[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.
____________________