[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S342-S344]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       State of the Union Address

  Madam President, on another matter, this last week, President Biden 
spoke at his State of the Union Address about the looming debt crisis, 
but instead of a plea for unity and bipartisanship and working 
together, he turned it into political fearmongering and finger-
pointing. He even suggested that Republicans wanted to cut funding for 
Social Security and Medicare, on which millions upon millions of 
seniors depend--something that could not be further from the truth. You 
might call it the Big Lie.
  Speaker McCarthy is leading debt ceiling discussions for Republicans, 
and he has been absolutely clear that these programs are not on the 
chopping block. As the American people witnessed last Tuesday evening, 
Republicans all agree on this point. Social Security and Medicare are a 
lifeline for seniors and some of the most vulnerable people in our 
country, and these programs are not going anywhere, period.
  But what the President and our Democratic colleagues have failed to 
acknowledge is that the status quo is not sustainable, particularly 
when it comes to Social Security. We are told by the actuaries that 
unless Congress does something, Social Security and Medicare will 
become insolvent and incapable of paying the benefits upon which 
millions of seniors depend.
  I have to ask whether the President, by this fearmongering, made it 
easier or harder for us to work together to meet our responsibilities 
and to eliminate the threat of insolvency, which we are on a path to if 
Congress does nothing. Did the President make it more likely that 
Republicans and Democrats would work together to provide for the 
solvency and survival of Social Security or Medicare by fearmongering 
and finger-pointing? I think we all know he did not.
  Projections show that Social Security recipients will see a reduction 
of almost 25 percent in their benefits if nothing changes. So we know 
we have to do something. Texans who live on a fixed income cannot 
handle a 25-percent cut. They are already struggling

[[Page S343]]

to keep up with inflation as things are, which is now about 6\1/2\ 
percent. That is essentially a pay cut for the American people, thanks 
to the spending of our Democratic colleagues and this administration. 
But a 25-percent reduction is absolutely unfathomable. Given the strong 
bipartisan support for Social Security that we saw last week, I hope we 
will all agree that we can't allow these programs to run out of money.
  There is a clear bipartisan desire to save Social Security. Last 
Congress, Senator Romney of Utah and Senator Manchin of West Virginia 
introduced the TRUST Act to rescue Social Security. I was proud to 
cosponsor that legislation, and I hope it will gain some momentum this 
year.
  Unfortunately, the White House has already slammed the door on that 
possibility once again. We see a trend here, where instead of engaging 
in a bipartisan manner with Members of Congress to try to solve 
problems, the President just makes things harder and less likely for 
that consultation and that cooperation to occur.
  The White House spokesman even described commissions like the one the 
bill would create as ``a death panel for Social Security and 
Medicare.'' Yet four decades ago, then-Senator Biden voted for Social 
Security reforms proposed by what he now refers to as a ``death 
panel,'' and those reforms extended the program for another 50 years.
  Two years ago, the Senate voted on Senator Romney's TRUST Act as an 
amendment to the Democrats' reckless budget, and it actually passed by 
a vote of 71 to 29. That is more than 20 of our Democratic colleagues 
who voted for it--a strong bipartisan vote, 71 to 29.
  It is completely irresponsible for the President to claim that 
Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare and then demagogue 
the very bipartisan efforts to protect the longevity of these programs. 
How shameful and irresponsible is that?
  Whether or not the President will admit it, he knows that Social 
Security is operating on borrowed time. We need to ensure its long-term 
success, and the TRUST Act is a great starting point for conversations 
to do just that.
  Of course, this is just one small part of the major changes we need 
to see to get our fiscal house in order. The national debt is now $31.5 
trillion. Congress can't raise the debt limit and continue to borrow 
and spend like there is no tomorrow. Interest on that $31 trillion debt 
approaches $1 trillion a year. That means more and more of the 
discretionary spending that we need in order to defend our country or 
to support other priorities goes up in smoke because we have to pay 
interest on that $31.5 trillion in borrowed money.
  Yes, we do need to avoid a debt crisis, and no one in Congress wants 
us to default on our debts, but we also need to enact broader reforms 
to change the trajectory of this out-of-control spending.
  Last week, I was proud to join with Senator Hyde-Smith of Mississippi 
in introducing an amendment to the Constitution that would require a 
balanced budget. I have authored and voted for similar legislation in 
the past, and I believe that this is a critical component to smart 
spending reforms.
  Families, businesses, and State and local governments all have no 
choice but to balance their budgets. If there is not money coming in 
the front door, they can't spend it out the back door--unless, of 
course, you are the Federal Government and you print money. The Federal 
Government is the only glaring exception to this commonsense financial 
practice, and we are seeing the consequences.
  The national debt has skyrocketed from $3.2 trillion in 1980 to $9.7 
trillion in 2000 and then to $31.5 trillion today. It has more than 
tripled since 2000. It is past time to take action to address this 
growing debt crisis, and there is real-world evidence that balanced 
budgets work.
  Every State in the Nation, including Texas, has one, and we are far 
from operating in the red like the Federal Government. In fact, Texas 
has gone into the current legislative session with a $33 billion 
surplus. You don't do that by borrowing money and forcing your children 
and grandchildren to pay the bills. You do it by responsible budgeting. 
I have always been a proponent of taking the Texas model nationwide, 
and this is an example of my State's smart fiscal policies in action 
that the Federal Government needs to emulate.
  One of the earliest lessons we teach our children is about only 
spending the money that you have and not spending money you don't have. 
It is time to apply that same commonsense logic to the Federal 
Government.
  I appreciate Senator Hyde-Smith's leadership on this bill, and I am 
proud to be one of the 23 cosponsors and would invite all of our 
colleagues to consider joining us in cosponsoring this legislation.
  You might wonder: Is this some Republican trick or not?
  Well, it is interesting to note that the current occupant of the 
White House, President Biden, voted for a balanced budget amendment 
when he was a Member of the U.S. Senate, and he didn't just do it once. 
He didn't just do it twice. He did it three times.
  Then-Senator Biden voted for a balanced budget amendment in March of 
1995, when the debt was $4.9 trillion. In June of 1996, he voted for a 
balanced budget amendment when the debt was $5.1 trillion. And in March 
of 1997, when the debt stood at $5.4 trillion, Joe Biden--then-Senator 
Biden--voted for a balanced amendment to the Constitution.
  My Republican colleagues have offered a range of proposals to rein in 
the national debt and to get America's spending habits in check, and 
all of these ideas should be part of a serious discussion to address 
this crisis.
  If you strip away the agreements about how we got here and the best 
path forward, there is one unavoidable truth: When it comes to 
finances, the United States is on an unsustainable course. The national 
debt will haunt every generation until leaders show enough courage to 
make tough choices and fix this mess, and I can't think of any better 
time than now.
  I hope President Biden will stop the fearmongering and stop the 
demagoguing and take this crisis seriously. Republicans and Democrats 
alike want to avoid a debt crisis, but so far we haven't taken the 
necessary steps to rein in the irresponsible spending and to support, 
sustain, and save important programs like Social Security and Medicare 
for future generations.
  These are popular, commonsense goals, and I hope that our Democratic 
colleagues will stop playing politics and start talking about the 
solutions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Louisiana.


            National Flood Insurance Program Risk Rating 2.0

  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, the National Flood Insurance Program 
Risk Rating 2.0 has officially been in effect for almost a year, and 
families in Louisiana are feeling the unfolding disaster.
  We are not talking about a storm or a flood, which the National Flood 
Insurance Program is supposed to protect against. We are talking about 
the financial crisis unfolding at kitchen tables. Families cannot 
afford the premium hikes that the NFIP is planning with Risk Rating 
2.0. For some, the premiums have become unaffordable and threaten the 
collapse of the value of their home.
  For now, rate hikes are capped at 18 percent per year, but these 
compound year after year. So for the couple who has lived in their 
house for decades, they are not thinking, OK, it is only 18 percent. 
No, they are thinking it is 18 percent compounded upon 18 percent. And 
they don't have a plan to move: Oh, let's escape from it. This is where 
they have been for decades. Eighteen percent compounds and adds up very 
quickly.
  This is not fiction. These are real stories that I hear from folks in 
Louisiana--great Americans, great Louisianians who love our country--
and they are wondering what in the heck is going on.
  An example is the Bourgeois family, an elderly couple in Raceland. 
They both turned 83 last year. They have owned their home for 56 years. 
It has never been in a flood zone, and it has never flooded. Before 
Risk Rating 2.0, they paid $500 a year in flood insurance premiums. 
After Risk Rating 2.0, they are scheduled to pay, when fully in effect, 
$500 per month--from $500 a year to $500 per month.

[[Page S344]]

  Their full risk premium will reach almost $6,300 in 14 years, but 
their annual payment will double in the fourth year.
  So how many 83-year-old retired couples do you know who can afford an 
extra $5,800 in expenses just like that?
  The holiday season just passed. I am sure the Bourgeois family--we 
have big families in South Louisiana--had their children, 
grandchildren, nieces, and nephews. But I am sure there is extra 
budgeting this year.
  Families should not have to spend holidays budgeting for this kind of 
increase in flood insurance premium when they have never flooded. That 
is the crazy thing about it. They have never flooded, and these are the 
premium increases that they are seeing.
  Now, families across Louisiana and in America's coastal communities--
not just in Louisiana--are finding themselves in a similar situation to 
the Bourgeois'. By the way, Louisiana has been hard hit by hurricanes 
over the last few years: Ida, Delta, Zeta, and Laura. Folks in my State 
are still recovering, and they are responsible for maintaining their 
insurance. But with Risk Rating 2.0, it feels like the Biden 
administration is kicking them when they are trying to get back on 
their feet.
  So it begs the question: Why is the administration allowing Risk 
Rating 2.0 to take effect?
  Congress never required FEMA to implement this. President Biden can 
stop it with a stroke of the pen. He has the power. He should have 
asked FEMA to delay or cancel the implementation of Risk Rating 2.0 or 
to reconsider it altogether.
  Throughout the process, though, FEMA has not only been slow to share 
information with policyholders, they have stonewalled Members of 
Congress. They are not being upfront about the costs to policyholders. 
Homeowners did not get significant information from FEMA until less 
than a month before Risk Rating 2.0 began to be implemented, and now 
many Louisiana policyholders are getting notices in the mail of their 
new risk premiums. Folks in my State, they feel blindsided. The 
Bourgeois family was blindsided when they got a notice that their full 
premium will go from $500 a year to $6,295.
  We are here to serve the American people. And in case folks think, 
no, this is not true, they can look at this property--Four Point Drive, 
Raceland, LA--and they can see that it has never flooded. They can see 
that this is a single family, a main dwelling. They can see that it is 
a modest home; it is not a big mansion. The Bourgeoises are not 
millionaires. And then they can see the premium they have to pay. They 
can see that there are no discounts being applied and that their 
premium eventually grows to that full-risk premium.
  Now, it is not just this family with this; I have a dozen more 
insurance bills from constituents showing massive premium hikes through 
no fault of their own. They are penalized just for living where their 
families have lived for generations. With Risk Rating 2.0, FEMA has put 
them into an impossible situation.
  Now, by the way, families are now choosing to drop out of the program 
because they can't afford the premium. The pool of homeowners is 
becoming smaller, leaving those subject to the mandatory requirement to 
buy insurance worse off. Those who are required to own are now faced 
with the difficult task of coming up with thousands more to pay their 
insurance or lose their mortgage.
  FEMA knows this is going to happen. They know that up to 20 to 25 
percent of those policyholders will drop their policies because they 
cannot afford them. That has the potential to put this into what is 
called an actuarial death spiral, where the risk is placed upon fewer 
and fewer; therefore, premiums go up even greater and greater; 
therefore, more and more have to drop. If the intent is to destroy the 
program, to not help Americans in times of flooding, this policy could 
not be done more effectively.
  There has to be another option. Congress has taken steps to avoid 
major flooding in the future. Louisiana has already received over $680 
million for coastal restoration, flood, and waterway projects from the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It is already delivering on its 
promises.
  When I was helping to negotiate the bill, I had those Louisiana 
families in mind. What can we do to lower their risk of flooding--
which, by the way, then helps everyone else in our country--to help 
make this Flood Insurance Program more affordable and sustainable?
  Now, the second half of helping these families is ensuring that they 
are not forced to move because of unaffordable flood insurance 
premiums. Flood insurance must always remain affordable and accessible 
to the homeowner, accountable to the taxpayer, and sustainable for the 
future. Only President Biden has the power to change that now, which he 
has the responsibility to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I ask permission to complete my 
remarks prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.