[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 18 (Thursday, January 30, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S613-S619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          HOMEOWNER FLOOD INSURANCE AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2014

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1926, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1926) to delay the implementation of certain 
     provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act 
     of 2012 and to reform the National Association of Registered 
     Agents and Brokers, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Heller/Lee amendment No. 2700, to clarify that any private 
     flood insurance policy accepted by a State shall satisfy the 
     mandatory purchase requirement under the Flood Disaster 
     Protection Act of 1973.
       Coburn/McCain amendment No. 2697, to allow States to opt 
     out of participation in the National Association of 
     Registered Agents and Brokers.
       Toomey modified amendment No. 2707, to adjust phase-ins of 
     flood insurance rate increases.
       Merkley modified amendment No. 2709, to establish 
     limitations on force-placed insurance.


                                SCHEDULE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:15 
a.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees, with Senators Menendez and Toomey or their designees 
controlling the final 10 minutes.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today in very strong support of 
the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act and urge my colleagues 
to vote today to pass this legislation that will help millions of 
Americans across the country.
  First, I want to recognize the admirable leadership of Senators 
Menendez, Isakson, and Landrieu for helping to put together such a 
strong coalition amidst some challenging political headwinds.
  Senator Landrieu, in particular, has been like Paul Revere in the 
night for not only calling our attention to the detrimental elements of 
the Biggert-Waters bill but for continuing to emphasize this bill's 
importance to States from coast to coast.
  Senator Menendez and I share the New York-New Jersey coast, as does 
the Presiding Officer, and that, of course, has been devastated.
  I will briefly say what has happened here. Literally tens of 
thousands of Americans will lose their homes--middle-class Americans, 
working-class Americans, and poor Americans--if we don't pass this 
legislation. Very simply, Biggert-Waters was not followed. Before 
increases were to go into effect, an affordability study was to be 
done. It was not. As a result, homeowners are having to pay thousands 
of dollars more. Homeowners who paid $500 a year for flood insurance--
it is mandatory--now pay $4,000 or $5,000. There are some who pay as 
much as $30,000. Even worse, many more will lose their homes when they 
sell them because the flood insurance for the next owner will go up so 
much they will lose tremendous value on their homes.
  A home is the middle class's piece of the rock. People struggle long 
and hard to pay that mortgage, and when they are in their later years, 
fifties, sixties, seventies--I guess fifties isn't later years these 
days--this is what they have. Their nest egg is their home. To all of a 
sudden pull the rug out from under them and say when you sell your 
home, the next person is going to have to pay $15,000 or $20,000 a year 
in flood insurance, which makes the value of that home plummet, is so 
unfair.
  We have additional unfairness in our State of New York, as well as 
the neighboring State of New Jersey. People who were devastated by 
Sandy and struggled to rebuild their homes are all of a sudden getting 
walloped with huge flood insurance bills which they cannot afford. They 
are already in debt. So to allow this to go on makes no sense. If 
Americans ever want the Government to act, it is in these types of 
situations where there is an unfairness that is unrelated to any 
individual action by these homeowners which clobbers them. It takes 
away their financial security, it takes away their home, and makes life 
miserable.
  It should come as no surprise that if people cannot afford flood 
insurance policies, we will see more and more homeowners decide to drop 
out of the program, or communities that decide not to adopt new flood 
maps proposed by FEMA. On top of that, as rates go higher and higher, 
those folks who are not required to buy flood insurance but wanted to 
do the prudent thing, may drop out of the program as well.
  So, let me emphasize one point for my colleagues that may still have 
reservations about our bill: If folks start dropping out of the 
National Flood Insurance Program en masse, that would be a much larger 
drag on the system than a simple delay of rate increases. Without flood 
insurance, when future disasters hit, these families and communities 
will be entirely dependent on Federal aid to help them rebuild.
  I fully support efforts to put the National Flood Insurance Program 
on a path to solvency, but it will not happen overnight, and attempting 
to do so in a manner that raises premiums too high too quickly, without 
consideration for broader affordability concerns, will end up being a 
decision that they come to regret.
  We have to prevent the most devastating rate hikes from going into 
effect until FEMA and Congress can figure out a way to ensure the 
solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program without breaking the 
bank for middle-class homeowners.
  It's illogical for homeowners to pay higher premiums based on the 
risk-zone of their home before FEMA accurately determines the actual 
risk. Yet, that is exactly what is happening today.
  Currently, millions of policyholders who built to code and whose 
homes have been subsequently remapped into a higher risk area are 
facing significant rate increases with no assurance that the FEMA flood 
maps are accurate.
  Prematurely forcing individuals and families out of their homes with 
astronomical increases of flood insurance premiums before even 
guaranteeing the reliability of rate maps is asinine.
  But the legislation before us today delays these rate increases until 
an overseer can certify that FEMA has implemented a flood mapping 
approach

[[Page S614]]

that utilizes sound scientific and engineering methodologies that 
accurately determine varying levels of flood risk.
  Not a day goes by that I don't think about the impact that Sandy had 
on the millions of families across New York. Their stories and the 
struggles they face motivate me each day to do whatever I can to make 
their lives better.
  As my colleagues can attest these are not isolated events. Storms are 
becoming more prevalent and more ferocious. And they are not just in 
coastal New York, New Jersey and Louisiana, but Montana, Colorado and 
central States as well.
  New Yorkers and families across the country aren't thinking about 
whether the next natural disaster will impact them, they are thinking 
about when. This body can act now and prevent a manmade disaster from 
burdening them as well.
  This bill, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, will 
protect homeowners across the country, many of whom have only just 
begun to recover, from potentially huge flood insurance premium hikes 
and loss of property value. We must pass this bill today.
  To reiterate, my colleagues Senator Landrieu, Senator Menendez, 
Senator Isakson and others have worked tirelessly to advance this bill 
and help all our constituents who have built back after seemingly 
insurmountable loss. I implore my colleagues to stand together, in a 
true bipartisan effort, to make this program fairer for middle class 
families struggling to hold onto the homes they rebuilt in the 
communities they call home.
  The bottom line is we have to pass this bill. It makes no sense. We 
required a study before imposing devastating rate increases on 
homeowners to see what the effect would be to put the rates into 
effect. It is putting the cart before the horse. If it is not backward 
thinking, I don't know what it is. It makes no sense to do this.
  The Toomey amendment will come forward, and it basically is not 
passing any bill. The Toomey amendment says we should put all the costs 
on these middle-class and working-class homeowners quickly. It doesn't 
have any limits, and it would do the same exact thing. So anyone who 
thinks the Toomey amendment is palliative, you may as well vote against 
the bill.
  The good news here: Democrats and Republicans have come together. 
This is how this body should work. We have allowed a limited number of 
amendments on each side. I was glad to hear the minority leader talk 
the other day about how this is how the Senate should work. We agree, 
and I hope this will set the precedent for future bills where we can 
come together on the floor, have a reasonable number of amendments--
hopefully relevant and germane that relate to improving the 
legislation--and then we will have the bill be given an up-or-down 
vote.
  This bill will pass this afternoon. When this bill passes--and when 
it passes the House--millions of homeowners across America will breathe 
a sigh of relief. They will be able to keep their homes. They will be 
able to sell their homes, and they will know there is a process to put 
flood insurance on an even keel that won't be all on their backs.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand Senator Toomey and Senator 
Menendez will be coming to the floor to have the last 10 minutes of 
this debate, so I wish to take a moment to come to the floor to thank 
all of my colleagues who helped so much, particularly in the early 
days--a year and a half ago--to help make this bill possible today. 
This truly was a team effort, and I really appreciate the compliments 
from my colleagues about the leadership I provided, and I am happy to 
do so. Believe me, this never would have happened without a great team 
that was built to spread the word about the disastrous consequences of 
a law that had good intentions but with horrific ramifications on 
people all over the country. Because this is not just a coastal issue 
that affects New Jersey, the State of the Presiding Officer, and my 
State of Louisiana, we had some extraordinary Senators step up, such as 
Senator Heitkamp, such as Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia--not 
an ocean around or in sight. We had other Senators step up who do not 
have coastlines but who have States and subdivisions and communities 
and cities and rural areas that are in desperate need of a strong, 
good, solid, affordable, and sustainable flood insurance package for 
this country--a flood insurance program.
  Some people thought that is what we were getting with Biggert-Waters, 
but it soon became clear, literally before the ink was dry, that it 
wasn't going to work. Sometimes mistakes are made and when they are, we 
have to step up and fix them as quickly as possible. It has taken us 
longer than it should have because some Senators have not had an open 
mind or an open heart. They have not dealt in the best of faith, but 
despite all of that, we are here today because a number of Senators 
stood up.
  I wish to read their names into the Record: Senator Thad Cochran from 
Mississippi, Senator Jeff Merkley from Oregon, Senator John Hoeven from 
North Dakota, Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina, Senator Heidi 
Heitkamp from North Dakota, Senator Roger Wicker from Mississippi, 
Senator Vitter from Louisiana, Senator Chuck Schumer was a particularly 
strong leader, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, Senator Ed 
Markey from Massachusetts, as well as Elizabeth Warren from 
Massachusetts, who were early supporters of this bill; Senator Bill 
Nelson of Florida, Senator Rubio of Florida--and particularly Senator 
Nelson who got on this bill early and began educating people not only 
in Florida but around the country; Senator Al Franken from Minnesota, 
Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, another 
Senator who has no ocean, but Pennsylvania has I think the most new 
FEMA maps of any State in the Union. The people of Pennsylvania would 
really be affected if our bill doesn't pass. Even the amendment that is 
being offered by one of the Senators does not solve their problem and 
it is unfortunate, and I hope people will vote strongly against the 
Toomey amendment; Senator Kay Hagan from North Carolina; of course, 
yours truly in the Chair, Senator Cory Booker, who came on early and 
was a huge supporter as soon as he got here. I think this was one of 
the first bills he cosponsored and I couldn't be more grateful, and I 
know the people of New Jersey are grateful for his leadership; Senator 
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, 
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode 
Island, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Senator Lisa 
Murkowski from Alaska, Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon, Senator Susan 
Collins from Maine, and Senator Debbie Stabenow from Michigan; 
obviously, Senator Menendez has been our leader on the Democratic side, 
and we would not be where we are today without his leadership.
  We would not be where we are today without the commitment of Senator 
Harry Reid who recognizes he has a flooding problem as well and that 
this is not just a coastal issue. He stood up early to tell us that if 
we could build a strong coalition, if we could build 60-plus votes, he 
would help us get to a point where we could actually have a debate on 
amendments, vote them up or down, and then move this bill, with the 
strongest vote possible, to the House of Representatives, where I am 
proud to say there are 131 cosponsors on this bill. That number is 
growing every day. As people hear about what is happening and begin to 
understand, as they get notices from their insurance companies--which, 
by the way, are taking 30 percent of every policy off the top and 
assuming virtually no risk, which is an issue we have to address; it is 
not addressed in this bill--but as people begin to understand, they are 
going to be clamoring for real change. They will want something that 
helps taxpayers for it to be sustainable, that addresses the climate 
issues that are affecting this program, that helps middle-class 
homeowners be able, as

[[Page S615]]

Senator Schumer said, to stay in their homes and not lose all the 
equity they have literally worked for not only their entire lives but 
potentially for two generations of work which has gone into building 
equity--sometimes three generations of work have gone into building 
equity in homes--just for a misguided piece of legislation to swipe 
away from them, in the blink of an eye, their homes' value.
  So I hope people will vote strongly against the Toomey amendment. A 
vote for the Toomey amendment will signal a vote against our efforts 
for reform. He will say his efforts are to reform, that it will only 
allow raises of 25 percent a year. There is no cap on his bill. There 
are no requirements for an affordability study. There are no 
requirements for accurate FEMA mapping. His bill is a red herring and a 
distraction from what we are trying to do.
  Senator Johnny Isakson on the Republican side deserves so much credit 
for organizing his team.
  I also recognize the minority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for 
his help in getting us to this point, and I thank him.
  I also want to thank a very important group which is GNO, Inc.--
Greater New Orleans, Inc.--which is a 16-parish economic coalition in 
our State, made up of parish presidents and elected officials and 
university presidents, that really focuses on the economic vitality of 
our region. Michael Hetch is the executive director--an extremely 
talented young leader. They recognized immediately, as I brought to 
their attention the problems with Biggert-Waters, the disaster it would 
be to the 16 parishes they represent. Not only did they step up and 
help us organize all of our 16 parishes, but they began immediately to 
reach out to New Jersey and to New York and to Pennsylvania and to 
California and to Oregon--to reach out to the bankers and the realtors. 
That began an extraordinary development of a very strong coalition. I 
thank them for their leadership.
  I thank the National Association of Realtors and the National 
Homebuilders Association, NACo. The president of NACo--the National 
Association of Counties--was in my office on several occasions working 
very hard with elected officials all over the country to raise the flag 
about this issue and to say it is time to take a pause on Biggert-
Waters--not a complete repeal; not moving back on our reforms, but to 
take a pause to get it right.
  It is important to get this right. There are too many homes that will 
be lost, too many families impacted, too many businesses hurt, too many 
communities that will see a downward spiral from a housing market that 
is just now recovering after a very difficult national recession.
  I thank the National League of Cities, the American Bankers 
Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the 
Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America. I really want to 
thank them.
  There are hundreds of other smaller organizations--neighborhood 
groups, I am sure, from New Jersey to New York, including Louisiana 
homeowners groups, that have spoken and are educating people about this 
challenge. But in a Congress where it is hard to come to a consensus on 
singing happy birthday to one of our Members, which is unfortunate 
today, this is a real accomplishment for such a broad, deep, and strong 
coalition--bipartisan, bicoastal--to come together and pass a bill that 
will bring relief to millions and millions of families.
  This will be a great victory today. I believe we will have a strong 
vote in the Senate. I am confident of that. But we have work to do. 
This bill has to go to the House. Maxine Waters and Congressman Grimm 
from New York are leading this effort. We need all the Senators to talk 
with their delegations in the House and get them to really step up. We 
need a lot of communication to the Speaker to say: Mr. Speaker, this 
cannot wait. There is already too much time, too much anxiety, too many 
real estate agents being put out of business, too many for-sale signs 
coming down, too many people making decisions because they have lost 
equity in their home. It is time to fix this problem now, and we can.
  I thank Senator Merkley, who will be the subcommittee chair as this 
sort of new reform is written. And finally, I thank again Senator 
Menendez and Senator Isakson for their extraordinary knowledge of this 
subject, their leadership, and helping us get to the point where we 
are.
  I do not see any other colleagues on the floor. When I do, I will 
yield the floor. I understand Senator Toomey and Senator Menendez are 
going to come to close out this debate. But I do want to say again that 
the Biggert-Waters bill was built backwards and upside down. It 
authorized immediate rate increases on responsible homeowners without 
any understanding of how it would impact their individual policies.
  I want to also say this, Mr. President--and I think you have heard me 
speak about this both publicly and we have talked privately--the people 
in Louisiana who have been the victims and survivors of massive 
hurricanes and storms and levee breaks are well aware of the weather 
changes. We accept it as a reality. We are building our levees as fast 
as we can, with very little help over time. Now, after emergencies, the 
Federal Government comes in with a lot of money, but year in and year 
out we are having a very hard time getting any infrastructure from the 
Corps of Engineers budget, which is woefully underfunded for the whole 
country. And the Presiding Officer knows that because his communities 
suffer as well.
  We are building levees as fast as we can with a lot of our own money 
and a lot of our own tax dollars. We are raising our homes as fast as 
we can, elevating them. We are putting in new zoning, and people are 
very mindful of not developing low-lying areas. But we have to have 
policies that are well thought out and well balanced to accommodate 
communities that have literally been here for 300 years.
  New Orleans will be celebrating its 300th birthday in just a few 
years from now, in 2018. This is not about a group of people who went 
down there 20 years ago for Sun and for vacation. This is about people 
who came 300 years ago to secure the mouth of the greatest river system 
in North America and one of the greatest river systems in the world.
  This is not fun and games. This is work and empowerment and wealth 
building and opportunity that the President talked about the other day. 
That is what this bill is about.
  We need to start with building a flood program, partnershipped with 
the private sector, that works for average, middle-class families. We 
do not have that, and we are going to get the first step toward that 
today.
  I see my colleagues on the floor, so I am going to yield the floor. I 
know the time has been set aside. When we vote on the Toomey amendment, 
please vote a strong no. When we vote on final passage, please vote a 
strong yes. There are a few other amendments Senators Isakson and 
Menendez will speak to more directly, as we wrap up this debate today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, it is good to see my colleague from New 
Jersey presiding.
  I rise in support of this legislation we are about to consider, the 
Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, which, again, is unique 
insofar as it is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation, to 
ensure families will be able to afford flood insurance so they can stay 
in their homes, so that businesses can stay open, and property values 
will not plummet.


                           Amendment No. 2707

  I also rise in opposition to the Toomey substitute amendment, which 
would completely undermine our bill and perpetuate a failed policy. 
While we support putting the National Flood Insurance Program on a path 
to solvency, current law hikes rates so fast and so high that it will 
actually undermine the solvency of the program. These drastic increases 
will act as a de facto eviction notice for homeowners who have lived in 
their homes and played by the rules their entire lives. That is going 
to drive down property values, as the housing market is struggling to 
recover.
  What is most alarming is the fact that FEMA does not even know the 
size or scope of this problem. They were supposed to complete a study 
on the affordability of rate increases mandated by Biggert-Waters by 
last April, but they failed to do so. That is simply unacceptable.

[[Page S616]]

  While there is no question we need to put the flood insurance program 
on a more solvent trajectory, we first need to understand the impact 
these dramatic changes in Biggert-Waters will have on the housing 
market and be sure the mapping process they use to set these rates is 
accurate.
  That is why our bill would impose a moratorium on the phaseout of 
subsidies and grandfathers included in Biggert-Waters for most primary 
residences until FEMA completes the affordability study that was 
mandated in Biggert-Waters and proposes a regulatory framework to 
address the issues found in the study.
  Whether FEMA does that in 6 months, 1 year--whatever periods of 
time--as soon as they do that and propose that regulatory framework, we 
are ready to go. So those who say this is somehow an inordinate amount 
of time, that is going to be determined by FEMA's promptness in getting 
the affordability study that was supposed to have been done under law 
by last April.
  It would also require FEMA to certify in writing that it has 
implemented a flood mapping approach that utilizes sound scientific and 
engineering methodologies before certain rate reforms are implemented.
  The reason that is important is because, for example, we saw in New 
Jersey where FEMA maps were put out, and we ultimately heard a hue and 
cry from communities and counties across the State that said: Look, 
that can't be right. We have had properties that have never flooded. 
Even in Sandy they did not have virtually any flooding, and now they 
are in the zone, and particularly in the most difficult zones, called V 
zones, where the consequence of being in a V zone may very well be 
whether you can keep your house. When we challenged and brought 
municipal and county engineers to bear, what did we find? In some 
counties we had an 80-percent reduction. Had we not challenged those 
maps, where would those families be today? So we want the basis of 
these maps to be scientific, using engineering methodologies that are 
sound.
  Also, this new legislation would reimburse qualifying homeowners for 
successful appeals of erroneous flood map determinations. If we are 
going to say these maps are somehow sacrosanct, and you go and 
challenge them, and find out they were wrong, you should be able to not 
have to bear that burden.
  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. It would streamline the registration process for 
insurance brokers and agents so they can provide better timely services 
to policyholders during a disaster.
  Just as important as what this bill does is what it will not do. The 
legislation would not stop the phaseout of taxpayer-funded subsidies 
for vacation homes and homes that have been substantially damaged. It 
would not stop the phaseout of taxpayer-funded subsidies for properties 
that have been repetitively flooded, including the 1 percent riskiest 
properties that account for over a third of all claims. It would not 
encourage new construction in environmentally sensitive or flood-prone 
areas. And it would not stop most of the important reforms included in 
Biggert-Waters.
  This legislation reaches a delicate balance that recognizes the need 
to improve solvency and phase out certain subsidies but tries to do so 
without discouraging program participation.
  Finally, Senator Toomey acknowledges that Biggert-Waters, I think, is 
totally flawed and must be changed, but basically his amendment falls 
far short of what all of us who have come together in support will do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss briefly my amendment and 
the underlying bill. But first I want to thank my cosponsors--Senators 
Coats, McConnell, Coburn, Hatch, Kirk, and Johanns--and I want to thank 
the bipartisan coalition of Senators who are supporting my approach.
  There is a real problem with our flood insurance program as a result 
of the reforms, and it needs to be addressed. The problem is that, in 
the process of reforming this program so it would actually be 
sustainable--so that it actually could become solvent--in the process 
of making those changes, some people's premiums go up very dramatically 
and pretty suddenly. The phase-in is very quick and the increase is 
very high. That is a huge problem, and it needs to be addressed.
  The Menendez bill addresses it the wrong way. What this bill does is 
it does kill the meaningful reform. It completely suspends for 4 years. 
There is no adjustment of premiums toward an actuarially sound market-
based level of premiums that do not require taxpayer subsidy. So we 
will be going back--oh, it busts the budget, by the way--we will be 
going back to a system where literally Warren Buffett can buy a home, 
and as long as he makes it his primary residence, he can continue to 
have taxpayers subsidize his cost of flood insurance. I just do not 
know how that is even remotely defensible. But that is what we would be 
heading back to if we adopt the Menendez bill.
  In addition, by throwing out the reform, by throwing out the movement 
toward an actuarially sound system, we go right back to the insolvent, 
unsustainable program we had before, which means the NFIP, under the 
Menendez bill, will that much sooner reach the day when it cannot honor 
its claims, when the people who have been paying their insurance 
premiums discover there is no money to honor their claim when the flood 
occurs because it does not have the reforms that put it on a 
sustainable basis.
  Finally, it is flawed because it cannot become law. This approach is 
not going to become law. We know that. It is not just me who opposes 
this approach. The administration does not accept this approach. This 
is what the Statement of Administration Policy said that was put out 
this week by the President of the United States about this bill. He 
referred to this bill specifically and said:

       Delaying implementation of these reforms--

  referring to the Biggert-Waters reforms--

     would further erode the financial position of the NFIP, which 
     is already $24 billion in debt. This delay would also reduce 
     FEMA's ability to pay future claims made by all 
     policyholders.

  The Speaker of the House and the leadership in the House feel the 
same way. They are not willing to throw out the reforms and leave us 
with an NFIP that cannot honor its claims. They are not going to do it.
  So if you really want to do something for the people who are facing 
these big premium increases, you have to support a program, an approach 
that actually works. That is why I have offered this amendment. I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  What we do is simple. We phase in the premium increases gradually. 
For people facing a big premium increase, we phase it in very 
gradually. It gives people time to adjust, time to mitigate, time to 
challenge if the map is drawn wrong. They can do that. We preserve the 
important, valuable ideas in the Menendez bill, such as the ability to 
recoup the cost of a successful challenge to a mapping problem for an 
individual homeowner, also for a community. That is there. That is 
important.
  We preserve the opportunity to have the benefit and force NFIP to 
recognize the benefit of mitigation measures that have been taken by 
others. So if your community has built a levee or a dam or some kind of 
flood mitigation system, with or without Federal money, that needs to 
be acknowledged, that needs to be reflected. If your community, your 
home is safer because of that investment, your premium needs to reflect 
the fact that you have a safer situation. We cover that as well.
  Finally, the administration supports this approach. In the very same 
Statement of Administration Policy, President Obama's administration 
stated this:

       The Administration strongly supports a phased transition to 
     actuarially sound flood insurance rates.

  The Menendez bill absolutely does not do this. My amendment 
absolutely does because this is what makes sense. This is how we soften 
the blow. We create a reasonable transition and we maintain a fiscally 
sound, actuarially sound program that does not bust the

[[Page S617]]

budget. That is what my amendment does.
  Finally, let me just conclude with this. There are a lot of Members 
of this body on both sides of the aisle who have spent a lot of time, 
especially in recent years, in sincere, concerted ongoing efforts to 
address one of the biggest challenges we face as a country; that is, 
the fiscally unsustainable position of our Federal Government, driven 
by mandatory spending.
  We have cut discretionary spending significantly as a percentage of 
our budget, as a percentage of our economy. Any way you measure it, 
discretionary spending has been squeezed. Mandatory spending has been 
almost completely untouched. It is growing far too fast. Recently this 
body, including every Democrat who supports this Menendez bill, voted 
for a reform, a reform of one mandatory program that makes it 
sustainable, makes it viable.
  We should not be walking away. If we were at all serious about 
getting our mandatory spending under control, we should not walk away 
from this reform. Please, I urge my colleagues, support the Toomey 
amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there be will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 
2707, as modified, offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Toomey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is my 
understanding correct that Senator Toomey has used his minute as part 
of his presentation or is there a minute still pending for each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a minute still pending for each side.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I think I made my case. I will yield back 
the remainder of my last minute.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first of all, let me clear up some 
things. No. 1, the administration has not come and said it supports 
Senator Toomey's amendment. So let's be clear about that. As a matter 
of fact, my understanding is the administration has called him out and 
said they do not oppose our legislation.
  I think we do transition ultimately to a place where we have an 
actuarially sound flood insurance program. There is a CBO score out 
there of over 10 years of zero. Look. The reality is, if you want the 
real estate markets to take a real hit, if you want families to be 
displaced from their homes, you adopt the Toomey amendment.
  If you want to do what on a bipartisan basis has been the focus of 
this legislation, to keep an actuarially sound flood insurance program 
but at the same time make sure we do not drive people out of their 
homes and make sure that we get the study done before we get the 
actions done, then you will oppose the Toomey amendment and support the 
underlying bill.
  I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 65, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey

                                NAYS--65

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 2707), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2697

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on amendment No. 
2697 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what the sponsors claim about my amendment 
is factually incorrect. Their statement is that all the States and 
everybody wants to do the NARAB bill. I agree, we should do it, but if 
all the States really want to do it, my amendment has no effect 
whatsoever because it allows an opt-out for a State that doesn't want 
to do it. So either it is true that they all want to do it or it is not 
true that they all want to do it, and we are going to force some States 
to not do it.
  An opt-out protecting 10th Amendment privileges of the State is 
highly required to make sure we do not go outside the bounds of our 
legal obligations.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, we have been here before. Fifteen years 
ago, Gramm-Leach-Bliley offered what the good Senator from Oklahoma is 
offering, and it is why NARAB has never been successful.
  What this does is it empowers our State regulators, and that is why 
they support this bill. Notice you haven't heard a lot from States 
about taking away their rights here because it does not. It empowers 
them, it brings more competition in the marketplace, and it helps 
consumers. This is good.
  I kick it over to my cosponsor and the good Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I thank my cosponsor Senator Tester, and 
he is 1,000 percent right. We have been down this road. We have worked 
so hard to get everybody on board. States are on board. It does empower 
States. It does allow them to do what they need to do.
  I urge my colleagues to be a ``no'' vote on the Coburn amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, if this is true, with no opt-out, then why 
not do it for lawyers? Why not do it for doctors? Why not do it for 
every other thing that is licensed that would be better for consumers? 
To not give an opt-out is not right to the individual States.
  I support the bill; I just think we need to have a protection for the 
States. And the reason there is opposition to this is because there is 
obviously some people who don't agree that everybody is on board.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 75, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]

                                YEAS--24

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz

[[Page S618]]


     Enzi
     Flake
     Graham
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     Merkley
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Vitter

                                NAYS--75

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 2697) was rejected.


               Amendment No. 2709, as Modified--Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on amendment No. 
2709, as modified, offered by Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, in a moment I will ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw this amendment. I think there is a better way to 
tackle this particular issue. But I will use this moment to note for my 
colleagues that I appreciate all the Senators who have come to me to 
say they share the outrage at the exploitative, predatory pricing of 
force-placed insurance on our homeowners. This drives homeowners into 
foreclosure, which is not good for families, not good for the 
communities, and it is certainly not good for the U.S. Government 
because we insure the vast bulk of these mortgages. Therefore, if we 
are going to be responsible from an accounting sense for the investment 
of the U.S. taxpayer, this needs to be addressed.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment No. 2709, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, very briefly, I wish to thank the 
Senator from Oregon both for driving the issue and for working with us 
in the process to get to where he wants to be and where we can maximize 
our votes on this bill. I appreciate his courtesy and cooperation and 
look forward to working with him.


                           Amendment No. 2700



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S618, January 30, 2014, in the first column, the 
following language appears: AMENDMENT NO. 2730
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: AMENDMENT NO. 2700


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on amendment No. 
2700, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Heller.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S618, January 30, 2014, in the first column, the 
following language appears: The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the 
previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided 
prior to a vote on amendment No. 2730, offered .  .  .
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The PRESIDING 
OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of 
debate, equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 2700, 
offered .  .  .


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. HELLER. Madam President, let me be clear that my amendment simply 
clarifies existing law. I am trying to provide some clarity that 
private flood insurance can be a viable option for homeowners and 
businesses. Private insurers are already subject to regulations in each 
and every State by their insurance commissioners, and those insurance 
commissioners are the best regulators for ensuring proper consumer 
protection.
  So I ask my colleagues to support the Heller-Lee amendment so we can 
provide the American people with more competition, higher quality, and 
less cost when it comes to flood insurance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I have to oppose the Heller amendment. 
This amendment would weaken consumer protections and completely remove 
minimum standards with respect to private flood insurance policies. In 
particular, the amendment strips the requirement that the private 
policy has to be comparable to a national flood insurance policy, 
meaning that companies would be able to offer inadequate policies to 
consumers across the country without any requirements as to what is in 
the policy. For all of those who have talked about solvency, if you 
have insurance that doesn't meet a minimum standard to ensure that the 
consequences of flooding can be paid for by the policy, you want to 
vote against this amendment.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Heller amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 18 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     King
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--50

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 2700) was rejected.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S618, January 30, 2014, in the third column, the 
following language appears: The amendment was rejected.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The amendment (No. 
2700) was rejected.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support S. 1926, the Homeowner Flood 
Insurance Affordability Act.
  While the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act improved many 
aspects of the National Flood Insurance Program, it also resulted in a 
dire situation for a number of American families who suddenly found 
that their insurance rates would be doubled, tripled, or more. And it 
locked some families into homes they couldn't afford to insure but also 
couldn't afford to sell.
  Today's bill will fix many of these problems by allowing the use of 
the rate structure in place before passage of Biggert-Waters for some 
properties. In 4 years, when the Flood Insurance Program will be up for 
reauthorization, Congress will be able to look to the results of two 
new studies, called for in today's bill, for ways to make the Flood 
Insurance Program more equitable.
  While I am pleased that this fix is being implemented, I still have 
concerns about the Flood Insurance Program in general. Since the 
program's inception, Michigan residents have paid about six times more 
in premiums than they have received in claims. This inequity isn't fair 
for Michigan homeowners, and I believe we need to take action to 
resolve this issue.
  I had this inequity in mind in 2012 when we passed Biggert-Waters. I 
was hopeful that the bill's provisions allowing for the development of 
private flood insurance markets would result in lower, more equitable 
rates for Michigan residents. So it was important to me that any action 
we took today wouldn't make Michigan residents worse off than they are 
under current law. After consulting with my colleagues and FEMA, I have 
been assured that the bill before us would not prevent a homeowner's 
flood insurance rates from decreasing if that rate would have decreased 
under current law. I thank Senator Menendez for his assurances on this 
matter, and I appreciate him engaging in a colloquy with

[[Page S619]]

me that will be made part of the record.
  Again, the bill before us provides some relief for homeowners facing 
huge rate increases, while preserving rate decreases for homeowners 
that are currently eligible for them, and I am therefore supportive of 
this bill.

                          ____________________