be destroyed by a piece of legislation that had 
great intentions but disastrous results. We do not have a lot of time 
to fix this. We need to do this before this body leaves, which is next 
week.
  Myself, Senator Cochran, Senator Merkley, Senator Vitter, Senator 
Hoeven, Senator Scott from South Carolina, Senator Wicker, Senator 
Heitkamp from North Dakota, Senator Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, 
Senator Markey, Senator Warren, Senator Nelson from Florida, Senator 
Begich from Alaska, Senator Manchin from West Virginia.
  There is no ocean anywhere near West Virginia, but they have many 
middle-class families who are getting caught up in a quagmire here. 
This bill is the only bill that can release them and save taxpayers 
money. Senator Casey from Pennsylvania, Senator Klobuchar, Senator 
Booker, Senator Graham--who is also on the floor--and our newest 
cosponsor today, Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska.
  This is a very unusual coalition. I have been here a long time now. I 
have hardly seen a coalition this broad and diverse. So clearly we have 
something meaningful to say that needs change.

[[Page S8621]]

Please let us not let procedures and pride, bad tempers, keep us from 
doing what we know we need to do for our people.
  I thank Senator Warren who has been a tremendous help to us in 
putting this bill together, and might I add that it costs nothing. 
There is no score on this bill. So to anyone that could object because 
it costs the taxpayers: Nada. It does not cost anything. It is a zero 
score. We have done it that way to be respectful of all of the 
different opinions. But it will help to give us relief.
  Through the Chair I would like to ask Senator Warren to add her 
terrific voice and perspective on how it is affecting Massachusetts, 
one of our most important States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in urging 
support for S. 1610, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 
2013. This is a bipartisan bill that will help homeowners across our 
country who are getting hit with the newly revised flood maps and 
increased flood insurance premiums.
  I am very pleased to join colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
call for this commonsense delay which gives FEMA time to get this 
right. I thank Senator Menendez who has been a tremendous leader, 
Senator Isakson, Senator Landrieu, who has gotten in there and gotten 
us all mobilized, Senator Cochran, many others of the cosponsors of 
this bill for their leadership and their commitment to work on this 
important issue.
  I also thank my partner in all things, Senator Markey, for the work 
he has done on this bill and for giving me the chance to speak first 
here so we could get going. Families purchase flood insurance to 
prevent the loss of their homes. But now many families fear that the 
price of flood insurance could be just as devastating as any storm. You 
cannot protect someone's home by pricing them out of it. Yet that is 
exactly what is taking place around the country. Congress changed the 
National Flood Insurance Program to move toward a more market-based 
system that more accurately reflected the true cost and risks of flood 
damage.
  This is a well-intentioned bill, but, unfortunately, homeowners are 
being blindsided by high rate increases and new flood zone maps. Many 
families are learning for the first time from news reports and letters 
that their mortgage companies are sending that they must purchase flood 
insurance. This is simply not an acceptable way of informing the public 
that flood insurance bills are skyrocketing.
  When FEMA released these flood maps this year and last, they knew 
they were placing hundreds of thousands of homeowners into a flood zone 
for the very first time. It is critical that these maps be spot on and 
correct. But many people do not trust many of the new changes, and 
their concerns are growing by the day. In fact, a recent independent 
review conducted by coastal scientists at the behest of my colleague, 
Congressman Bill Keating, concluded that FEMA used outdated wave 
methodology better suited for the Pacific coast when they drafted new 
flood maps for Massachusetts.
  They believe this resulted in FEMA overpredicting the flooding that 
could occur from once-in-a-century storms for much of our State. We 
need to pass this bill to give the government the time it needs to make 
sure that the maps are accurate, reliable, and reflect the best 
available scientific data.
  We also need to make sure that hard-working families who play by the 
rules can afford these policies. The Homeowners Flood Insurance 
Affordability Act that I have proudly cosponsored will provide relief 
to homeowners who built to code and were later remapped into a higher 
risk area.
  Furthermore, this critical bill will delay rate increases until FEMA 
completes the affordability study that was mandated by the Biggert-
Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, and until subsequent affordability 
guidelines are enacted.
  Homeowners are facing flood insurance premium increases that can cost 
$500, $1,000, even more per month. Most hard-working families and 
seniors do not have that kind of extra money on hand to spend on flood 
insurance premiums they never knew they were going to need.
  FEMA has a lot of work to do.
  In the meantime, these families should not be hit with high costs 
when they challenge the flood map and win their appeal. Our bill will 
help address this injustice and will allow FEMA to utilize the National 
Flood Insurance Fund to reimburse people who successfully appeal a map 
determination. It also gives FEMA the added financial incentive to get 
those maps right the first time.
  I am pleased to join colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this 
call for a commonsense delay which will give FEMA time to get this 
right. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this much needed relief 
for homeowners. I thank Senator Markey for his leadership. I thank 
Senator Landrieu for her amazing leadership, and I thank all of my 
colleagues who are ready to move on something that is common sense and 
very much needed by families across this country.
  I yield for my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Markey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator for her leadership. She and I have 
met with people all across the State of Massachusetts who are fearful 
of the impact that this can have upon their ability to live in their 
own homes, to sell their homes, to continue to operate their 
businesses, to sell their businesses.
  This is a fundamental issue for our State. Senator Warren and I bring 
this concern to the floor even as we know that it is a concern that is 
felt all across the country. It is Louisiana. It is New Jersey. It is 
South Carolina. It is West Virginia. It is the coastlines of our 
country. Yes, it is.
  The warmer the climate becomes, the warmer the oceans become; the 
warmer the oceans, the higher the tides; the more devastating the 
storms, the more changes that take place in terms of the impact on the 
homes, the businesses, all along the coastline.
  But climate change does not only affect the coastal areas. It is 
affecting our whole country--the whole planet. There is a huge change 
which is taking place. That is why we are out here. We are out here 
because of climate change. The storm that hit New Jersey, Hurricane 
Sandy, was devastating. We saw the courage of the people of New Jersey 
and New York in responding to that storm. But just with a couple of 
changes in the direction of that storm, it could have wiped out 
everywhere from Cape Cod up to Newburyport, Maine, and New Hampshire.
  But for a small change in that storm, it could have been down in 
Delaware, Virginia, wiping out that coastline. But for the grace of God 
go the States that we represent. The same thing is true all across the 
country.
  We know that the pollution we pump into the sky heats the water and 
the air. It gives storms more power. We know this scientifically. With 
more powerful and more frequent storms, we realize that this tragedy is 
lapping right at the doors of every citizen. We have to do something to 
prevent it from becoming worse.
  But at the same time, we also have to realize that these families are 
innocent victims. They did not have anything to do with the policies 
that did not deal with climate change for a generation, that ignored 
the science. They are now dealing with the consequences of a failure to 
deal with that issue. We cannot allow the failure to act to be borne by 
those who are the least able to afford it.
  That is what is happening. It is going to be innocent Americans who 
now have to suffer because we did not have the political will to deal 
with this issue of climate change.
  I have heard, along with Senator Warren, from people all over my 
State. I have one business that relocated several years ago thinking 
that was going to satisfy the need to protect against climate change, 
against the change in the flood plain. Now, under the new plan, they 
will have to move the business again.
  It is unsustainable long term for any businesses, any family to think 
about living in these kinds of areas unless we begin to think through 
how we are going to adjust to this law that is on the books which will 
have an almost immediate impact upon families all over our country.

[[Page S8622]]

  We need to fix the flood insurance provisions that would have 
devastating economic impacts on our coastal communities. That is why I 
am proud to support the legislation of the Senator from Louisiana, the 
Senator from Georgia, Senator Isakson, Senator Menendez, Senator 
Merkley, and everyone who has worked on this issue.
  We have to ensure that we address the issue of affordability for 
these homeowners, affordability for these businesses in terms of the 
increase of the flood insurance rate caused by the new flood maps and 
ensure that we put that before any crippling flood insurance rate 
increases.
  We have to deal with affordability first. If affordability is not 
going to be dealt with, then there is going to be a devastation that is 
felt by millions of homeowners and businesses across this country.
  Climate change is real. It is here. It is dangerous, but the fear of 
rising floodwaters should not be compounded by the fear of an 
unaffordable spike in insurance premiums for homeowners and businesses 
across this country.
  I thank my colleagues for all their work on this issue. It is an 
indispensable part of the business of this Congress this year to pass 
this legislation. We must find a way to work together before we leave 
in order to pass this legislation.
  I call upon all of my colleagues to work together with us. This is as 
bipartisan as it gets in the Senate. We have to find a way.
  I congratulate the Senator from Louisiana for all of her great work.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I see the Senator from South Carolina on the floor to 
speak, but I wish to give some concluding remarks in this very 
important hour about this very important issue. We are down to the 
wire, and we do not have any time left to provide relief to homeowners 
and business owners all over this country.
  About 1 hour ago there was an objection registered from the 
Republican ranking member of the banking committee. I have a great deal 
of respect for that particular Member. I hope he will consider the 
tragic ramifications of his objection for millions of homeowners and 
businesses around the country and work with us over the next few days 
to mitigate any of his objections so we can move this bill to the floor 
and provide 2 hours of debate. We will accept, those of us in our 
coalition, a 60-vote threshold.
  Let me remind colleagues that a hearing was held in the banking 
committee by Senator Merkley, who chairs the subcommittee. This bill 
has been discussed for hours and hours in committee, in public. There 
are hundreds of stakeholder groups led by, I am very proud to say, GNO, 
Inc., Greater New Orleans, Inc., a very broad coalition of business 
owners and parish residents. They reached out across the country, down 
the coast, the gulf coast, to the east coast, to the west coast, North 
Carolina, to the good Senator on the floor from South Carolina, 
reaching out in areas in the Midwest and up in the Northwest.
  The reason they did that is because there are new flood maps going 
into effect in all of these places. I call attention to the diagram of 
flood maps in the United States. In purple, these were the flood maps 
that were in effect as of July 2012. In the green, these are proposed 
flood maps that have been introduced. We can see how many green 
designations there are.
  In the gold color, there are new flood maps possible. There is no 
State that is going to escape these new flood maps. As Senator 
Elizabeth Warren said, they are inaccurate. They don't have the 
capability, the finances, the resources to produce--or the technology, 
in some cases--accurate flood maps. There have been a record number of 
mistakes made that we have provided for from the public testimony.
  In addition, I wish to show a map of where levees are. There are many 
levees. I was surprised, myself, having become an expert on levees, I 
thought. No, I am not the expert I thought I was because I did not 
realize how many levees there were in other States. I have been so 
focused on mine that broke in 52 places and almost destroyed a great 
international American city, New Orleans. We are on the mouth of the 
Mississippi River, and I am well aware of the levee system that was one 
of the great engineering feats ever in the world, on the planet. It 
keeps the Mississippi River in its channel so we can have the great 
commerce we have had that helped build this great Nation. I am well 
aware of the great story about that.
  I was not aware of the tremendous flooding risk in California, in 
Arizona, in New Mexico, and in Montana, of all places. I knew about 
Arkansas, Illinois, and St. Louis because of the Mississippi River up 
to Minneapolis.
  Look at Pennsylvania. I was shocked to see so many flooding areas in 
the State of Pennsylvania.
  I wish to say it is not only a coastal issue, it is a national issue. 
We are the national Congress. These rates are going up now and it needs 
to be fixed now.
  I hope the Republican opposition will think clearly about their 
objection, the ramifications it will have, and find a way to say yes--
find a way to say yes.
  The bill that Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson are offering costs 
zero. It helps millions of people and ultimately will make the program 
fiscally sound.
  As the Senator from New York said so eloquently and so accurately: If 
you price people out of the program, there will be no one to support 
the program. The program will default, taxpayers will still have to 
pick up the debt associated with that program, and then we will also 
have millions of people losing their homes and their businesses. It 
makes no sense. It makes no financial sense.
  I am not going to speak too much longer, but I do wish to state I am 
very happy, as an American, there are many newspapers we can read. 
There are many blogs, a lot of radio shows, and all sorts of different 
opinions. We have to read a lot, think a lot, and get different views 
to find the truth.
  I am going to read the first paragraph of the Wall Street Journal 
because they need to listen to a couple of other bloggers or writers 
because they are way off base. The Wall Street Journal said last week: 
``Federal flood insurance is a classic example of powerful government 
aiding the powerful, encouraging the affluent to build mansions near 
the shore.''
  That statement is so inaccurate it is laughable.
  The people I represent in Louisiana--we hardly have a beach. I don't 
know if anyone has visited Louisiana. We don't have beaches. We have 
marshes. No one I know who lives in New Orleans or Baton Rouge is 
anywhere near a beach. I am going to read a letter from a very affluent 
and powerful person:

       I am a 66-year-old woman and have lived in the same house 
     in Broadmoor since 1974.

  I knew this neighborhood when the letter arrived at my desk because 
that is the neighborhood where I grew up and still reside. There is not 
a beach within miles of Broadmoor.
  She continues:

       I lived there with my family, raised a son who also lives 
     and owns a house in Broadmoor--

  It is a very middle-class neighborhood that we come from.
  Continuing:

       --and plan to stay in my home for the remainder of my life. 
     I live on a very strict budget and have just this month 
     received my first Social Security payment. If something is 
     not done to change the law that will potentially raise my 
     flood insurance by the thousands, it will not be possible for 
     me to keep my home nor sell it.

  I wish to have the Wall Street Journal editorial board hear this. 
This is not a millionaire mansion on a beach. This is a 66-year-old 
woman who just received her first Social Security check. If this law is 
not changed by the 100 Members of this body in the next few days, she 
can either stay in her house or sell her house.
  Please do not lecture to us from some high place in some big 
corporate office about Senators on the floor of the Senate trying to 
fight for powerful interests for people in mansions who live on fancy 
beaches. That is not what this bill is about.
  I have hundreds of pictures. If the Wall Street Journal or any 
newspaper wants to editorialize about this, please check my Web site, 
``My Home Story.'' I have hundreds of pictures and other Senators have 
hundreds of pictures. I don't see a mansion.
  All I see are cries of people who say: Wait a minute. My house has 
never

[[Page S8623]]

flooded. I live in a simple neighborhood. I am a simple person. I am an 
American who works hard, and you are running me out of my home.
  The bill that passed, Biggert-Waters, was well intentioned but 
drafted inappropriately and has some very pernicious guidelines or 
rules in it that can only be changed by Congress. Some people wish to 
think that FEMA can wave a magic wand and make it work. FEMA cannot 
wave a magic wand. We have to do our job as Senators. I hope the Senate 
will do its job.
  We cannot agree on everything that needs to be fixed, I understand. 
There are many arguments about other things that some people think need 
to be fixed and others don't. But I don't know of anyone nor have I 
heard anyone on the floor give us one good, solid reason that the 
Menendez bill shouldn't pass, such as: I don't like section 1, I don't 
like section 2, I don't like section 10, maybe section 5--not one. It 
is all posturing.
  Please let us get over the posturing and help people who live nowhere 
near a beach, who are going to lose their homes and need us to act. I 
believe we can do it. As I said, we have great Republican leadership 
and great Democratic leadership.
  In closing, the Senator on the floor has my great respect. Also, 
Senator Isakson, who is the lead Republican Senator, is known in this 
body as an expert on real estate and finance. He is very clear in his 
appreciation and understanding that the real estate market is going to 
be shaken to its core, as well as homebuilders and community bankers 
who are holding mortgages on these 5 million properties.
  We have come too far. We have come too far in restoring this housing 
market. This bill was well intentioned but poorly drafted, stuck into a 
conference committee report at the last minute, not with as much 
oversight as we should have given. We can fix it. Let's do this.
  I thank the Senator for being so generous. It is a very important 
issue. I am prepared to stay here for as long as it takes before 
Christmas--even, I hate to say, up to Christmas Eve, as I wish to get 
home for a little bit of time, but this needs to be fixed before we 
leave for Christmas.
  The House can come back in January, take up this bill, and we can 
send it to the President's desk early in February, make it retroactive, 
and give people relief. This is not about helping out powerful 
interests and millionaires on the beach. This is about helping many 
Americans who have done nothing wrong and everything right. They have 
been in their homes since the 1960s, 1950s, in some cases from the 
1800s, and are going to be priced out of their home. Their equity will 
be stolen from them by a poorly drafted piece of legislation.
  We can do better and we should.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to address the nomination of 
Cornelia Pillard for the DC Circuit.
  My colleagues, I have enjoyed my time in the Senate very much, 
although we live in a very difficult time. Politically, there are a lot 
of influences on individual Senators and parties and the body as a 
whole, so these are very difficult times. I can only imagine writing 
the Constitution today. I always thought that would be a good 
``Saturday Night Live'' skit: Go back to Philadelphia hall and have all 
the satellite trucks parked outside and the bloggers and talk radio, 
moveon.org--fill in the blank--all putting pressure on our Founding 
Fathers not to do this or that. We live in different times.
  It is absolutely good that people have a voice and influence and 
create organizations to advocate their cause. There seems to be an 
organization for almost every aspect of the economy. So lobbying the 
government, having a say about legislation, trying to push your 
representatives to do something you think is good for the country is 
very much a part of democracy, but eventually we have to govern.
  Democracy is a journey, sort of like when you are on vacation or you 
are driving to a place with your kids and they always ask: Are we there 
yet? But democracy is not an end state, it is a process. Democracy is 
really about protecting losers, not so much winners. Winners tend to do 
well in any system. Democracy protects the loser by having a rule of 
law, a process that says: If you lose the election or you are in the 
minority in a body, there will be rules there to give you a voice.
  One of the problems in the Mideast and throughout the world is that 
people are afraid to lose. In the Mideast it is a winner-take-all 
environment. The reason there are so many militias is that people don't 
trust the police or the government to be fair to their sect or their 
tribe, so they arm themselves, believing that if they don't take care 
of themselves, nobody else will. But that just leads to an endless 
state of conflict.
  So democracy is really a process, and it is designed to ensure that 
losers in a democratic process will still have basic rights. You can 
lose the election and not get fired. It is illegal to fire somebody 
because they are in the opposite party, unless it is a political job 
where one expects that to happen. You don't lose your right to speak up 
because you lost the election.
  When you find yourself in the minority in politics, it is important 
that you have a say. It is also important that the majority has the 
ability, having won the election, to do certain things--to run the 
place, for lack of better words.
  The Senate is an unusual body in traditional democracy. 
Parliamentarian systems are different from what we have set up. You 
have two houses in most places, such as the House of Lords. I don't 
know what power it has, but it is not too great. The parliamentary 
system is where you have to form coalitions. At the end of the day it 
is a completely different setup than we have here, where the party in 
charge, if they can form a big enough coalition, can basically just run 
the place.
  The House is a winner-take-all body. If you are in the majority in 
the House, you can decide what bills to bring to the floor, what 
amendments will be allowed on those bills, and how long to debate those 
bills. You have an almost absolute dictatorial ability to run the 
House. You determine everything. The minority has some say but not a 
whole lot. The House is sort of gang warfare. I have been there and 
love the institution. You will find that majorities will be fighting 
among themselves a lot in the House because that is where the action is 
in the House.
  I have been in the House, and I have been in the Senate. I loved 
being in the House, and I understood the way the rules worked--that if 
you were in the minority, what came to the floor was determined by the 
majority, what amendments were in order was determined by the majority, 
and that is just the way it was.
  When I was in the House, we would pass one measure after another that 
would go to the Senate and never be heard from again, and that was 
frustrating. But the older you get, you sort of realize maybe some of 
the things you wanted were not in the best interest of the country as a 
whole. And the fact that you knew that if it went to the Senate there 
would be a filtering process, unlike in the House, became somewhat 
reassuring over time.
  House majorities are more partisan, generally speaking. They are 
influenced by 2-year election cycles. It is a more passionate body 
because you are always up for election and the winner takes all. And 
when you win in the House, the people who got you there expect you to 
do things consistent with your party's agenda. Nothing wrong with that.
  In the Senate there has been a conscious effort to put some brakes on 
that kind of governing. When you send a bill to the Senate, you still, 
to this day, have to get 60 votes to bring the legislation to the floor 
and to get cloture, and the minority has the ability to say not only 
whether they want the bill to come to the floor, with a certain amount 
of amendments, but then they can negotiate with our friends in the 
majority to get the amendments we want and to allow the legislation to 
come forward. There are probably a lot of times when Republicans in the 
House voted understanding that this idea wouldn't make it through the 
Senate and that was probably OK.
  Here is what I feel. A lot of my colleagues have talked about Ms. 
Pillard, the nominee, being a radical judge and

[[Page S8624]]

being out of the mainstream. I don't want to get into that. All I can 
say is that my view of a Presidential appointment is for the Senate to 
provide advice and consent--constitutionally required--but to recognize 
that the President won the election and the Senate has the advise and 
consent powers, not the House.
  I have found myself in all kinds of judge fights since I have been 
here. I was a lawyer before I was a politician. I love the law. What I 
love about the law is that, in theory, it is a place where the poorest 
guy, the most unpopular person can still get a fair shake. Of course, 
that wouldn't happen in a political environment. It is a place where 
the richest guy or gal in town doesn't have to pay because they can 
afford to, only because they have a legal responsibility to. I love the 
idea of an independent judiciary, a jury of one's peers, protecting 
people's interests in a way politics never could.
  I would argue that the strength of the rule of law in this country 
has been our great saving grace. Elections happen all over the Mideast. 
Saddam Hussein got 90-some percent. We haven't been able to get there 
yet. I would argue that electing Saddam Hussein was a joke, that it is 
the institutions of government that really do provide freedom for 
people. An independent judiciary has been a Godsend to our country. It 
is not perfect by any means, but it was the courts that basically broke 
the stronghold of segregation because politically it would have taken 
far longer to get there.
  At the end of the day, in Bush v. Gore, maybe one of Vice President 
Gore's finest moments contributing to democracy was his acceptance of 
the ruling of the court. He fought like crazy, he lost a national 
election by a few hundred votes, all of his supporters are telling him 
they did this here and they did that there, and the next thing you know 
the Supreme Court rules 5 to 4, and he graciously accepted the 
decision.

  What has happened here is that the rules of the Senate have been 
changed in a very dramatic way for the first time really in 200-some 
years. Our colleagues on the other side decided that we would no longer 
require 60 votes to get a nomination to the floor or to approve a 
judge. Now it is majority rule--majority rule on judicial nominations, 
except Supreme Court and executive appointments.
  A lot of average people might say: Well, they won the election; why 
isn't 51 enough? My response is this: I think we all understand the 
benefits of being able to slow things down that come out of the House. 
And having to pick up some votes from the other side to get the 60 to 
pass legislation has probably saved the country a lot of heartache in 
terms of emotional legislation coming through the House to the Senate 
that would never make it into law. A lot of things I wanted have been 
killed in the Senate, and a lot of things I hoped never would see the 
light of day have died in the Senate. So it kind of works out.
  When it comes to judges, I have tried very hard to make sure that 
Republican and Democratic Presidents are treated fairly. I do not 
believe it is my job as a Senator from South Carolina to vote or block 
an appointment because I wouldn't have chosen that judge.
  I remember during the Bush Presidency there was a wholesale 
filibuster of Bush's judicial nominations, and we were thinking about 
doing the nuclear option. But seven Democrats and seven Republicans 
said: Wait a minute. Unless there is an extraordinary circumstance, we 
shouldn't filibuster judges. An extraordinary circumstance really is 
about qualifications or something unusual.
  I can say to my Democratic colleagues that we have denied two 
judicial picks by not allowing cloture. If advise and consent means 
anything, it means that, on occasion, you can say no. So there have 
been only two.
  As to the DC Circuit Court, this dispute about how many judges there 
should be on the DC Circuit Court has been going on at least for a 
decade--ever since I have been here. The Bush administration wanted to 
add judges to the DC Circuit because that is the circuit all appeals go 
to when government regulation is challenged by somebody in the private 
sector, an individual or a business. If you want to sue about ObamaCare 
regulations or the detention policy or the NSA's programs, it goes to 
the DC Circuit. So every President, quite frankly, would like to have 
an advantage there because it protects their administration's policies.
  I guess what I would say is that changing the rules because we have 
said no to two picks--outside of the DC Circuit--was, quite frankly, 
irresponsible, and it is going to change the Senate forever.
  As to the DC Circuit, no one can say this debate hasn't been going on 
before we all got here. Senator Grassley has been the most consistent 
guy in the world about the DC Circuit, even when Republicans were in 
charge. There are more needs out there. These judges are fine people. 
They could be put in the other spots where the need is greater.
  But we are where we are. So our colleagues decided, after two--I 
don't know how many have been approved, but two have been denied--
enough is enough on the judge side, along with the attempt to grow the 
court in the DC Circuit.
  We have had disputes about executive nominations. I remember 
Ambassador Bolton. And Mel Watt--really, honest to God, I like Mel. He 
is a great guy. I just don't think he is the right choice for Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac. And to my colleagues here, you are all wonderful 
people, but there is not one person in the Senate whom I would pick for 
that job because it has a very technical requirement to it.
  So here we are.
  Very quickly--and then I will turn it over to Senator Grassley--what 
does this matter in the long term? I think the first casualty of this 
rules change is going to be the judiciary itself, and here is what I 
mean by that. Now that we don't have to cross the aisle to pick up a 
few votes to get to 60 when there is a disagreement--and these are very 
rare; we don't filibuster everybody; they are fairly rare--we are going 
to have more ideological-driven picks on judicial nominations because 
once the filtering device of having to at least talk to the other side 
is removed, once that no longer exists, the pressure in the conference 
to pick the most ideologically pure, hardnosed, fire-breathing liberal 
or conservative is going to be immense.
  So what my colleagues have done is they have changed the face of the 
judiciary probably forever. And shame on you. I think that is going to 
be your legacy that will stand out long after all of us have gone 
because I don't see how you go back and put this genie in the bottle.
  I think we are going to find that judicial selections in the future 
are going to be those whom the most rabid partisans are going to pick--
the most faithful to the cause, not the most faithful to the law.
  I don't know what it is like on the Democratic side, but I can tell 
you what it will be like on the Republican side.
  There are a lot of people out there who have a list of judges they 
want to see on the court--yesterday. Some of these people are going to 
be tough for you to swallow, and I am sure you will do the same to us.
  What you are doing is making the majority self-regulated. There is no 
longer the excuse, for lack of a better word: I can't ``push'' this 
person through because I have to get somebody in. Those who want to 
make sure they are picking the best person who is not an ideologue, you 
are going to have a hard time of it.
  I think the judiciary is the biggest casualty over time, only equal 
to the Senate itself. It will not be long--and I don't know how long it 
will be--before the rules change for Supreme Court picks, because there 
will be replacements of several members of the Supreme Court in the 
next decade. That is just the way the life is. There will be opposition 
from the party out of power. There will be frustration. Somebody will 
be blocked that makes the party in power mad and they are going to 
change the rules. That is just going to happen. We are now about 
outcomes. We are not about process.
  The Senate is slowly but surely becoming the House, where winner 
takes all and ends justify the means: Anything you can do over there, 
we will do over here. That is just the way it is going to be.
  It will not be much longer until we have a Senate and a House and a 
White

[[Page S8625]]

House in one party--as happens every now and then--and there is going 
to be a centerpiece of legislation that has been the Holy Grail to that 
party that is an absolute nightmare to the other side; it is going to 
pass the House on a party-line vote, it is going to come to the Senate, 
and somebody is going to get frustrated and say: I have 51-plus votes. 
I may have 57 votes. I don't have 60. And they are going to change the 
rule on legislation because the pressure to do it, now that we have 
gone down this road, is going to be immense. I am by no means perfect. 
But when this happened on our watch, I tried to find a way to avoid it. 
But we are where we are.
  Finally, about ObamaCare. Let me tell you from a Member of Congress 
point of view something you should consider. All of us are Federal 
employees and we get a subsidy for our health care premiums similar to 
every other fellow employee. It is not a unique deal to Congress. If 
you are a member of the Federal Government, you get up to 72 percent of 
your premium subsidized. Other employers do that, but it is a darned 
good deal that is available to all Federal employees.
  Again, I compliment Senator Grassley. He said: If we are going to 
have ObamaCare, we ought to be in it. We, the Congress, and our staffs. 
Under the law that was passed--I think Senator Grassley was the 
originator of this idea--Members of Congress and our staffs have to go 
into the exchanges. But we have the ability to go into the District of 
Columbia exchange, and the law is written such--and every Member of 
Congress who takes this subsidy is entitled to do it. I don't blame 
them one bit. You have to go into the exchange, and your premiums are 
going to go up, but the subsidy will continue.
  Senator Vitter believes, and so do I, that because we are leaders we 
should take the road less traveled and experience more pain than those 
who follow. So I have been of the opinion that if you are going to 
change this law, the Congress should not only go into the exchange, we 
shouldn't get a subsidy any longer. Why? Because most Americans are 
going to lose their employer-sponsored health care as it exists today--
maybe not in total but their premiums are going to go up dramatically 
because employers cannot afford to pay the increased premium under the 
old system. So they will either lose employer-sponsored health care and 
become an individual or they are going to have to pay more because 
their employer is in a bind and they can't afford the subsidies that 
once existed--because premiums for employers, similar to individuals, 
are going to go through the roof.
  I wish to give an example about what I have chosen to do. I have 
chosen not to go into the DC exchange but to enroll in South Carolina 
because that is where I live. Enrolling in the South Carolina exchange, 
I will not get a subsidy. That was my choice. I accept that choice. Why 
am I doing this? To try to lead by example what I think is coming to a 
lot of Americans in some form or another.
  So here is what happens with me: Under the old system, I was paying 
$186 a month. If I went into the DC exchange, my premiums would go up 
but not a huge amount. But now that I am enrolling as a 58-year-old 
short White guy in South Carolina, my premiums are based on the county 
I live in and my age, with no subsidy, because I make too much money to 
get a subsidy. People at my income level don't deserve a subsidy 
because it would bankrupt the Nation more than we are already doing if 
we did that.
  Under ObamaCare in South Carolina, I chose the Bronze plan. Why? It 
is the cheapest one I could find. I am not independently wealthy. I 
make a very good living as a Member of the Senate, almost $180,000, but 
at the end of the day here is what is coming my way:
  My premium goes up to $572 a month from $186. That is $400 a month, 
almost, a 200-percent increase.
  Under my old health plan if I went to the doctor, I paid a $20 copay. 
Under the new Bronze plan, I pay $50.
  Under the old plan if I saw a specialist, it was $30. Under the new 
plan, it is $100.
  My old deductible was $350 a year. My new deductible is $6,350--a 
$6,000 increase.
  My old plan had a $5,000 out-of-pocket limit. The new one is $6,350.
  You also get rated not just on your age but where you live. I am 
paying $70 a month more than a county that is 40 miles away.
  The bottom line is that what I am experiencing a lot of other people 
are going to experience. I am paying a lot more for a lot less. How can 
that be?
  When you are told that you get more and you pay less and a politician 
tells you that, you ought to be very leery. That hasn't worked out in 
my life: You are going to get a lot more, but you are going to pay 
less.
  The reason these premiums are going up is that all the uninsured--and 
I want to provide coverage to the uninsured as much as anybody else--
get insurance coverage with a subsidy. Who is paying those subsidies? 
The rest of us.
  So we are going to see next year employers having to back out of 
employer-sponsored health care either in total or in part. What we are 
going to find throughout this country is that people who had employer-
sponsored health care, just like the individual markets, their premiums 
are going to skyrocket--maybe not as much as mine, maybe not 200 
percent. The deductibles are going to go up--maybe not as much as mine 
at $6,000, but everybody in the country doesn't make $176,000.
  So every Member of Congress should look at what would your life be 
like if you didn't have a Federal Government subsidy, if you didn't 
enroll in the DC exchange, if you went back home and had to pick a plan 
similar to everybody else in your State? You ought to sit down and look 
at what your individual life would be like. If you just look, you will 
be shocked. I sure was.
  This is not about me, even though I am giving you an example about 
myself. It is about an idea called ObamaCare that is going to destroy 
health care as we know it in the name of saving it and making it 
better.
  I think we all agree we need to reform health care. But I think most 
Americans believe their old health care system was working pretty good 
for them, but it could always be made better.
  So I would ask every Member of Congress, whether you go into your 
State exchange, if one exists, or not, do the math. You are going to be 
shocked at how it would affect you. Let me tell you, it is going to 
affect people you represent in similar fashion.
  So what do you do? Why don't we just try to sit down and start over 
and see if we can do better before it is too late?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.