[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17423-17428]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1197.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1197) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2014 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Levin-Inhofe) amendment No. 2123, to increase to 
     $5,000,000,000 the ceiling on the general transfer authority 
     of the Department of Defense.
       Reid (for Levin-Inhofe) amendment No. 2124 (to Amendment 
     No. 2123), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed 
     Services, with instructions, Reid amendment No. 2125, to 
     change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2126 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 2125), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2127 (to amendment No. 2126), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 
p.m. will be for debate only.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think everyone is aware that we have a 
lot of differences on both sides of the aisle. Quite frankly, I just 
had a meeting with some of the House people. There are some problems 
right now. I am anxious for Chairman Levin to come back, perhaps after 
our conferences, and I will do the same thing, and hopefully we will be 
able to do it. I understand there has already been a statement made 
about the Ayotte amendment on Guantanamo. She is ready to debate, and I 
think Senator Levin has a side-by-side amendment he is ready to debate 
as well. So that, in my opinion, is about as far as we have come as far 
as progress. I will withhold any other comments I will make until the 
chair has made his comments, which will probably be after lunch.
  By the way, I ask our Members to continue to file all amendments they 
have in anticipation that we will, as we have in the past, ultimately 
come to that conclusion, that we will have amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Senator Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1724 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we need to be moving forward with the 
Defense bill. It is very important. I am a member of Armed Services 
Committee, and we had a good bipartisan vote out of committee to bring 
the bill to the floor. Chairman Levin has been fair to us in committee, 
so we got a good committee process. But there are some disagreements 
over a number of issues that the full Senate needs to discuss and vote 
on. They just should be able to do that.
  We are drifting into a process that is absolutely contrary to the 
history of the Senate--the real concept of the U.S. Senate--where we 
bring matters up and vote on them. Just because it cleared our 
committee does not mean the full Senate does not get to vote on some of 
these differing opinions.
  I voted in the committee on a number of amendments that did not pass. 
We had amendments up in committee that we decided not to vote on, and 
the phrase was: Well, we will carry that to the floor. In other words, 
it will be brought up and the whole Senate will vote on it, not just 
the committee. Maybe in the interim something could be worked out. But 
if not, it would go to the full Senate, and the full Senate would work 
its will, would have its debate and vote.
  We are going days now with nothing happening, no amendments being 
voted on. They could have already been voted on. So Senator Reid has 
filled the tree, and that means he has complete control over the 
process. He has the ability to say we will not have a single amendment. 
In fact, except for, I think, two, all he has agreed to in this process 
is to have maybe two amendments up, and that is unacceptable. Senator 
Reid ought to know that. You cannot move the Defense bill of the United 
States of America, spending $500 billion, and not have amendments and 
Senators actually offering suggestions on how to spend that money 
better and do better for America. What are we here for?
  So I am really worried about this. I am afraid that this whole thing 
could collapse over the failure of amendments to be offered. I look 
here at a chart. Back, basically, when Republicans were in charge, we 
had 27 amendments, 25 amendments, 13 amendments actually voted on. The 
average number was 11.5 amendments voted on.
  We already have well over 100 amendments filed. Over half of them, 
two-thirds of them, will eventually be withdrawn or the managers of the 
bill will agree to some form of that suggestion with different language 
and we would move on. But we should have already started on amendments, 
and we should recognize that a good Defense bill is

[[Page 17424]]

going to require an open process where we can actually discuss how to 
fix it and make it better.
  In addition, we are facing, under the Budget Control Act and the 
sequester, some real financial challenges for the Department of Defense 
that are historic. It is significant. We need to be able to talk about 
that and work on that and try to figure out a way to strengthen the 
ability of the Defense Department to function in a rational way and not 
do unnecessary damage to them while they work to contain spending. That 
is a critical thing.
  So I would say to Senator Reid, who has a tough job--there is no 
doubt about that--Senator Reid, you should not attempt this dramatic 
reduction in the ability of the Senate to actually have amendments to a 
bill as large and as important as the Defense bill. You are 
overreaching, Senator Reid.
  We cannot agree to that. The loyal opposition, the Republican 
opposition--I say, the bill that came out of committee was bipartisan, 
overwhelmingly bipartisan, with a big vote in the committee. But there 
are things that need to be voted on here, and we are not going to agree 
to a handful of amendments. So if you try to move forward with this 
bill without allowing at least a legitimate amendment process, you are 
not going to go forward because we are not going to agree to go forward 
when you fill the tree and block amendments and have the power to deny 
amendments of any significant degree on the floor of the Senate.
  I am worried about that. I hope my friend, Senator Levin, and Senator 
Reed, who is here, and others, can talk with the majority leader and 
reason with him, and let's get on with the business of proceeding with 
these amendments and some actual debate about the future of America's 
defense posture because we do have challenges in the years to come--a 
lot different than we have had--and we need to reconfigure defense, and 
we need to be asking ourselves honestly and in a bipartisan way, what 
will we need to do in 15 years, what will we need to be doing in 2025.
  I had the honor to be at the Reagan Library this weekend for a 
national security conference dealing with what our defense structure 
should be in 2025. Senator Levin, along with former Secretary of 
Defense Gates, was given the first award they give for patriotic 
service. So our Armed Services chairman, let me note, was honored--our 
Democratic chairman--was honored at the Ronald Reagan Library for his 
commitment to national defense.
  But I am just saying, ladies and gentlemen, in a bipartisan way we 
need to be thinking about what our future defense policy should be. We 
need to be thinking about how to move this bill. But it will not move, 
and I will not support going to a bill that does not allow this Senate 
to have a reasonable opportunity to have amendments.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I have come to the floor today to 
moderate a colloquy between my colleagues for the next 20 minutes or so 
regarding a very important amendment that has been filed to the Defense 
authorization bill we are considering. The colloquy will be between 
myself, Senator Wicker, Senator Warren, Senator Cochran, Senator 
Hoeven, Senator Nelson, and Senator Merkley. I ask unanimous consent 
that we have the next 20 minutes to conduct the colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Flood Insurance

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I really appreciate the courtesies of 
the manager of the bill on the floor, Senator Reed. I really appreciate 
his courtesies because those of us who have come to the floor today to 
speak about this issue are extremely concerned about this problem that 
has presented itself based on a bill that was passed 2 years ago called 
Biggert-Waters. With all the best intentions, a bill was passed 2 years 
ago to try to fix and reform and reauthorize the Nation's Flood 
Insurance Program, which is a very important program that allows 
millions of people who live not just along the coast but along our 
rivers and bayous and streams--from coast to coast, inland and coastal 
communities--to live safely and to live affordably and to have flood 
insurance they can count on. That was the intention of the bill, but 
something went awry through the passage of the bill, and the 
consequences are devastating.
  Now, as we look back 2 years, and we see how FEMA and some of these 
Federal agencies are implementing the law we passed, we have some very 
serious concerns not only about how they are implementing it, but about 
the law itself.
  So a group of us have come together to change that law so we can 
provide opportunities for our families, for our individuals and our 
businesses, to be able to buy and keep the kind of flood insurance they 
need to stay in business and to keep their communities intact.
  In the last couple of weeks all we have heard about is health care 
insurance, and that is important, and we have some things to fix and 
move forward on, providing the country with a health care system they 
can depend on, but we also have a real challenge in flood insurance and 
affordability to our communities.
  In Louisiana alone we have 400,000 flood insurance policies. 
Florida--I see my good friend, Senator Nelson from Florida, on the 
floor. His State has the largest number of policies; followed by Texas, 
with the second largest number; and, of course, Mississippi has quite a 
few as well. Senator Wicker joins me on the floor.
  I want to start by showing this map I have in the Chamber so everyone 
who is following this debate--and there are literally millions of 
people following this debate; not only homeowners, business owners, but 
bankers, realtors, developers, et cetera--because if we do not get this 
right, these communities where you see these dots on the map, which are 
shown in the Mardi Gras colors--purple, gold, and green--these dots 
represent communities that are being affected by this program that 
needs to be changed and reformed.
  These are flood maps that are being issued. Look how many there are 
in Oregon, Washington, California, Texas. What really surprised me--
because I know the gulf coast well; that is the area, of course, that I 
represent, Louisiana; and I know Texas and Mississippi and Florida very 
well--but the area that surprised me was Pennsylvania and Illinois and, 
of course, New York, New Jersey, and the east coast because of 
Superstorm Sandy. But this is a national issue. It is not a Louisiana 
issue. It is not a gulf coast issue. It is a national issue.
  You will notice that these flood maps are not just along the coast. 
Some people say to us who are working on this: Well, I am not concerned 
because I do not represent a coastal State. Well, heads up, everyone. 
Even if you do not represent a coastal State, you are having flood maps 
issued from North Dakota, South Dakota, interior States, Kansas, 
Arkansas, et cetera, because you have rivers and flood zones.
  If we do not change this bill in a significant way--what we are 
asking for in the Menendez-Isakson bill, which we are here offering as 
an amendment to the defense authorization bill--many of these 
communities will be devastated. That is because the Biggert-Waters bill 
has mandated fairly steep and unsustainable and unaffordable--to the 
middle class--rate increases that will simply prevent people from being 
able to stay in their homes.
  My friend Senator Wicker is following me in this colloquy. He wants 
to speak specifically about the hardships that some of our people are 
experiencing as they are getting these notices about the rate 
increases. I ask Senator Wicker, what is he hearing in Mississippi? 
Could the Senator elaborate a minute about the unintended consequences 
of Biggert-Waters and the increases that some of our people are seeing 
in their primary homes as well as their businesses.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for 
asking that question.
  What I am hearing from Mississippi, and what I think we are going to 
be

[[Page 17425]]

hearing from all across the United States of America, is that this is 
about to be a disaster for property owners in the United States of 
America. So I join my colleagues today--and perhaps there will be 
others besides the three of us on the floor--in saying we need to 
address the very real problem of increases in flood insurance premiums, 
which will unfairly hurt homeowners and businesses in my home State of 
Mississippi and across the United States of America.
  I appreciate my colleague presenting the map to show that this is 
indeed a national problem and not just a regional or coastal problem. 
The severe onset of unaffordable rates--unaffordable rates--could have 
a devastating impact on the livelihood of homeowners and communities 
throughout the Nation and on our economy. Moreover, they could 
jeopardize the long-term solvency of the National Flood Insurance 
Program, which covers some 5.6 million Americans.
  There is no doubt that NFIP faces enormous challenges. The damages 
wrought by storms such as Katrina, Rita, and Sandy have left the NFIP 
in the red for nearly a decade, amounting to nearly $24 billion at the 
last count.
  In the early years of the NFIP, when bad storm years were roughly 
offset by light storm years, taxpayers effectively carried 
policyholders through years because of the NFIP's authority to borrow 
from the Treasury. However, the catastrophic 2004-2005 hurricane 
seasons put the program more than $20 billion in debt and disproved the 
notion that the finances would balance out over time.
  The principles for NFIP reform are worthy goals. Premiums need to 
reflect risks more accurately, flood risks must be projected and mapped 
more accurately, and the purchase of flood insurance needs to be 
encouraged and enforced in order to enlarge the risk pool.
  We cannot expect the NFIP to continue as a viable program without 
addressing the huge imbalance between premium revenue and payments for 
losses. At the same time, Congress cannot sit by in the face of these 
dramatic unaffordable rate increases facing many Americans.
  The manner in which these reforms are being implemented is alienating 
the very people the program is intended to help. The new rates penalize 
people who have followed the rules, while placing the heaviest burden 
on those who are only now recovering from recent disasters.
  In communities still recovering from recent Mississippi River 
flooding and in communities along the gulf coast, where the aftermath 
of Katrina still lingers, a financial burden of this magnitude could 
force homeowners either to leave their property unprotected or to move 
away altogether.
  Ensuring the long-term success of the NFIP means taking an honest 
look at how the reforms Congress enacted last year are being 
implemented and whether they are unfairly hurting citizens--and I 
contend they are. Allowing rates to go from a few hundred dollars to 
tens of thousands of dollars is hardly a reasonable approach to reform.
  Reform should not be unnecessarily painful, unfair, or 
counterproductive to the goal of solvency. Premium increases that make 
the coverage literally unaffordable could lead to a net loss in program 
revenue. Nobody benefits from that. Nobody benefits, neither the 
homeowner nor the taxpayer, when NFIP premium increases result in 
foreclosure.
  I am concerned that NFIP may well have overestimated net revenue 
increases. They may have underestimated the burden of the program going 
forward. That alone would be a good reason to delay the increases, if a 
longer phase-in would result in a net increase in revenue to the 
program, as I suspect it would.
  A delay would also allow time to study the effects of premium 
increases and it would allow us, as policymakers, to look for less 
harmful approaches to reform. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
should be able to complete an affordability study and ensure that its 
technologies and methodologies accurately assess risk.
  I thank my colleague from Louisiana and I thank my colleague from 
Florida for joining us. I urge all of my colleagues to support action 
that provides immediate relief to Americans facing these steep rate 
hikes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his comments 
and engaging in this exchange on the floor this morning.
  The Senator from Florida has been particularly concerned because 
Florida has a very robust population as one of our largest States. I 
think the Senator has over 2 million policies in Florida.
  Through the Chair, I wish to ask what the Senator is hearing in 
Florida about this situation.
  Mr. NELSON. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for inquiring.
  I can say that Federal flood insurance that is not affordable is not 
Federal flood insurance. To go from a position that one is paying rates 
at one level and all of a sudden go to a higher position, people are 
completely priced out of the market and all of the ancillary things 
that go with it because people can't sell their homes. When one puts 
that ripple effect through the entire economy, especially in a State 
such as mine that has more coastline than any State save for Alaska and 
where we have 40 percent of all the flood insurance policies.
  I dealt with this, I would say to the Senator from Louisiana, because 
in my former life I was the elected insurance commissioner of Florida. 
Fortunately, I had no jurisdiction over the Federal Flood Insurance 
Program, but other insurance companies that offered it privately or 
supplemented the Federal flood insurance we did have jurisdiction to 
regulate.
  People cannot build a house--if they are going to a bank to get a 
mortgage--unless they have flood insurance. Now that the maps, as the 
Senator has pointed out, have been expanded showing there are a lot 
more areas that are inundated by water, by flood, at times of the year, 
then this becomes, for the engine of commerce, a critical component. 
One can't be charging one price and suddenly say we are going to be 
charging people four times as much.
  Let us have a little common sense. A little common sense says we want 
FEMA to do an affordability study and, in the meantime, until we 
receive that study, we want this put on hold. It does not say it is not 
going to go up in the future, but availability of insurance is directly 
proportional to the ability of people to pay for that insurance and to 
continue the American dream, which home ownership is.
  I would ask if the Senator from Louisiana remembers how long we have 
been trying to get this going. To the great credit of the Senator from 
Louisiana, who has taken the lead, she saw the problem early before 
people started complaining in my State and other States. They were 
complaining in the State of Louisiana. Senator Landrieu was on top of 
it. We have only been doing this for about 8 months. We have a vehicle 
on the floor that is a must-pass vehicle. It is the Defense 
authorization bill. We need to get this legislation amended onto it and 
have it signed into law.
  I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Florida.
  The Senator is correct about urgency. As the Presiding Officer knows, 
in her own home State, we are hearing from people who are stuck 
literally between a rock and a hard place because they can't get their 
insurance renewed. They can't afford the premium increases.
  If they were thinking about selling their home, their home basically 
has become literally worthless, losing what equity they have--
temporarily we hope because we intend to fix this--because no one can 
purchase a home if the flood insurance went from $300 a year to $13,000 
or $15,000 a year. It is affecting home ownership.
  This is why I am proud to say--I see the Senator from Mississippi on 
the floor.
  I wish to say how grateful I am to the great coalition of Senators 
who have come together, 24 Senators and 128 House Members. In addition, 
we have the National Association of Realtors, the National Association 
of Home Builders, and the Independent Community Bankers of America.

[[Page 17426]]

  I wish to ask the Senator from Mississippi, through the Chair, does 
the Senator think we have a better chance of getting attention for our 
bill with the national strong support of the realtors, the 
homebuilders, and the bankers?
  What is the Senator hearing from them in his State of Mississippi?
  Mr. COCHRAN. If the distinguished Senator would yield, I would be 
pleased to respond.
  It is a fact that the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, 
which we are discussing, seeks to protect homeowners from increases in 
the cost of flood insurance premiums until the administration reviews 
and reports to the Congress on the flood mapping technologies, 
methodologies, and insurance affordability that are being issued under 
the authority of existing laws.
  One problem we are concerned about is that the program was supposed 
to protect taxpayer investments, communicate perceived flood risks to 
homeowners, and encourage communities to protect themselves against 
flood risks.
  The reform legislation enacted in 2012 made some positive changes in 
the program. Today some of those changes are now working in opposition 
to the broader goals of reform; hence, the importance of this 
legislation. These shortcomings existed in the law and they actually 
threaten to weaken the National Flood Insurance Program.
  The success of flood insurance is so important to many inland and 
coastal States, such as mine and Louisiana, the State of the 
distinguished Senator. Communities there continue to work to overcome 
damages caused by the greatest natural disaster in our Nation's 
history, the effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010 and now 
skyrocketing flood insurance premiums.
  Under the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, the 
administration would be required to provide assurances to Congress that 
it is using sound mapping methods to make flood insurance rate 
determinations. A study by the National Academy of Science produced in 
March of this year has called into question some of the engineering 
practices the government uses to determine rates.
  Before allowing unaffordable flood insurance rates to devalue private 
property and harm local communities and economies, we should be 
absolutely sure the government's engineering practices and procedures 
are as sound as possible. It will be very difficult to rebuild 
communities or restore home equity once they are lost, so we had better 
get it right.
  Our bill does not create new programs to address rising premiums. It 
simply leaves in place some current practices so we can make sure the 
reproductive reforms we enacted last year will actually improve the 
credibility of the program among communities and homeowners.
  Our bill would not affect positive reforms related to expanding 
program participation or the phaseout of subsidized flood insurance 
premiums for vacation homes and homes that have a history of repeated 
flooding.
  My principal purpose of coming to the floor was to thank the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana for her leadership as she 
continues to be our outfront person in dealing with some of the very 
challenging facts and decisions that are coming from those who are 
trying to improve the program at the Federal level but also at the 
State and local level, which is where the action is. I am pleased to 
join her in this plea to the Senate.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. I 
appreciate his hard work as well as the staff. It has been a real team 
effort and without him we wouldn't be where we are today.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is scheduled next in this colloquy. 
She has brought a particularly spectacular view, a different view, and 
a much needed view from the east coast, not only in light of the 
devastation from Hurricane Sandy but the ongoing challenges to that 
region.
  I wish to ask unanimous consent, as it is 12:30 p.m., when we were 
supposed to end, if each of us takes 4 minutes in the order of Senator 
Warren, Senator Hoeven, and Senator Merkley, we could then recess for 
lunch as was required earlier.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. What is the Senator hearing at home from the people of 
Massachusetts about this, and how important does she think it is for us 
to have the support of the realtors and the homebuilders and other 
national organizations that understand the dire consequences if we are 
not able to get some of these fixes in place?
  Ms. WARREN. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for the question, but 
most of all I thank her for her energetic leadership on this issue; she 
will help us find the right way forward.
  I am here today because of what I am hearing from families in 
Massachusetts. I also thank the Senator from Mississippi. This is 
something that is hitting us all around the country--this change in the 
flood maps. So I am here today to support my colleagues' bipartisan 
efforts to help homeowners across the country who are getting hit with 
newly revised flood maps and increased flood insurance premiums.
  Families purchase flood insurance to prevent the loss of their homes 
during a natural disaster, but now many of these same families fear 
that the price of flood insurance could be just as devastating and 
could actually cost them their homes.
  I understand why Congress changed the national flood program to more 
accurately reflect the true costs and risks of flood damage, and I 
agree that over time we need to move to a more market-based system for 
setting flood insurance rates, providing we adequately take into 
account the affordability concerns for working families. But that is 
not what is happening right now. These new maps and rate increases are 
having as big an impact as a big storm.
  When FEMA released these flood maps earlier this year and last, they 
knew they were placing hundreds of thousands of homeowners into a flood 
zone for the very first time. Yet there was inadequate warning to 
homeowners. Many have started receiving letters from their mortgage 
companies and are learning for the first time that they must now 
purchase flood insurance. We have heard about the costs--$500, $1,000 a 
month, even more. Most hard-working families and most seniors don't 
have that kind of extra money on hand to spend on flood insurance 
premiums they never knew they needed.
  One Massachusetts resident wrote to me and said:

       I have owned my property for over 33 years. Twelve years 
     ago I built a house according to the codes at the time. 
     Recently, flood maps were redrawn, putting my home in a new 
     flood zone and out of compliance. The implementation of the 
     Biggert-Waters act is going to raise our flood insurance to 
     $10,000 or more per year. I follow the rules, and now the 
     rules are changing, leaving me few options to comply.

  The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act that I have 
cosponsored along with Senator Landrieu and so many others will provide 
relief to this homeowner and to others who built to code and were later 
remapped into a higher risk area. This critical bill will delay rate 
increases until FEMA completes affordability studies mandated by the 
Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act and until subsequent 
affordability guidelines are enacted.
  There is a second problem with FEMA's actions. The reclassifications 
have taken place in some areas without a careful and complete analysis, 
but for those who believe they haven't been correctly classified, it is 
a tough challenge to get their flood zone status changed.
  I received another letter from a Massachusetts constituent who lives 
in Brockton. She was informed that her only way out of this mess was to 
pay more than $1,000 for an engineer to come and conduct an elevation 
study of a nearby brook. Now, let's be clear. She had to spend this 
money even though the city of Brockton and the nearby Army Corps of 
Engineers have no record of the brook ever flooding. If her appeal is 
successful, she is still out $1,000 due to FEMA's mistake.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

[[Page 17427]]


  Ms. WARREN. Then I will just say I am pleased to join my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle in calling for this commonsense delay which 
will give FEMA time to get this right. I thank Senator Landrieu for her 
leadership, and I thank Senators Menendez, Isakson, Cochran, and all 
the cosponsors of this bill. Time is running out. We need to get this 
done.
  I yield back.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank the Senator so much.
  Senator Hoeven has joined us, and he has been particularly forceful 
on the issue of basements in a State that doesn't have an ocean 
anywhere around it but has some serious flooding challenges. I would 
hope the Senator would take a minute to explain to everyone what he has 
been telling us and how important this particular piece of this bill is 
for the basement situation in his State.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank the good Senator from Louisiana. 
I am very pleased to join in this colloquy with my cosponsors of this 
very important piece of legislation.
  This is about affordability of home ownership. The American dream is 
about home ownership. It always has been, and we want to make sure that 
continues. So it is about affordability, but it is also about getting 
it right.
  Look, if we are going to reset flood insurance rates, we need to get 
it right. This affects people across this great Nation. It affects 
their ability to own and continue to own their own home. We need to 
make sure, as we make this transition, which we are all working on--we 
are all working on it--that we get it right. So that is why we see this 
bipartisan legislation, and we urge our colleagues to join us in this 
effort. This is about home ownership, this is about affordability, and 
this is about getting it right.
  To the point the good Senator from Louisiana just made and as the 
Chair knows well, in the great State of North Dakota we have the Red 
River Basin, the Cheyenne River Basin, we have the James River Basin, 
we have the Missouri River Basin, the Devils Lake Basin, and more. So 
we know flooding, and we have seen it from year to year.
  There are a number of provisions in this bill which the Senator has 
already identified which are critically important, and I will not 
repeat those, but I wish to focus for a minute on the basement 
exemption.
  Legislation to preserve the basement exemption was included in the 
Hoeven-Heitkamp Flood Safe Basements Act, S. 1601. That has been 
incorporated into this bill. As sponsors, we appreciate that very much 
because this is a collaborative effort to get it right as we make this 
transition in flood insurance rates and make sure we protect the 
affordability on a fair basis as we move to financial viability for the 
long term for flood insurance rates.
  When a homeowner has put the cost into making sure they have a flood-
proof basement, if we don't take that into account in the insurance 
rates, we are penalizing them and we are charging them twice. It makes 
no sense. It makes no sense at all. That is why we have to have the 
basement exemption continued in this legislation, and that is why its 
sponsors, on a bipartisan basis, are not only pursuing this as stand-
alone legislation, but we are also introducing it as an amendment to 
the Defense authorization bill or other legislation that can move, 
because we need to address it and we need to address it now.
  As the Chair well knows, the mayor of a small community in northeast 
North Dakota, which has seen repeated flooding, contacted our 
congressional delegation and said: Hey, look. What is going on with 
FEMA right now is they are changing these flood insurance rates, and we 
have examples of homeowners who are going from less than $1,000 a year 
to more than $5,000 a year--a fivefold increase--and it is not a new 
home. The home has been there a long time and it has never been 
flooded.
  It has never been flooded, and they are going to go from less than 
$1,000 to $5,000 on a home that has been there for a long time and 
never been flooded? That is not how this is supposed to work. That is 
not how it is supposed to work, and that is why we need this 
legislation.
  Again, I thank the good Senator from Louisiana. All of the sponsors--
and we have a great bipartisan group going already--urge our colleagues 
to join us, and we urge them to join us without delay. We seek a common 
objective: We will adjust the flood insurance rates to make sure the 
program is viable for the long term, but we need to get it right, and 
that is what this is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, we have all been extremely helpful, of 
course, as a team in bringing this issue forward and crafting a bill, 
but literally we would not be here if it were not for the leadership of 
the subcommittee chairman who has jurisdiction over this issue--if he 
had not said yes when we asked him for a hearing in his committee to 
allow us to present the facts in hopes that we could find a way, as all 
of us have said, to make this program self-sustainable for the 
taxpayers but helpful to the people who need it. These are twin goals, 
both of which must be met or there won't be any program because no one 
will be able to afford to be in it. I thank the Senator for getting to 
that so quickly.
  He is the last in our colloquy. Again, what is he hearing from home 
and can he give us, as chair of the subcommittee, some insight into how 
he thinks this will affect real estate markets if we are not able to 
fix this.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I thank my colleague from Louisiana for her tireless 
efforts in this regard. We can tell from the commentaries that have 
just been put forward from the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator 
from Mississippi, the Senator from North Dakota, of course our 
colleague from Louisiana, and now representing Oregon, that these are 
folks representing blue States and red States and all types of 
different terrains, and they have the common purpose of addressing the 
dysfunction of the Biggert-Waters bill that was passed.
  Just to give a small feeling for this, the Hay family from Eagle 
Creek, OR, wanted to sell their home. They had a nice young couple with 
solid financials who wanted to buy it. It was all approved except for 
the insurance policy. When the couple found out the insurance policy 
would not be the $500 the current family has been paying but $5,000 a 
year, the deal fell apart because for every $1,000 you pay in flood 
insurance, the value of the home drops by $20,000. So not only is the 
couple who wanted this home unable to buy it because of the home's 
value dropping, but the family who owned the home, who had equity in 
the home, and who hoped to take these funds into retirement to be their 
nest egg, has lost that nest egg due to these outrageous additional 
costs, these dramatic increases.
  So the point of sale is one particular problem that has a big impact 
on the real estate market, but we also have the situation of someone 
who has a policy lapse. Maybe an individual thinks their mortgage 
company is paying the policy, the mortgage company thinks the owner is 
paying it, and it defaults for a few days. When everyone finds out no 
one has paid the bill, suddenly that family might be going, in that 
situation, from $500 to $5,000. Or perhaps the mortgage company has 
never enforced the provision requiring flood insurance and now they 
have checked their records--and they are checking their records because 
they are now being charged a significant multithousand-dollar fine if 
they do not check their records--and they find you should have flood 
insurance under the law but you don't, so they contact you. Well, now 
you are facing this unsubsidized rate as a new policy.
  So we have all of this, and then layered on top of that is the fact 
that across the Nation the flood zones are being remapped. So folks who 
were outside of the 100 years and have been outside and have had their 
homes for 15 years are suddenly getting notified that they are inside 
the flood zone and required by their mortgage company to get a policy.
  They may say: But wait, I looked at the map, and only the corner of 
my property is in the flood zone and my house isn't.
  Well, the mortgage company says: We are sorry. You have to get this, 
and

[[Page 17428]]

you have to then prove you are not in the flood zone.
  It may cost those homeowners thousands of dollars to get an elevation 
survey and be able to demonstrate they are outside the flood zone. The 
homeowner carries this burden of proof.
  So this is a big challenge, and we should recognize how uncertain and 
what an art form it is to establish these 100-year zones because a 
company comes in and does a model, and they say: Well, a 100-year flood 
will look like this, and they will point out what tributary, what 
watershed that contributes to the confluence of creeks is going to end 
up flooding that particular town.
  Based on their model, the flood zone might look as though it is in 
the eastern section of the town or the western section of the town, and 
so on and so forth, that uncertainty where just inches can change 
whether you are inside a 100-year or outside a 100-year. Some of these 
areas are very flat. A few inches water rise can cover many additional 
square miles, and this can have a huge impact on our business 
districts, because what business wants to reinvest in a business 
district when now they feel that any improvements they make are going 
to be in an area where no one else is going to want to buy their 
company because they are in a situation where they have unaffordable 
flood insurance.
  This is why we have come together--Democrats and Republicans, States 
from the North, South, East, and West coming together--to say we must 
change this situation which is creating so much unfairness and economic 
damage. I am delighted, as the chair of the subcommittee, to be fully 
engaged in partnering this. A special thanks to my colleague, the 
Senator from Louisiana, who is doing such a fine job of championing 
this issue.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Our time has come to an end. In conclusion, I thank the 
Senator from Oregon again, the subcommittee chair, for his leadership. 
I also particularly thank Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson, the two 
lead sponsors of this bill, who have come together to provide the 
leadership to move this bill forward. They will be looking for a 
vehicle. We filed it on this bill in the event we have an opportunity 
for an amendment on the Defense bill. If not, we will be looking for 
the next possible opportunity.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for her cosponsorship and her 
leadership for North Dakota.
  This is a map of all the counties which have levees. I was surprised 
when I saw this map. I am very familiar with the levees in Louisiana. I 
helped to build a lot of them. I am very familiar with the Mississippi 
River generally because we have so much commerce along the Mississippi. 
I am generally familiar with Missouri, Illinois, and Arkansas. But what 
really stood out for me was the levee systems in Montana, Arizona, and 
California. A lot of these are levees, dikes, and dams that are 
different from the river levees that we see. But look at Pittsburgh, 
New York, North Dakota, Montana, Washington. There is not a place in 
this country--not on the coast, not on the interior--that doesn't have 
a threat of flooding. Either a levee can break, a dam can break, a 
river can overflow, or there can be flash flooding because of droughts. 
Even in Texas where there is a lot of flash flooding. So not only on 
the coast, but inland as well, in Kansas.
  The conclusion is this is a real challenge for our whole Nation. We 
have a bill led by Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson that costs and 
scores zero. We have written this bill in a way that just postpones 
these draconian rate increases so we can take a little more time to 
study it, do some modeling, and get it right. This bill was passed with 
very good intentions, but prematurely, without the data we need to make 
smart decisions for our communities. This is giving us time to get it 
right. There is zero cost the way this bill is structured.
  Again, I appreciate the courtesies of our leader managing this bill 
on the floor.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________