[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1810-1824]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 HOMEOWNER FLOOD INSURANCE AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 294.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 294, S. 1926, a bill 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.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, at 5:30 p.m. there will be a rollcall vote 
on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the flood 
insurance bill.


                Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 1950

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am told that S. 1950 is at the desk and 
due for a second reading.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bill by 
title for the second time.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1950) to improve the provision of medical 
     services and benefits to veterans, and for other purposes.

  Mr. REID. I would object to any further proceedings with respect to 
this bill at this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection having been heard, the 
bill will be placed on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV.


                            Flood Insurance

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I announced earlier, today the Senate 
will vote at 5:30 to advance legislation which will protect millions of 
homeowners and small businesses from drastic increases in flood 
insurance premiums. This bipartisan measure will save many homeowners 
thousands of dollars a year and protect America's recovering housing 
market.
  Since higher premiums would kick in whenever a home is sold, still 
struggling housing markets across the country could stumble if Congress 
allows flood insurance rates to skyrocket. That will happen if we don't 
move this legislation.
  The bill before the Senate will preserve current rates until the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency submits a plan to keep premiums 
reasonable and provide stability to home and business owners.
  I wish to thank Senators Menendez and Landrieu, as well as Senator 
Isakson, for their leadership on this issue. Their bill will cut 
through the redtape and give consumers better, cheaper options when 
they shop for insurance.
  So I hope the Senate can wrap up work quickly on this measure. We 
have tried for weeks to get agreement to move forward on it, but we are 
never quite there. Always there are requests to give a little more 
time. That time has run out. Homeowners deserve certainty, and the 
Senate faces a substantial workload over the next 3 weeks.
  Tomorrow, President Obama will address Congress and the Nation in his 
annual State of the Union address. I, like the American people, look 
forward to hearing the President's vision to create an economy in which 
the middle class grows and prospers, because every individual should 
have a fair shot at success.
  The Senate must also consider a number of critical national security 
and judicial nominations in the coming weeks. With the help of my 
Republican colleagues, we could process these nominations swiftly and 
painlessly--without late night or weekend votes. As always, it will 
depend upon the level of cooperation we receive from the Republicans.
  This work period the Senate will also consider a farm bill conference 
report. This legislation is a compromise that was reached thanks to the 
leadership of Chairwoman Stabenow, and it will reduce the deficit and 
cut waste and fraud, all while protecting hungry children and families.
  The Senate will also debate legislation to effectively prevent and 
punish sexual assault in the Nation's Armed Forces, and we have 
competing views of this with Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand.
  Democrats will continue our fight to restore benefits to 1.6 million 
Americans looking for work during difficult economic times. In the last 
2 weeks since Republicans filibustered a bill to restore this important 
lifeline, an additional 150,000 Americans have lost their emergency 
unemployment benefits. For many families already suffering through hard 
times, the loss of $300 a week has meant going without food, turning 
down the heat on freezing days or staring down homelessness.
  One Nevada woman--a Vietnam veteran in her sixties who has worked all 
her life and raised a family--said she is afraid she will end up on the 
streets if Washington doesn't restore her emergency benefits. This is 
what she wrote to me:

       It is not that I don't want to work. It is that I am unable 
     to procure job . . . I do feel that it might be my age, but I 
     am more energetic than some young people I know. Please 
     continue to [work to] get this passed, as I am fearful that I 
     will end up homeless.

  Her situation is not unique. Nationwide, thousands upon thousands of 
veterans looking for work have been kicked off unemployment. In Nevada, 
where unemployment is still almost 9

[[Page 1811]]

percent, 21,000 people struggling to find jobs have been cut off from 
these benefits. In fact, unemployment actually ticked up slightly in 
Las Vegas last month. As long as there are three job seekers for every 
available position, we owe it to Americans to lend a helping hand 
during this emergency.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1926.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Margaret Chase Smith

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 50 years ago today, on January 27, 1964, 
Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine announced her candidacy for 
President of the United States. The following July, at the Republican 
National Convention in San Francisco, the great lady from Maine became 
the first woman in history to ever have her name entered into 
nomination by a major party for our Nation's highest office. I rise to 
commemorate this remarkable leader and this significant milestone in 
our history.
  At the time of her announcement, Senator Smith was in her 24th year 
in Congress and was an established groundbreaker. She was the first 
woman elected to both the House and the Senate and the first to serve 
on the Armed Services Committee. She was the woman who gave other women 
the opportunity to pursue careers in the military. Due to her early and 
energetic support for the space program, she has been called the woman 
who put a man on the Moon.
  Her courageous ``Declaration of Conscience'' delivered in the Senate 
on June 1, 1950, turned the tide against McCarthyism and reminded all 
Americans of our Nation's core values of free expression and 
independent thought.
  Senator Smith made her Presidential announcement in a speech at the 
Women's National Press Club in Washington. Yes, Mr. President, there 
was a separate press club for women in those days. It was an important 
address in which she described both the progress that America had made 
against bigotry, prejudice, extremism, and hatred as well as the 
challenges that remained, but Margaret Chase Smith saved the best for 
last. After telling her audience of the flood of letters she had been 
receiving from all over the country urging her to run for President, 
Senator Smith described the reasons offered by her supporters, such as 
she had more experience at the national level than any of the other 
confirmed candidates, she had the stature that could break the barrier 
against women being seriously considered for President, she would 
provide a moderate, middle-of-the-road option in an election that was 
shaping up as one between a very conservative and very liberal 
philosophy.
  Then she described the reasons she should not run: The widespread 
contention that the Presidency was a man's job, her lack of financial 
resources, and a professional political organization, and the fact that 
the odds were stacked heavily against her. Senator Smith said she found 
the reasons offered against running far more compelling than those in 
favor. So imagine the surprise of her audience when she said that 
because of those very reasons, she had decided to enter the New 
Hampshire primary.
  Senator Smith's campaign was off and running, and what a campaign it 
was. Senator Smith accepted no money from anyone. All contributions--
whether they were large or small--were returned to sender. She took to 
the campaign trail only when the Senate was not in session in order to 
preserve her perfect record of never missing a rollcall vote and to 
keep the pledge of dedicated service she had made to the people of 
Maine. Her campaign motto was: ``There is nothing more effective than a 
handshake and a little conversation.''
  As a consequence of her self-imposed financial and time restraints, 
Senator Smith did not win a primary. But in the one primary where she 
was able to campaign somewhat extensively--the State of Illinois for 
all of two weekends and a total expenditure of $85--she finished a 
strong second in a field of six. She lost only to the eventual nominee, 
Barry Goldwater. With 25 percent of the vote, she came in far ahead of 
such well-known candidates as Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, and 
Henry Cabot Lodge. It is intriguing to think what she might have done 
with a more traditional campaign.
  At the Republican National Convention in San Francisco that year, 
Senator Smith's name was entered into nomination by Senator George 
Aiken of Vermont. He told the delegates that Senator Smith's integrity, 
ability, common sense, and courage made her ``the best qualified person 
you ever voted for.'' On the first ballot, 27 delegates did vote for 
Margaret Chase Smith from the great State of Maine.
  Unlike the other candidates, Senator Smith did not release her 
delegates to the landslide victor, Senator Goldwater. That was not done 
out of spite. Indeed, she campaigned earnestly for him in the general 
election. It was done because she wanted to demonstrate--she wanted the 
historical record to show that a woman had been given serious 
consideration for the Presidency of this country.
  Many words have been spoken over many years in attempts to describe 
the character of Senator Margaret Chase Smith. Perhaps the best were 
offered by the candidate herself on that campaign trail a half century 
ago. She said:

       I have few illusions and no money, but I'm staying for the 
     finish. When people keep telling you, you can't do a thing, 
     you kind of like to try.

  On this milestone anniversary, I am honored to celebrate an 
extraordinary woman from Maine who tried and failed in one endeavor but 
in doing so inspired generations of Americans with her strength and 
determination and demonstrated, as she once said, that a woman's place 
is ``everywhere.''
  Today, the Senate has a record 20 women Senators. In a sense each of 
us owes a debt to Senator Margaret Chase Smith, but none more so than 
I. You see, I first met Senator Smith when I was a high school senior 
from Caribou, ME. I was selected as one of two students to come to 
Washington as part of the Senate Youth Program sponsored by the William 
Randolph Hearst Foundation, a program that still exists today. I 
remember how excited I was to see Senator Smith and her graciousness in 
inviting me into her office and spending nearly 2 hours with me.
  As the Presiding Officer can appreciate, for any of us to spend 2 
hours with anyone is remarkable nowadays, but Margaret Chase Smith 
carved out that time to talk with me. Recently her library sent me 
copies of her appointment book for that day so I could see that my 
appointment with her was listed and preserved for all time.
  She talked to me not about what it was like being the only woman in 
the Senate, she talked to me instead about her service on the Armed 
Services Committee, about what we could do to create more jobs in this 
country and, most of all, about her famous ``Declaration of 
Conscience'' in which she stood up against the smear campaign and the 
excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Through that speech she taught us 
all to stand tall for what we believe in and to speak out against 
injustice and bigotry.
  I remember when I left her office I was so thrilled and inspired. I 
remember thinking women could do anything. This was back in 1971, and 
although I came from a family with wonderful

[[Page 1812]]

role models in both my mother and my father, who were so active in 
their community and in their State, there were a lot of other messages 
about that time that raised doubts in the minds of growing girls about 
whether we could, in fact, be whatever we wanted to be. So that message 
that I learned from Margaret Chase Smith was so important in shaping 
who I am today.
  Although I did not know it at the time at all, that meeting with 
Margaret Chase Smith shortly after I had turned 18 as a high school 
senior taught me I could achieve my dream, and in many ways it was the 
first step on a journey that led me to run for her seat in the Senate 
25 years later.
  Today I am so proud that the desk at which I stand--the desk that I 
use and is assigned to me on the Senate floor--once belonged to the 
legendary Senator from Maine Margaret Chase Smith. What a wonderful 
role model she was to me the entire time I was growing up when she was 
representing the State of Maine with such integrity, skill, and 
courage. I feel so fortunate to hold her seat in the Senate.
  So today it gives me great pride as well as great pleasure to inform 
my colleagues that this is the 50th anniversary of the day that Senator 
Margaret Chase Smith of Maine became the first woman in history to 
announce her candidacy for President of the United States and later 
that year to be the first woman to have her name placed in nomination 
by a major political party. Let us celebrate this day as we also 
celebrate the presence of a record number of women in the Senate. I 
believe that would have made Senator Smith very proud.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           immigration reform

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the immigration issue the country is 
wrestling with is broad and deep and has huge ramifications in a host 
of areas. But one area that has just been ignored systematically, it 
seems to me--at least to a degree that is unacceptable--is the impact a 
massive increase in immigration to America will have on the already 
declining wages and job prospects of Americans who are hurting today. 
That is just a fact that needs to be discussed. We need to be honest 
about it.
  Prime Minister David Cameron in the United Kingdom has announced 
major reductions in immigration and said there may be more. He said we 
cannot expect that foreign workers would take jobs we need to be 
training Britons to do. How simple and valuable a concept is that?
  So we are talking about legislation that can shift the power, wealth 
from working people to businesspeople, the corporations, because it 
will shift, if not done properly--and we believe in immigration. We are 
not opposed to immigration. It just needs to be done at the level and 
in the proper way so our workers are not so adversely impacted, as 
would occur if the Senate bill were to become law. Thank goodness the 
House is saying they are not going to pass that bill.
  President Obama is preparing to deliver a State of the Union Address 
tomorrow night in which he will address the continued financial 
collapse of the American middle class, much of which has occurred on 
his watch. However, it did start before he took office.
  Since 2000, the average wage of working Americans has declined. As 
adjusted for inflation, it is negative. In the last 2 or 3 years--since 
the recession is supposed to be over and has been announced is over--
that decline has accelerated. Professor Borjas and others have tagged a 
lot of that result as occurring because of a substantial increase in 
immigration that has been occurring in America. If the President wishes 
to demonstrate a sincere concern for struggling workers, then he must 
recognize the negative impact his immigration policies are having on 
wage earners throughout the country right now.
  According to Harvard Professor Borjas, the Nation's leading expert on 
immigration and an economist--himself an immigrant from Cuba as a young 
man--Professor Borjas says every dollar of increased profit for 
companies that use immigrant labor is offset by a dollar in lost wages 
for the Americans competing with that immigrant labor. Think about 
that.
  In fact, he estimates that businesses lobbying for this bill will 
benefit on an order of $400 billion. They and their political activist 
allies lobbying for this bill, they definitely receive a financial 
benefit. He estimates, based on rigorous analysis that virtually every 
dollar of that will come from reduced wages of American workers.
  That is the way, colleagues, the free enterprise system works. If we 
have more cotton in America, the price of cotton goes down. If we bring 
in more labor than we have had before, the price of labor comes down. 
That is just the way it works. We have not eliminated the law of supply 
and demand. The law of supply and demand dictates that an increased 
supply of workers will result in a reduced cost of hiring workers.
  The President's push for higher Federal wage controls and extended 
unemployment jobless benefits is effectively an admission that his 
policies have cut wages and reduced the ability of Americans to get 
jobs.
  But these measures he is proposing are treating the symptoms. Why are 
not wages going up as they have throughout most of the history of our 
country, naturally through supply and demand? Could it be that we have 
had, as Professor Borjas said, for the last 30 years an incredible 
increase in the flow of foreign workers who are competing for these 
jobs every single year?
  One cannot return to full employment and rising wages for workers at 
all skill levels without tightening the labor market. We have a loose 
labor market. We have a surplus of people looking for jobs.
  Gene Sperling, the President's top adviser on the economy, said just 
a few weeks ago that we have three workers applying for each one job 
that exists in America. Why in the world then would we want to bring in 
and allow businesses to demand increased numbers of low-skilled 
workers?
  The President's plan will provide companies an incentive to hire even 
fewer American workers, and they will be less likely to hire a person 
who has been unemployed for a long time--the long-term unemployed.
  The United States has already formally admitted more immigrants, 
largely lesser skilled, in the last 10 years than any prior 10-year 
period in America's history. So the question every reporter, pundit, 
and lawmaker should ask is this: How does the President think it will 
help Americans trying to climb into the middle class to pass an 
immigration plan that would double the number of immigrant workers 
competing against them for jobs and wages?
  The single largest category in our budget right now is welfare and 
poverty support programs helping people who have lower incomes. 
Including State contributions, my Budget Committee staff has discovered 
we spend more than a $1 trillion on Federal means-tested support 
programs each year--over $1 trillion. That is greater than the defense 
budget, more than Social Security, more than Medicare. A record one in 
five households today received food stamps in 2013--one in five. The 
majority of them are working age. That is the first time that has 
happened that a majority of the recipients of food stamps are within 
the working age group.
  Our urgent national mission is to begin transitioning these 
struggling workers into good jobs with rising wages. Instead, the 
President proposes to increase Federal spending even more to sustain 
millions on welfare while increasing the supply and the admission of 
lower skilled immigrants to take the available jobs that exist.
  House leaders are reportedly rushing to assemble a plan that is 
similar to

[[Page 1813]]

the President's. I hope not. But that is what is being suggested. This 
would be the worst thing they could do at such a time. Instead, the 
Democratic Senate having spoken, the Republican House must stand, 
expose the President's disastrous policies, and advocate a new 
direction that promotes assimilation, rising wages, and a growing 
middle class for all Americans, including those who have recently 
immigrated.
  Our lower skilled workers are the ones who are adversely affected the 
most from increased flows of immigrant labor into the country. I just 
hope we will consider this and talk honestly about it because it is not 
going away. It is a reality. The suggestion that somehow this will not 
happen is not so. The Congressional Budget Office, in scoring the 
Senate bill, concluded it would pull down wages of Americans for 20 
years.
  The last thing this Senate or any President of the United States 
should do would be to advocate and promote a policy that will pull down 
wages. We need to be looking for ways to increase wages. When you are 
in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. Do not make it 
worse. Do not create four or five applicants for every one job that 
exists in America.
  I hope the President will talk about that. I challenge him to talk 
about it. I am going to watch what he says. I expect him, as President 
of the United States addressing a joint session of Congress, to tell 
the truth and be accurate about his analysis and discussion of this 
important issue. It is important to America. We believe in immigration, 
but we want a lawful system of immigration, an immigration system that 
first and foremost does not damage, hurt, and weaken the financial 
position of already struggling American workers. Isn't that our first 
responsibility?
  We should create this lawful system in a way that serves the long-
term interests, the legitimate long-term interests of the United States 
of America and all the people who are in it, not just a few special 
ones with big money and special political power.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to speak about the flood insurance 
bill. I am speaking with a smile on my face because I believe we have 
the 60 votes to break the filibuster so we can get to the bill. I would 
hope that if we exceed that 60-vote threshold, indeed those who have 
been trying to torpedo this bill would then, instead of stringing us 
out all week, making us go through all of the parliamentarian 
procedures when we have the votes, would let us get it passed.
  The problem is going to be down at the other end of that hallway 
because the Speaker of the House has already said that he does not like 
it. But what he is going to find out that he does not like is that a 
lot of Members of the House of Representatives have constituents who 
are facing 10-fold increases in their flood insurance because of 
something that was tacked onto a transportation bill.
  That was a year ago, Biggert-Waters, the sponsors in the House for 
this law which is now causing these unforeseen and never-expected huge 
increases. We can rectify that today. At 5:30 we are going to have the 
vote on the motion for cloture to cut off debate so that we can get to 
the bill.
  What does this bill do? It is really easy. It delays these giant rate 
hikes for 4 years, and it mandates on FEMA an affordability study so 
that we can see. I mean, you can say you want rates to go up and be 
actuarially sound. But if what happens is what has been happening, that 
people cannot afford it because it is 10 times as much, or that because 
it is so high it completely dries up the real estate market, that is 
not helping anybody.
  That is hurting a lot of people. It is hurting our economic recovery 
just at the moment in which the real estate market is coming back all 
along the coasts of America, as well as along the rivers and lakes, the 
very places that flood insurance is necessary for a homeowner or a 
business.
  I might say that today, as I was in Florida, the temperature was in 
the 60s, moving to the 70s. I got off the plane here, and it was in the 
30s. But the chilling winds of Biggert-Waters, with the gargantuan 
flood insurance rate hikes--those chilling winds are not only killing 
real estate sales, they are killing commerce, and it is putting an 
impossible financial burden on our people.
  We can take care of this at 5:30. Some have opposed us the whole way 
as we have tried a handful of times to bring up this legislation, 
asking unanimous consent. Finally, thanks to the leader, who has forced 
the issue, we are going to vote on cutting off debate today.
  I have several documented cases along Florida's gulf coast where the 
premiums for flood insurance have gone up by 10 times. In one 
particular case in Pinellas County, chronicled by the Tampa Bay Times, 
the premium was $4,500, and it has gone to $45,000.
  No homeowner can endure and afford that kind of increase. In another 
case, a $1,400 flood insurance premium has gone to $14,000. It is the 
same. We should be around here promoting home ownership. But if the 
poor homeowner has a mortgage because they have gotten a loan from the 
bank, what is the bank going to do to require some security for their 
loan? They are going to require flood insurance.
  So how can we expect a homeowner to have to go through this. You can 
say this is a subsidized program. It is. But the big losses in the 
program have been because of very unusual climatic events. In the first 
place, it was Hurricane Katrina. That was an ordinary, garden-variety 
category 3 Hurricane. Those of us in Florida understand hurricanes.
  But what happened with this hurricane? It went to the east of New 
Orleans, so the counter clockwise winds were not coming directly from 
the gulf. They were coming in over New Orleans, over Lake 
Pontchartrain. It caused the lake to rise, it filled up the canals. The 
water rose in the canals. The water pressure against the side of the 
canals increased. There were faulty canal dikes, and they breached in a 
couple of places, and then all of the water flooded into parts of New 
Orleans and filled up the bowl of New Orleans.
  That was a huge loss to the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Then 
there was another extraordinary event. This was just a year ago. This 
was a category 1 storm, and it was extraordinary because it hit in the 
winter. Where did it hit? It hit the highly urbanized coasts of New 
Jersey, New York, and parts of New England. As a result, there were 
huge losses there and people were desperate to have assistance. Look at 
what those folks are facing with regard to the flood insurance hikes.
  We can take care of all of this at 5:30 p.m. this afternoon as we 
start the process of getting on the bill. I urge all of our Senators--
because sooner or later somebody in your State is going to face a 
flood, and they are going to get remapped. They may not be paying those 
rates now, but they are going to get remapped because of those floods, 
and then they are going to get hit with these unaffordable, gargantuan 
rate hikes on the premiums of Federal flood insurance--this is the 
right thing to do.
  I see my colleague from Utah. The Senator used to tell me they don't 
ever have floods there, but I will bet they do. Even though Utah is a 
dry State, I know Utah has water because it supports a population which 
is represented by my most distinguished and dear personal friend 
Senator Hatch.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my dear colleague. The Senator is a very close 
personal friend of mine too.
  I have to say we have had our floods out there too, and thank 
goodness we have had some of these things to help us, no question about 
it. The last one

[[Page 1814]]

was in St. George. It was very devastating to people. I appreciate the 
Senator's work.


                    Alternative Affordable Care Act

  Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a legislative proposal I 
unveiled yesterday with two of my colleagues, Senator Richard Burr and 
Dr. Tom Coburn, that represents our vision for an alternative to 
ObamaCare.
  Let me start by saying something that most Americans--from Utah to 
North Carolina to Oklahoma--know to be true: ObamaCare just is not 
working. Try as he might during the State of the Union Address 
tomorrow, President Obama will not be able to convince the American 
people that his health care law is anything other than an unmitigated 
disaster. This horribly misguided law puts government between people 
and their doctors. It includes over $1 trillion in new taxes and a new 
unsustainable entitlement.
  It includes mandates and regulations that have forced too many 
Americans off their health plans and businesses to cut back on hiring. 
It has done next to nothing to put a brake on skyrocketing health care 
costs that are hitting every family in this country.
  The three of us knew there was another way, a better way--a way that 
doesn't need 2,700 pages of government programs and mandates to enact 
commonsense reforms that the American people want and need.
  Let me say that these two Senators with whom I have joined on this 
proposal have been looking at this for some time, as have I. I commend 
them for their leadership.
  Our plan rests on four simple principles. First, repeal ObamaCare 
with all its costly mandates, taxes, and regulations in its entirety.
  Second, reduce costs by taking government out of the equation, and, 
instead, empowering consumers to make choices about their own health 
care.
  Third, provide commonsense consumer protections to protect 
individuals with preexisting conditions.
  Fourth, reform our broken Medicaid system by giving States more 
flexibility to provide the best coverage for their citizens.
  We are confident our plan will accomplish all of this, and it would 
do so without adding one red cent to our $17 trillion debt.
  These four principles are the core of what we unveiled today. They 
are smart, they make sense, and they are what the people of my State 
have been looking for, and I think the people of every State. We start 
with the biggest barrier to health care in this country, and that 
happens to be skyrocketing health costs. Too many families cannot 
afford to buy insurance or to see a doctor. Why? Because of costs.
  We recognized this. Our plan would give people affordable options 
that meet their needs by harnessing the power of the marketplace, not 
through Washington-directed mandates. With more options in the private 
insurance marketplace--particularly in the small group and individual 
markets--on top of greater consumer protections and more transparency, 
the American people would be better able to purchase coverage that is 
right for them.
  We can see the importance of choice in the failings of ObamaCare, 
which is struggling to sign up young people who might need a health 
plan that is affordable instead of one that includes coverage they will 
never use or need. Maybe a 25-year-old male auto mechanic, for example, 
only wants catastrophic coverage and not a plan that includes maternity 
care. We give people those options to allow them to find coverage that 
best meets their needs. Our plan does that.
  We also include significant commonsense consumer protections, such as 
making sure a person cannot have their coverage cancelled if they get 
sick. We help make sure patients with preexisting conditions can gain 
access to affordable coverage and let children stay on their parents' 
insurance through age 26--something we were always willing to do.
  We also get rid of lifetime limits. Under our plan, insurers won't be 
able to put a cap on total benefits to be paid out over a person's 
lifetime, eliminating a patient's fear of maxing out their health care 
coverage. We give States more options to provide people with more 
coverage while once again reducing costs.
  Under our plan, families earning up to $71,000--or 300 percent of the 
Federal poverty level--will get a tax credit to purchase the insurance 
of their choosing. We help small businesses enjoy the same advantages 
as large businesses by allowing them to band together to leverage their 
purchasing power to buy insurance. This just plain makes sense.
  I have to say one of the most absurd aspects of ObamaCare is that a 
good portion of the people it covers is through Medicaid. Yet as we all 
know, Medicaid is a financially unsound program that is threatening 
State budgets. Its expansion under ObamaCare only threatens the program 
further.
  Our plan includes a key reform that is similar to the Medicaid 
modernization plan that House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman 
Fred Upton and myself put out last year. Currently, Federal taxpayers 
have an open-ended liability to match State Medicaid spending, which is 
a significant driver in Medicaid's budgetary challenges.
  Our proposal would create per capita spending caps--similar to what 
President Clinton and many Democrats who remain in this Chamber 
supported in the past--to ensure that the dollars follow the patient. 
This structural reform of Medicaid is coupled with new flexibility for 
States to best manage their Medicaid populations.
  On top of that, we give those on Medicaid the option of purchasing 
private health insurance, which is more frequently accepted by quality 
doctors.
  I want to emphasize that our proposal trusts the American people to 
make the best choices for themselves. That is why we include an 
expansion of health savings accounts so people can plan and save for 
their future medical needs. That also means injecting transparency into 
health care costs so people know which provider charges what and how 
successful those providers are.
  We include other cost-containing measures such as medical malpractice 
liability reform to help reduce the costly practice of defensive 
medicine.
  In my early life, I actually tried medical liability cases, defending 
doctors, hospitals, nurses, and health care practitioners, et cetera. 
Most of those cases were frivolous. They were brought to get the 
defense costs. Doctors were scared, so doctors were told: Fill up your 
records to show that you went way beyond the standard of care and the 
standard of practice. Thus, we have had hundreds of millions of dollars 
in unnecessary defensive medicine ever since.
  We also reduce the distortions in the Tax Code that actually increase 
the cost of health care in our country by capping the employee 
exclusion. This is a key way of restraining costs that has been cited 
across the economic spectrum.
  The bottom line is that this proposal is sustainable and achievable, 
and without the tax hikes, mandates, and budget-busting spending that 
have made ObamaCare care so unpopular with the American people. Most 
importantly, unlike ObamaCare, our plan will reduce health care costs 
for American individuals, families, and businesses.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and experts throughout 
the health care community to better refine and improve our blueprint, 
and that is what it is right now, it is a blueprint.
  I am confident we will be able to build strong consensus around our 
ideas and be in a position to formally introduce legislation that will 
repeal the President's health law and replace it with strong reforms 
that will actually lower costs, reduce spending, and put high-quality 
care within the reach of every American. Frankly, this approach should 
appeal to everyone, Democrats and Republicans.
  I know my colleagues on the other side are very nervous about the 
failures--already--of ObamaCare, and it is just starting. Anybody who 
thinks that once we heal the rollout disaster everything is going to be 
OK, let me say that is only the beginning. ObamaCare is a disaster, and 
every day it continues is going to be more of a disaster. I think

[[Page 1815]]

my colleagues on the other side ought to take a look at what we are 
proposing because it may be one way of helping their colleagues and 
their constituents understand that they really are serious about trying 
to get health care we can live with and can help our country.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       State of the Union Address

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about the 
President's sixth State of the Union Address tomorrow night. Although I 
do not think the Framers imagined the pageantry that has come to 
accompany the State of the Union, it certainly is enshrined in the 
Constitution. According to article II, section 3:

       The President shall from time to time, give the Congress 
     information on the State of the Union and recommend to their 
     consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and 
     expedient.

  ``Recommend for Congress consideration such measures''--I note with 
interest in today's Wall Street Journal on the front page that 
President Obama intends to assert a unilateral agenda at the State of 
the Union, according to press reports, at least in the Wall Street 
Journal. The article begins:

       President Barack Obama Tuesday night will seek to shift the 
     public's souring view of his leadership.

  It goes on to say in paragraph 2:

       Mr. Obama will emphasize his intention to use unilateral 
     Presidential authority, bypassing Congress when necessary, to 
     an extent not seen in his previous State of the Union 
     speeches.

  This certainly does not sound like article II, section 3, where the 
State of the Union is anticipated by our Founders as an opportunity for 
the President to make recommendations to the Congress, but we shall 
see. It should not be difficult for President Obama to outline a number 
of national priorities that are necessary and expedient for the 
Congress to consider. As we enter the sixth year of the Obama 
administration, the economy continues to suffer from anemic growth and 
chronically high unemployment. Family poverty statistics are at record 
high levels. Small businesses, the ones that create our Nation's jobs 
for the most part, are struggling to pay for government mandates and 
keep Americans at work at the same time.
  Of course, a major concern for Americans is the President's health 
care law, legislation that was rammed through Congress without 
bipartisan support. Individuals, families, businesses, and investors 
can plainly see that the law is plagued with problems. Hardly a day 
goes by without hearing from our citizens back home who are frustrated 
and worried about how the law impacts them.
  Instead of more affordable and more accessible health care, families 
in my State and across the country are dealing with a backlash of 
canceled insurance policies, higher premiums, and fewer choices. No one 
can dispute these facts. At this point, Americans are right to be 
doubtful of more promises. They want to see results. They want to see 
real health care reform. They want to see job-creating strategies that 
will work, that have been proven to work.
  Americans need more tomorrow night than phraseology from the 
President. Without leadership and accountability, the public is right 
to lack confidence that the President's big government approach can 
move us forward or that the President wants to work with Congress 
toward bipartisan solutions.
  I hope we can work together for bipartisan solutions. One recent poll 
suggests--and this is stunning--that a majority of Americans actually 
question the Obama administration's competence in running the 
government. The same survey showed that most Americans believe the 
economy is either staying the same or getting worse.
  I believe the American public sees things correctly. Until Americans 
see significant improvements in their lives, attempts by the White 
House to spin a positive economic message will ring hollow. Many 
Americans have been forced to take part-time work or have left the 
labor force altogether. In the December jobs report, an official report 
of the government, we saw that the labor force participation rate, 
which reflects the number of adult Americans who have a job or are 
looking for one, has fallen to its lowest level since 1979.
  Let me repeat that. After 5 years of the Obama administration's 
leadership, the labor force participation rate is the worst it has been 
since 1978. Recent estimates indicate that median household income is 
almost $2,400 less than it was 4 years ago, in inflation-adjusted 
dollars.
  President Obama has tried to shift the blame for the harm caused by 
his health care law, but that attempt to duck responsibility will not 
wash with the American people. Millions of Americans have had their 
health coverage canceled, even though the President repeatedly 
promised: If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health 
care plan. Oftentimes he punctuated that with `` . . . you can keep 
your health care plan, period.''
  The President recently said he regrets that Americans find themselves 
in that situation. Americans find themselves in that situation because 
of the health care law which he rammed through Congress on a strictly 
partisan basis. They find themselves in that situation because they 
were told a very flat and emphatic statement by the President of the 
United States, the leader of the free world. That emphatic direct 
statement turned out not to be the case.
  Americans are uncertain of how they will afford significantly higher 
premiums. Employers are facing costly mandates. Now we learned at the 
end of last week that Moody's has downgraded the economic outlook for 
health insurers, citing the law's difficult implementation and the 
administration's numerous delays. So Moody's downgraded the outlook of 
these health insurers that are trying to make the law work.
  As the country's chief executive, the President should start a 
dialogue in his State of the Union speech tomorrow night that focuses 
on ways to empower Americans to create jobs and opportunities. This 
body is controlled by the Democrats. The other body is controlled by 
the Republicans. We need bipartisan solutions to create jobs and 
opportunities. We have seen a big government approach with more 
burdensome regulations and more bureaucratic intrusions. We have seen 
how that approach does not work.
  The State of the Union offers the President an opportunity to outline 
issues where he is willing to work with Republicans in a bipartisan 
way. We should be talking about market-driven strategies to reform 
health care. We should be talking about the Keystone XL Pipeline and 
how to advance America's rich energy potential, the most abundant 
energy sources in the world right here in America. Keystone XL Pipeline 
would be a jobs win for the Obama administration. Yet the President 
cannot bring himself to come forward on this bipartisan idea.
  Of course the best welfare program is a jobs program. The best 
unemployment program is one that creates jobs for Americans. Americans 
are ready to go to work. Rather than focus on the politics of jealousy 
and income inequality, the President should demonstrate leadership and 
cooperation. In a divided government, both leadership and cooperation 
are needed to bring about the enduring economic recovery this country 
needs.
  I look forward to the President's address tomorrow night and hope we 
can hear bipartisan solutions to move us forward.
  I yield the floor.


                       MLB Hall of Fame Inductees

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to three 
gentlemen

[[Page 1816]]

who, as a result of a vote taken by the baseball writers of America a 
couple of weeks ago, are going to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of 
Fame. These three men are former Atlanta manager Bobby Cox and former 
pitchers Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux. These incredible athletes have 
left their imprint not only on Georgians but on the entire baseball 
community around the world. These three gentlemen are among baseball's 
most accomplished coaches and players and will deservedly be inducted 
into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in July of this year.
  So far as I know, there has never been three individuals who spent 
most of their time with the same team, inducted into the Hall of Fame 
in the same year--truly remarkable.
  First, let me mention and honor Bobby Cox, a baseball legend and one 
of Major League Baseball's winningest managers. With a record of 2,504 
wins, he ranks fourth on baseball's all-time managers win list. Bobby 
Cox started his career with the Braves in 1978. He left briefly in 1982 
to manage the Toronto Blue Jays, only to return to the Braves in 1985, 
where he would spend the remainder of his career until his retirement 
following the 2010 season.
  In 1995 he led the Braves to the World Series Championship, where 
they faced the Cleveland Indians. The Braves won the series in game 6 
in Atlanta, claiming the team's third championship in franchise 
history. Aside from Bobby's remarkable .556 percent winning percentage, 
he is also remembered for his all-time record for ejections in Major 
League Baseball with 158. For those of us who know Bobby well and know 
he is one of the nicest people you will ever meet--and he is a big 
teddy bear--it is fair to say that if Bobby did not agree with a call 
on the field, he was quick to express his dissatisfaction and his 
disgust with it, and nobody could protect their players as a manager 
better than Bobby could.
  It was no surprise when he would sometimes find himself watching the 
game ultimately from the locker room. No one can question Bobby's sheer 
passion and love for the game of baseball. Both the city of Atlanta and 
the State of Georgia are in his debt.
  I would also like to acknowledge the impressive careers of Tom 
Glavine and Greg Maddux and highlight a few of their accomplishments.
  As Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine combined for over 400 wins, they will 
be the first players in 40 years who spent the majority of their 
careers together to become Hall of Famers in the same year. The last to 
do so were New York Yankee players Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford.
  The Braves drafted Tom Glavine in the second round in 1984. He was 
such a talented athlete that the very same year the Los Angeles Kings 
drafted him in the fourth round to play professional hockey. Luckily 
for the Braves and for baseball, he chose baseball.
  He went on to spend 17 of his 22 decorated seasons in Atlanta. The 
famous left-hander ended his distinguished professional career with 305 
wins, 2,607 strikeouts, and two Cy Young Awards, which he received in 
1991 and 1998, both as a Brave.
  In the Brave's 1995 World Series victory, Glavine was named the most 
valuable player. When the lefty pitcher grabbed the bat and stepped up 
to the plate, we saw something not often seen in today's game. He came 
out swinging and he could hit.
  Glavine was the recipient of four Silver Slugger Awards, an award 
given to the best offensive player at each position each year.
  His teammate Greg Maddux was known as a right-handed control pitcher 
with great precision and accuracy, not missing his targets often. He 
wouldn't beat you with a 100-mile-per-hour fastball, but he would 
embarrass you with placement and movement rarely seen before or since.
  Maddux started his career in 1986 with the Chicago Cubs. Following 
his seventh season with the Cubs, and with the Cy Young Award under his 
belt, the Braves signed Maddux as a free agent in 1993, in what is 
widely described as one of baseball's best free agent deals.
  He then went on to win five more consecutive Cy Young Awards in a 
Braves uniform. Maddux ended his career with 335 wins, a 3.13 ERA, 
3,371 strikeouts, an impressive four Cy Young Awards, and a record 18 
Gold Gloves in 23 seasons.
  Together these individuals led the Braves to 14 straight division 
championships--an unparalleled accomplishment in any sport. I daresay 
that record will likely never be broken.
  It comes as no surprise that the Braves have retired the numbers 6, 
31, and 47 to celebrate and recognize the distinguished careers of 
these three men.
  I am pleased to join Georgians in congratulating Bobby Cox, Tom 
Glavine, and Greg Maddux on their tremendous accomplishment of being 
inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the quorum call and to speak for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, at 5:30 today the Senate is going to 
cast a very important vote to people in many States, not just the State 
of Louisiana, which I have had the honor and the privilege of 
representing now for almost 18 years, but to States from one end of 
this country to the other, including coastal States and interior 
States, on an issue that is very important to homeowners and business 
owners alike. The vote we are going to cast is a vote to begin debating 
a Menendez-Isakson bill that will fix the many urgent problems that 
have presented themselves in a recently passed bill called Biggert-
Waters.
  Biggert-Waters is a bill that had wonderful intentions, which were to 
strengthen the flood insurance program and to make it self-sustainable. 
It is a program many people depend on. It is a public-private 
partnership that provides affordable flood insurance for the middle 
class. But the bill was built backward and upside down. The bill had 
good intentions, but it has had very detrimental consequences. So the 
bill we are going to vote to go to debate on--the Menendez-Isakson 
bill--is really a good-faith attempt to correct some of the problems 
with Biggert-Waters and to lead us in a direction to a place where this 
country can have a public-private partnership for flood insurance that 
actually works for the taxpayer, for the millions and millions of 
people--5 million plus--who are going to have to have flood insurance, 
whether they have had it in the past or not. There are new maps that 
are coming and millions and millions of people will be required by the 
law to have flood insurance if they have a mortgage on their home, and 
most people have mortgages. Most people are unable to pay cash for 
their homes. Some people are fortunate to do so, but I would say 95 
percent of the people have mortgages on their homes. So if people have 
mortgages, they are going to be required to have flood insurance, and 
if they are required to have flood insurance they will have Biggert-
Waters, unless we can postpone it and instead get Menendez-Isakson.
  Many of the critics who are not supporting the reform effort we have 
underway say we are trying to protect mansions on the beach. So I 
pulled some random pictures from the Web page I set up called ``My Home 
My Story.'' This is in St. Amant, LA, Walker, Belle Chasse, Chalmette, 
Pointe Coupee, Mandeville--these are a variety of neighborhoods--
Independence, LA; New Orleans--there is no beach within miles of this 
home. There is no beach within miles of Independence. This is very far 
inland.
  We can see this is a home where there is water all around here, but 
this house is raised probably 13 to 17 feet, which is now the required 
elevation in many parts of Louisiana and the gulf coast. But except for 
this home, which looks like a beautiful old mansion, none of these are 
mansions and none of them are on a beach. What is happening all over 
America is that these

[[Page 1817]]

flood maps are being put into place, not just on the coast of 
California or Louisiana or Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, but I call 
the attention of my colleagues particularly to inland States such as 
Pennsylvania. We have had a lot of criticism from some of the 
representatives from Pennsylvania about what we are doing.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statistics 
about States that are not coastal States such as Pennsylvania. We just 
got some new material which I will submit for the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Community means any State, or area or political subdivision 
     thereof, or any Indian tribe or authorized tribal 
     organization or Alaska Native village or authorized native 
     organization, which has authority to adopt and enforce 
     floodplain management regulations for the areas within its 
     jurisdiction. The number of communities is approximate for 
     each state.

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                FIRMs
                                                              Effective      Proposed FIRM      FIRM
                                                             After July         Updates        Updates    Total
                                                                2012           Introduced     Possible
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK.......................................................               5                 10        10        25
AL.......................................................              50                 50       150       250
AR.......................................................              30                 15        50        95
AZ.......................................................              30                  5        10        45
CA.......................................................              75                 15       125       215
CO.......................................................             100                  5        25       130
CT.......................................................              30                 --        25        55
DC.......................................................              --                  5        --         5
DE.......................................................              --                 25        25        50
FL.......................................................              75                150       125       350
GA.......................................................              75                100        75       250
HI.......................................................              --                  5         5        10
IA.......................................................              75                 15       300       390
ID.......................................................               5                  5        50        60
IL.......................................................              50                125       250       425
IN.......................................................              75                  5        25       105
KS.......................................................              10                 15       100       125
KY.......................................................             100                125        75       300
LA.......................................................              50                 10        50       110
MA.......................................................             125                 --        50       175
MD.......................................................              50                100        10       160
ME.......................................................              15                100       150       265
MI.......................................................              75                 --       475       550
MN.......................................................              75                 --       100       175
MO.......................................................              75                  5       100       180
MS.......................................................              50                 75        75       200
MT.......................................................              50                  5        10        65
NC.......................................................              15                300       250       565
ND.......................................................             125                  5         5       135
NE.......................................................              30                 15        50        95
NH.......................................................              50                 25        --        75
NJ.......................................................              10                350        75       435
NM.......................................................              25                 --        10        35
NV.......................................................              10                  5         5        20
NY.......................................................              50                225       350       625
OH.......................................................              30                 --       300       330
OK.......................................................             100                 50         5       155
OR.......................................................              30                 50        15        95
PA.......................................................             425                700       300      1425
PR.......................................................               5                 --         -         5
RI.......................................................              25                 --        15        40
SC.......................................................              75                 75        50       200
SD.......................................................              50                 --         5        55
TN.......................................................              30                 25         5        60
TX.......................................................             125                100       100       325
UT.......................................................              50                 --        50       100
VA.......................................................              15                150        15       180
VT.......................................................              25                 --         5        30
WA.......................................................             150                 15        50       215
WI.......................................................              50                 75        75       200
WV.......................................................              75                 15        15       105
WY.......................................................              25                 --         5        30
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
    Total Count..........................................           2,950              3,150     4,200    10,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  All of these dots on this map represent flood maps. The purple are 
flood maps that are in effect. Green are proposed flood maps that will 
be introduced, and gold are new flood maps that are possible. The State 
of Pennsylvania is No. 1 in the number of new flood maps that will be 
proposed, by a long shot. There will be 1,425 new maps in Pennsylvania 
alone--people who have never been in a flood zone, people who will soon 
be in a flood zone, and when they find out their insurance is $10,000 
or $5,000 a year or $20,000 a year, they are not going to be happy, let 
me assure my colleagues. Pennsylvania is No. 1. No. 2 is New York where 
625 new maps are going to be executed; in New Jersey, 435 new maps; in 
North Carolina, 565 new maps; and in Michigan, 550 new maps.
  Everyone thinks this is a Louisiana issue. I have been trying to say 
for a year and a half: Yes, this affects my State; yes, it affects 
Mississippi and Georgia and Alabama. But the country needs to wake up. 
This issue will affect people in many places, because of the new maps 
that are coming out, because of the new science, the new ability to 
measure elevations. There are going to be people who have never been in 
a flood zone, and they are going to be told they are now in a flood 
zone. We better get a program they can afford.
  I thank Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson for their leadership. 
They will both speak later this evening as we move to this vote. Let's 
have this debate. Let's come up with a new approach that works for the 
taxpayer, the homeowners, as well as the realtors, the bankers, and the 
stakeholder groups that have been so supportive. Realtors, home 
builders, the National Association of Counties, League of Cities, 
Bankers Association, Community Bankers, and Independent Insurance 
Agents are all supporting these efforts.
  I yield the floor and thank my colleague for his courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for 
allowing me to jump in front of him.
  I commend the Senator from Louisiana and confirm everything she said. 
The vote tonight on the motion to proceed is important. This is an 
important debate not just for coastal States and not just for the 
coastline but for the entire United States, because the unintended 
consequences of Biggert-Waters as it goes into place are less insurance 
coverage for less and less Americans and more damage in case of another 
terrible storm such as Sandy or Katrina.
  I commend the distinguished Senator from Louisiana and the coalition 
she has worked with to bring this issue forward. I hope all of our 
colleagues will vote yes on the motion to proceed this evening.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                             War on Poverty

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, tomorrow night we have the State of the 
Union Address, and news reports say that one of the issues the 
President will be speaking about is income inequality. That brings me 
to something I should have spoken on a couple of weeks ago, because 
January 8, 2014, marked the 50th anniversary of President Johnson's 
call for a war on poverty. This anniversary provides a time to reflect 
on and reevaluate its twin aims of poverty relief and economic 
opportunity.
  The goal of poverty relief is to ensure that even those who might 
find themselves in tough times have sufficient assistance to meet their 
basic human needs while lifting themselves out of abject poverty. In 
other words, we have to make sure people have a roof over their heads 
and food on their table, as minimums.
  The goal of economic opportunity is to ensure the lower rungs on the 
economic ladder are strong enough to support that climb out of poverty. 
Economic opportunity is another term for the American dream that 
through hard work, as we know, we can improve not just a person's own 
lot in life but that a person's children and a person's children's 
children will be better off.
  If we judge the war on poverty according to the first aim, a good 
case can be made that we have been very successful. Looking at the 
official poverty level that is based on income prior to many transfer 
payments, little has changed since 1964. However, consumption-based 
studies show the poor are much better off today than they were decades 
ago. A study available from the National Bureau of Economic Research 
that looks at consumption rather than income shows over a 26-percent 
decline in poverty since 1960.
  There is little doubt that programs from Social Security to food 
stamps, from Medicaid to heating assistance, have helped increase the 
standard of living for those at or below the poverty level. However, 
economic growth and the general decline in the cost of technology have 
also been a great source of poverty reduction.
  While providing relief from poverty is an admirable goal, the 
American dream has always been about opportunity. As President Johnson 
said in his State of the Union Address 50 years ago, the goal of the 
war on poverty ``is not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty, but to 
cure it and, above all, to prevent it.''
  It is this goal of the war on poverty that has largely fallen flat. 
As I referenced earlier, the official poverty level has changed little 
in the 50-year fight on poverty, despite spending trillions of dollars 
on antipoverty measures. In 1964, around 19 percent lived in

[[Page 1818]]

poverty. Today, according to the most recent census data, that number 
stands only slightly lower at 15 percent.
  We all know America is the land of opportunity. In America, we have 
no caste system. Laws and social norms do not relegate any individual 
or any group of individuals to lower social status. It can be tough, 
but individuals can and do climb their way to the top. Sometimes this 
process can take generations, but it has always been a source of pride 
that the next generation is better off and has more opportunities than 
the generation that came just before.
  Indeed, there is considerable upward mobility in our economy. A 2007 
Treasury study on income mobility found that between 1996 and 2005, 
around half of those taxpayers who found themselves in the bottom 
quintile in 1966 moved to a higher income group in 2005.
  How about the very top of the income distribution my colleagues are 
fixated on? Contrary to what some may claim, those at the top are not 
the same year after year. The Treasury study found of those taxpayers 
who were in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent in 1996, only 25 percent 
remained in that group in 2005.
  While there is upward mobility in America, there is always room for 
improvement. And there certainly are those who feel trapped in a cycle 
of poverty.
  Unfortunately, too often programs meant to help the less fortunate 
can act as an anchor, preventing Americans from climbing up the ladder 
of success. I have no doubt the vast majority of those living at or 
below the poverty lines are very hard-working people. Our programs do 
not act as an anchor because of the poor themselves but because too 
often programs meant to help actually turn out to punish success. Too 
often those who are seeking to escape generations of poverty feel as if 
the harder they work, the further behind they get.
  The landmark welfare reform legislation Congress passed in 1996 
sought to lift the anchor off the backs of the poor. It sought to 
increase opportunity by incentivizing individuals to work.
  The welfare reform law was meant to reward personal responsibility 
and a strong work ethic rather than punish these traits so essential to 
success.
  The landmark law established work requirements, requiring individuals 
to work when job ready and within 2 years after coming on assistance. 
To receive funding, States must require a minimum amount of work, and 
that participation must be in hours by families receiving assistance. 
This meets one of TANF's--Temporary Assistance for Needy Families--
primary goals: to end the dependence of needy parents on government 
benefits by promoting job preparation.
  In other words, if you are going to move up the economic ladder, you 
have to be in the world to work. If you are shunted off to the side of 
society, out of sight, out of mind, then there is no opportunity to 
move up.
  In the years that followed, those who argued dire consequences would 
result, particularly for single mothers--these people were proven 
wrong. Following the enactment of welfare reform, there was a 
precipitous decline in welfare caseload and usage. At the same time, 
the single mother labor force participation rose and their incomes 
rose.
  Unfortunately, President Obama has persistently implemented policies 
that erode these statutory regulations; thereby, discouraging personal 
responsibility and a strong work ethic.
  On July 12, 2012, the administration issued what is referred to as 
guidance to States about this TANF Program. This guidance explained how 
States can now seek waivers of work requirements for welfare recipients 
for the first time since the TANF Program was created in the 1996 
welfare reform law.
  The 1996 welfare reform helped families to enjoy the dignity of self-
sufficiency. It reduced poverty. Instead of pushing families out of 
poverty, the President's policies trapped Americans in soul-crushing 
government dependency.
  While welfare reform made strides, too often those working hard to 
get a leg up feel as if they are only treading water. In November 2012, 
the Congressional Budget Office released a report looking at the 
effective marginal tax rate of low- and moderate-income workers; that 
is, how much extra tax or reduction in government benefits is imposed 
on an American worker when he or she earns an additional dollar of 
income; in other words, people are pretty sophisticated about looking 
at how much they get in a government program, and if they go into the 
world to work, are they going to be penalized for it instead of drawing 
help.
  According to CBO, in 2013, the average marginal effective tax rate 
faced by low- to moderate-income workers was 32 percent. Keep in mind 
this is just the average. Many workers experience marginal effective 
rates far exceeding the top statutory rate of 39.6 percent paid by the 
highest income people in America.
  For an example, an economist with the Urban Institute calculated the 
marginal effective tax rate of a single parent with two children under 
various scenarios. Just one scenario examined what would happen if a 
household income rose from $10,000 to $40,000.
  Perhaps a single mother was able to increase her skills and earning 
potential by taking classes at night at a local community college. If 
this single mother had been receiving all the benefits she was eligible 
for, she would face a marginal effective tax rate of 80 percent as a 
reward for trying to make a better life for her and her family. That is 
a far higher marginal tax rate than most on the left even proposed for 
the much derided top 1 percent.
  It is difficult to blame an individual in this situation who becomes 
disgruntled and just gives up, not seeking employment. It is we in the 
government who have tilted the scales against those low-income 
Americans trying to realize the American dream. In order to alleviate 
this disincentive, there must be a better coordination between benefits 
and how they are phased out.
  Instead of reducing this disincentive to work, in recent years we 
have actually made it worse. The premium tax credit and cost-sharing 
subsidies that were enacted as a part of the Affordable Care Act will 
increase marginal tax rates by an average of 12 percentage points. 
Moreover, according to an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
when the premium tax credit is fully in effect, some workers could 
experience ``infinite marginal tax rates.''
  Some of you may wonder what is an infinite marginal tax rate. To put 
this into more understandable language, this means some workers could 
actually face marginal effective rates exceeding 100 percent.
  For a worker in this situation, it means if they decide to put in a 
few more hours at work or get a second job to earn extra cash, they 
could actually end up worse off financially. Of course, this is an 
absurd result that tells people do not work hard, do not try to advance 
your situation, because if you do, we are going to take it all away 
from you.
  Harvard economics professor and former chief White House economist 
Greg Mankiw recently opined on this result saying: ``It is hard to 
believe that the law is so badly written as to have this feature.'' 
Well, Professor, believe it or not, the President and the majority 
party did enact this law with this feature, and they did so with the 
full knowledge of the Joint Committee on Taxation analysis which I had 
made public.
  Often I hear my colleagues on the other side come to the floor to 
pound the table about income inequality--something we are going to hear 
the President talk about tomorrow night in his State of the Union 
Address, we are told. There are a number of studies that examine income 
inequality. There is great variation among these studies on how income 
inequality is measured and the degree to which it has actually 
increased over the years.
  However, all these studies do point to some degree of increasing 
inequality over the last several decades. That we have to admit. This 
has occurred during both Republican and Democratic administrations. It 
has also been occurring across most of the developed

[[Page 1819]]

countries. It happens not just in the United States but other places as 
well.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often cite income 
inequality to justify whatever Democratic policy agenda is up at that 
particular time. Whether it is taxing the rich, raising the minimum 
wage or extending unemployment benefits, they cite income inequality to 
justify their aims.
  However, these policies either fail to address the root causes of 
inequality or are nothing more than a temporary bandaid. Income 
inequality is a symptom of much larger structural problems, not the 
disease itself. Raising taxes might be successful at generating revenue 
to fund greater wealth transfer payments, but it does nothing to 
rectify what caused the inequality in the first place.
  Soak-the-rich policies do not create greater opportunity for low-
income individuals. In fact, because of the negative effects on 
economic growth and capital formation, they can reduce opportunity not 
only for the poor but for all Americans. Our country has historically 
been a land of opportunity. Whether such policies are well intended or 
cynical political opportunism, they are not worth trading away our 
Nation's legacy of opportunity.
  You do not have to take my word for the antigrowth effects of 
increasing taxes. Research by Christina Romer, President Obama's former 
chief economist, found that a tax increase of 1 percent of GDP reduces 
economic growth by as much as 3 percent. According to this study, tax 
increases have such a substantial effect on economic growth because of 
the ``powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment.''
  In effect, what those who pursue wealth-destroying redistributionist 
policies are saying--to quote Margaret Thatcher--is that they ``would 
rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less 
rich.''
  That may reduce inequality but at the expense of making us all worse 
off. Our goal must be to create wealth and to create opportunity for 
all Americans.
  I reject the notion that in order to improve the lot of one 
individual someone else must be made worse off. The leadership of the 
majority has become fixated on redistributing the existing economic 
pie. I believe the better policy is to increase the size of that pie. 
When this occurs, no one is made better off at the expense of anyone 
else.
  This is best achieved through progrowth policies aimed at growing the 
economic pie, not by taking from some and giving to others.
  Similarly, increasing the minimum wage or extending emergency 
unemployment benefits also fail to address long-term causes of 
inequality. These proposals are well intended, and I myself have 
supported both under the right circumstances but neither strike at the 
heart of income inequality.
  While there are many contributing factors, much of the research 
points to the widening wage gap between skilled and unskilled labor. If 
we are to address income inequality, the primary focus must be on 
ensuring individuals have the skills necessary to compete in a 21st 
century economy.
  One way to accomplish this is through greater competition in 
education through increased school choice. We should also further 
expand our efforts made in 1996 to incentivize individuals to work and 
ensure those who want to work can gain the skills that are necessary 
for a 21st century economy.
  There are certain ways we can help reduce poverty and promote 
opportunity. However, just throwing more and more money at existing 
programs is not the answer. According to a Congressional Research 
Service report, Federal spending on low-income assistance programs as a 
percent of Federal outlays has more than doubled since the 1970s.
  No amount of money then will change the tried-and-true formula for 
escaping poverty; namely, graduate high school, wait until marriage to 
have children, and find a job and keep it for at least 1 year. While 
even those who follow this formula can fall on tough times, 
statistically it is rare that they will find themselves poor for a 
sustained period of time.
  We should be sure our laws and programs encourage rather than 
discourage these three keys to success. One place to start is to take a 
look at reducing or eliminating the marriage penalty that can arise in 
both our tax laws and benefit programs.
  The war on poverty will not be won as long as the value of marriage 
is diminished.
  You cannot disagree with the facts. Children in single-parent 
households will face more challenges and are more likely to be poor.
  Some economists say that children raised in single-parent homes are 
four times more likely to be living in poverty. According to census 
data, in 2012 just 6.3 percent of the families headed by married 
couples are poor. In contrast, 31 percent of those in single-parent 
households are poor.
  Today, more children are born out of wedlock, more marriages are 
dissolved, families are not as strong as they could or should be, and 
we have a social problem that cannot be cured with more government 
spending. The war on poverty must be solved in part by encouraging and 
nurturing healthy families.
  Of course, there is no magic cure-all for poverty. In fact, that is 
the point. The notion that experts in Washington can wage a successful 
war on poverty with spending programs as a weapon was never realistic. 
We are dealing with real people, with real lives trying to realize 
their dreams, not pieces on a chess board that we can move around as we 
wish.
  Our goal should be to tear down the barriers to economic opportunity 
and simply get out of the way. When we discover that well-intentioned 
programs designed to help the poor are actually trapping them in 
generational poverty, we need to have the courage to chart a new 
course.
  The American dream is not to be dependent upon others for bare 
substance but to have the opportunity to get ahead through your own 
hard work and perseverance. All Americans deserve the self-respect that 
comes from earning your own success in life.
  Millions of immigrants have flocked to our shores because America 
offered greater economic opportunity than any other nation. We are at 
risk of losing part of what has made our society unique. We should 
seize the opportunity of this anniversary of the war on poverty 50 
years ago to reevaluate our approach to ending poverty and get back to 
what has historically worked for generations of Americans, and that is 
simply to promote economic opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my remarks to the Senate will deal with 
the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act. I am pleased the 
Senate is close to considering a bill to protect homeowners and 
businesses from unintended increases in the cost of flood insurance.
  In July 2012, as part of a larger legislative package that included 
the highway bill and the Gulf Coast RESTORE Act, Congress passed the 
so-called Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act with no opportunity 
for amendments. The Biggert-Waters Act generally succeeded in its aim 
to strengthen and ensure the long-term fiscal solvency of the National 
Flood Insurance Program.
  But we need to take another look at a few of the act's reforms that 
are causing a great deal of consternation throughout my State and the 
rest of the country. At the time of its consideration by the Senate, we 
knew Biggert-Waters might cause modest increases in flood insurance 
premiums. Administration officials testified repeatedly before our 
committees that the increases would be manageable for American 
homeowners.
  Unfortunately, the increases have been anything but manageable, as 
skyrocketing premiums are driving citizens out of their homes and 
threatening the future viability of entire communities.
  These Americans are receiving notices that their flood insurance 
premiums are rising to stratospheric

[[Page 1820]]

heights, regardless of the fact that their homes may have never flooded 
or despite investments in flood control infrastructure and mitigation 
against future risk.
  A constituent from Ocean Springs, MS, contacted my office to give us 
her perspective on the legislation. She wrote:

       Built in 1986, [my house] survived all hurricanes including 
     Katrina. I used my retirement savings to buy the house. 
     Before closing, flood insurance was grandfathered at $245 per 
     year. After closing, the rate skyrocketed to $18,450. You can 
     understand my shock.

  If you do the math, her new rates are more than 75 times the rate 
when she purchased her home. I hope Senators will vote to end this 
debate tonight and proceed to the Homeowner Flood Insurance 
Affordability Act. This is our opportunity to protect homeowners from 
skyrocketing flood insurance premiums until Congress is provided 
assurances from the administration related to affordability and the 
engineering practices it is using to make flood insurance rate 
determinations.
  A study by the National Academies of Science produced in March 2013 
has called into question some of the engineering practices the 
government uses to determine rates. It is important that we make 
certain the government's engineering practices and procedures are sound 
and understand the implications of these rates before we allow them to 
devalue private property and ruin people's lives. It will be very 
challenging to rebuild neighborhoods or restore home equity once they 
are lost. We must get it right.
  The long-term solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program is 
critical to protecting taxpayer investments, communicating flood risk 
to homeowners and encouraging communities to invest in mitigation 
measures. The reform legislation enacted in 2012 made positive changes 
to the program. However, some of those changes are now working in 
opposition to the broader goals of reform. These shortcomings are 
alienating the very people the program is intended to help and actually 
threaten to make the program less solvent in the long run.
  The long term viability of the flood insurance program is important 
to many inland and coastal States. The new insurance rates penalize 
citizens, who have followed the rules and places the heaviest burden on 
those who are just now recovering from recent disasters. In my State, 
communities continue to work to overcome the damage caused by the 
greatest natural disaster in our Nation's history, the effects of the 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, and now dramatic flood insurance 
rate increases.
  Our bill does not create new programs to address rising premiums. It 
simply leaves in place some current practices so that we can make sure 
the productive reforms we enacted in 2012 will actually improve the 
credibility of the program among communities and homeowners. Our bill 
would not affect the positive reforms related to expanding program 
participation or the phase-out of subsidized flood insurance premiums 
for vacation homes and homes that have a history of repeated flooding.
  The consideration and passage of this bill would represent a 
bipartisan consensus to make modest changes to existing law, while 
protecting homeowners and steering the National Flood Insurance Program 
onto a path to fiscal sustainability.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Homeowner Flood 
Insurance Affordability Act, which I have sponsored with Senator 
Isakson. It is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation to ensure 
that families will be able to afford flood insurance so they can stay 
in their homes, businesses can stay open, and property values will not 
plummet. This broadly bipartisan legislation will stop the most onerous 
and damaging rate increases while minimizing the impact on the National 
Flood Insurance Program's solvency.
  I want to thank all of those who have supported the legislation, all 
of our cosponsors, as well as the National Association of Home 
Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the American Bankers 
Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the 
Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, the National 
Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and Greater New 
Orleans, Incorporated, who have all endorsed our bill.
  I specifically want to thank my lead Republican cosponsor Senator 
Isakson. I have had the pleasure to work with Senator Isakson on a 
number of issues. I have come to respect his honesty and desire to come 
together and get things done regardless of the issue.
  I also want to thank Senator Landrieu who has been focused like a 
hawk on this issue for years now. She is without a doubt the Senate's 
preeminent expert on disaster recovery and flooding issues. The people 
of Louisiana are fortunate to have such a tireless champion. She has 
taken the time and effort to understand every aspect of flooding and 
disaster recovery.
  I saw that expertise firsthand when Senator Landrieu came to New 
Jersey after Sandy struck and worked with us. I cannot thank her enough 
for the valuable insight she gave to us as we were dealing with Sandy 
recovery.
  When Sandy struck New Jersey, over 2 million households were without 
power, 346,000 homes were damaged or lay in ruin, and, most tragically 
of all, 37 fellow New Jerseyans lost their lives. But true to our 
State's motto we were Jersey tough. People who lost their homes were 
knocked down but not out. They got up, dusted themselves off and 
started the long process of rebuilding.
  But just as they were getting started, they got hit by another 
disaster, this time a manmade one that took the form of drastic flood 
insurance premium hikes that threaten to finish the job that Sandy 
started. I started receiving letters--first dozens, then hundreds, then 
thousands of people pleading to me for help. They wrote in desperation 
that their insurance premium was about to go from about $1,000 a year 
to an incredible $10,000. They told me after exhausting all of their 
savings on repairing and rebuilding their home, they simply had no more 
to spare--none left.
  They were being hit by what I have come to call a triple whammy. 
First they got hit by the worst natural disaster in our State's 
history. Then they were faced with drastically elevated premiums 
mandated by Biggert-Waters. Finally, they had to contend with fatally 
flawed mapping processes that further exacerbated the drastic rate 
increases.
  While Sandy made New Jersey especially vulnerable to the rate hikes 
required under Biggert-Waters, make no mistake about it, this is not a 
New Jersey or New York issue. It is not even a coastal issue. The 
reason this bill has such broad support across the ideological and 
geographical spectrum and the political spectrum is because flood 
insurance is not just a coastal or a northeast issue, it is an issue 
that affects the entire country.
  The fact remains that 55 percent of Americans live within 50 miles of 
the coast. National Flood Insurance insures more than 5.5 million 
properties across all 50 States. Every State in the Nation will see 
premiums on some of their properties increase as a result of Biggert-
Waters. As this map shows, FEMA is in the process of updating maps in 
every State. The different colors are simply what the status is of that 
effort.
  People who played by the rules and built to code will suddenly find 
that they are no longer in compliance and will be faced with a 
difficult decision: Spend upwards of $100,000 to elevate their home 3, 
4, 5 or more feet from its current level or see their annual insurance 
premium spike from $1,000 to $10,000 to $20,000 over the next 5 years.
  Not all of these increases will be so drastic, but the many that are 
will act as a de facto eviction notice for homeowners who have lived in 
their homes and played by the rules their entire

[[Page 1821]]

lives. If they try too sell their homes, prospective buyers will balk 
after learning of the high premium cost that comes with it, leaving the 
owner no choice but to sell at a fire sale.
  This will drive down property values just as the housing market is 
still struggling to recover. We all know that declining property values 
have a domino effect, causing entire neighborhoods to decline in value, 
which in turn hurts the broader economy. 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 into the affordability of rate 
increases under Biggert-Waters by last April, but they failed to do it. 
This was a mandated study that I was able to include in Biggert-Waters 
because I knew that this was going to be a problem. The main reason for 
the delay is they simply do not know what the new rates are going to 
look like. They do not know how many families will see rates double or 
triple--or many times more--so they cannot even guess on how these 
hikes will affect affordability.
  Think about that for a second. We are making dramatic changes in 
policy that could impact more than 5.5 million policyholders--that is 
really families. These changes can have ripple effects throughout the 
housing market and our entire economy, before we even know the extent 
of the changes and their impact.
  That is simply not acceptable. No one can argue to me that is sound 
public policy. In addition to the impacts on families, the housing 
market, and the economy, drastic rate increases could actually have the 
perverse effect of undermining the solvency of the program. It could 
end up costing taxpayers more in disaster assistance payments by 
pricing homeowners out of insurance.
  Recent reports suggest that only about 18 percent of properties in 
the flood zones participate in the program. One study has shown that 
for every 10-percent increase in premiums, program participation 
decreases by approximately 2.9 percent, almost 3 percent.
  If rates are raised too high and too quickly, people will simply opt 
to drop their insurance, decreasing participation and the risk pool the 
National Flood Insurance Program draws on. The sharper the increases, 
the higher the proportion of dropouts. As with any insurance fund, this 
is about spreading risk. The smaller the risk pool, the greater the 
risk, and, therefore, the higher the costs. It perpetuates itself.
  By pricing people out of the flood insurance program, increasing 
rates could have the unintended consequences of actually making the 
program less solvent. Reduced program participation would also increase 
the amount taxpayers are on the hook in disaster assistance payments.
  Since FEMA grants, SBA loans, and other disaster assistance are 
reserved for unmet needs, more uninsured homeowners translate into more 
disaster assistance payouts.
  Not only are we blind to the extent of these rate hikes and the 
effect they will have on program participation and the overall budget, 
we are also allowing what I believe to be a highly questionable mapping 
process to justify them. My experience with FEMA's map updates has led 
me to have serious doubts about the process and the accuracy of their 
results.
  In December of 2012, FEMA released advisory base flood elevation 
maps, or ABFEs, for 10 counties in New Jersey. These showed a dramatic 
expansion of what are known as a V zone, which are high-risk flood 
zones that require houses to undergo special retrofitting that is often 
prohibitively expensive. For the thousands of families who were now in 
this dread V zone, the notification they received might as well have 
been an eviction notice, because they were never going to be able to 
afford the retrofitting, and without it they couldn't afford their 
premiums.
  To be fair, FEMA did say that this first round of maps was 
conservative and subject to change in the next phase of the updates, 
but they maintained the changes would be minimal and the zones would 
remain largely intact.
  After working with municipalities and counties, challenging the 
accuracy of these maps, and pushing FEMA to expedite their review 
process, they finally released a new iteration that showed as much as 
an 80-percent decline in the V-zone area in some of our counties. This 
was not a small mistake or a rounding error, it was a fatally flawed 
process that resulted in needless anxiety and frustration for thousands 
of homeowners only months out from Sandy.
  While this is bad enough, imagine how much worse the consequences 
would have been if premium rates were increased to reflect these 
inaccurate ABFEs. Families would be forced out of their homes and 
homeowners would lose the most valuable asset they have--something they 
have worked their whole lives for--all because of inaccurate maps.
  While there is no question we need to put the flood insurance program 
on a more solvent trajectory, we first need to understand the scope of 
these changes and be sure the mapping process used to set these rates 
is accurate. We need to understand the impact these dramatic changes in 
Biggert-Waters will have on the housing market before it is too late.
  Unfortunately, Biggert-Waters forces changes that are far too large, 
far too fast, without having all the facts. It requires FEMA to 
increase rates dramatically even before FEMA knows the scope of these 
changes or how they will impact program participation. That is why our 
bill would impose a moratorium on the phaseout of subsidies 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.
  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. 
For any property sales that occurred during this period, the homeowner 
would continue to receive the same treatment as the previous owner of 
the property, unless they trigger some other provision of Biggert-
Waters not covered by this bill. For prospective home buyers, the 
certainty that they will not see their rate dramatically increase 
simply because they purchased a home is critically important to 
maintaining property values.
  Also, this new legislation would give FEMA more flexibility to 
complete the affordability study. It would reimburse qualifying 
homeowners for successful appeals of erroneous flood map 
determinations. It would give communities fair credit for locally 
funded flood protection systems. It would continue the fair treatment 
afforded to communities with floodproof basement exemptions. It would 
provide for a FEMA ombudsman to advocate for and provide information to 
policyholders.
  Just as important as what this bill would do, it is also important to 
know what this bill will not do. The legislation would not stop the 
phaseout of taxpayer subsidies for vacation homes and homes that have 
substantially been 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 one-
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 simply provides temporary relief to a targeted group 
of property owners who played by the rules and are now poised to see 
the most valuable asset in their life become worthless, all through no 
fault of their own.
  This bill doesn't include everything I wanted--and I know there are 
many other ideas that other cosponsors wanted to include--but in order 
to reach a true consensus, this bill focuses on ideas that had broad 
bipartisan support. That is why we are here today, Democrats and 
Republicans, asking for the support of the Senate on this vital piece 
of legislation.
  We tried to reach a delicate balance with this bill that recognizes 
the need

[[Page 1822]]

to improve solvency and phase out certain subsidies, but tries to do so 
without discouraging program participation and thus undermining 
solvency and fiscal responsibility.
  Finally, this isn't only about insurance rates, tables, and actuarial 
risk rates, it is about our fellow citizens. It is about people, people 
who played by the rules their whole lives and are now facing a life-
altering event they never could have prepared or planned for.
  If Biggert-Waters is allowed to be implemented as written, we will 
see property values drop, middle-class families forced from their 
homes, and our economy suffer.
  The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act is a broadly 
bipartisan, carefully crafted, tightly targeted approach to restore the 
solvency of the program, while fulfilling the original intent of the 
program to make flood insurance affordable and accessible. That is why 
we hope our colleagues will vote yes on cloture so we can proceed to 
provide relief to families before it is too late.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 294, S. 1926, a bill to delay the 
     implementation of certain provisions of the Biggert-Waters 
     Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Robert Menendez, Mary L. Landrieu, Sherrod 
           Brown, Richard Blumenthal, Joe Manchin III, Tom Udall, 
           Patrick J. Leahy, Bill Nelson, Christopher A. Coons, 
           Christopher Murphy, Mark R. Warner, Kay R. Hagan, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Tim Kaine, Thomas R. Carper, Dianne 
           Feinstein.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been 
waived.
  The question is, is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1926, a bill 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, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 86, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--13

     Barrasso
     Coburn
     Corker
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Shelby

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Harkin
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ayes are 86 and the nays are 13. Three-
fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Extending Unemployment Insurance

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it has been almost 1 month since Senators 
and House Members went home and failed to extend unemployment 
insurance, a lifeline for 1.6 million Americans.
  In my home State of Ohio, 52,000 have lost their unemployment 
benefits--people who were working, lost their jobs, were looking for 
work, and have had their benefits ended. Another 76,000 in my State 
alone--from Toledo to Chillicothe to Cleveland to Dayton--will lose 
their benefits by the end of the year.
  This insurance program is not called unemployment welfare; it is 
called unemployment insurance. People pay into it when they are working 
and get the benefits when they are laid off, and they only receive 
these benefits if they are actively seeking work. This is why it is 
called unemployment insurance. This is a program which has worked. This 
not only hurts the families who aren't receiving the unemployment 
benefits of about $300 a week. It is also money which goes into our 
economy and helps our economy grow.
  A new report shows that because we didn't have an extension of these 
benefits, we have lost $1.76 billion in economic activity just in this 
1 month alone. Ohio has lost tens of millions of dollars.
  What does that mean? It means people don't have $300 a week in their 
pocket to go to the grocery store or to fix their car which they need 
to look for work. They don't have money to go to the local store or to 
buy clothes for their kids.
  Economic experts have said extending unemployment benefits will 
create 200,000 jobs in our country because of the economic activity 
generated. So it is not just these families--in Ohio, 52,000 workers 
and in many cases their families--who are hurting. It is also the 
communities from Toledo to Steubenville, all over my State, and all 
over this country. At a time when Congress should be helping to grow 
this economy, our inaction slows growth and makes it harder to find 
work.
  We know we are still emerging from the worst recession since the 
Great Depression. We have made progress, but there are still nearly 11 
million Americans unemployed, and about 4 million have been unemployed 
for at least 27 weeks.
  When President Bush signed the latest round of emergency assistance 
into effect, the unemployment rate was about 5.5 percent--more than 1 
point lower than it is today. Today, the long-term unemployment rate is 
more than double what it has been at any other time Congress has let 
emergency jobless assistance expire.
  Americans work hard. They want to work. Yet there is one job opening 
for every three job seekers.
  The same people who don't like unemployment insurance typically don't 
like the way Social Security works--another social insurance program--
and typically don't like Medicare--another social insurance program. 
Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance--they are social 
insurance programs you pay into when you are working and get benefits 
when you are not, whether it is Medicare or Social Security or whether 
it is unemployment.
  I will read a couple stories from real people affected by this. These 
aren't just numbers. These are real people hurt when Congress doesn't 
do its job.
  Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island has been on this floor over and 
over. A number of us have pushed for this unemployment insurance 
extension. We continue to be met by a threatened filibuster. The House 
of Representatives continues to dig in and do nothing about 
unemployment insurance because they simply don't believe in the 
unemployment insurance program.

       I'm in my mid-40s, have a Master's degree, and had an 
     excellent career history until I

[[Page 1823]]

     was laid off--through no fault of my own--late last spring. 
     I've been searching for work for 7 months and hope to find 
     something soon. While I am encouraged that I have had five 
     interviews in the last two weeks, I know that if I am not 
     hired soon, I will not be able to pay my rent and buy 
     groceries.
       I would much rather be working, and I am doing the best I 
     can to find something. Please do not assume the long term 
     unemployed have given up. We have not. We need support in 
     continuing our search, however, so we can afford the bare 
     necessities.

  The $300 a week for somebody like Emily--I don't know precisely what 
she would get based on her income and all the years she worked and all 
that she would need, but it is clear we are turning our backs on people 
such as Emily from Lake County.
  Matthew from Cuyahoga County:

       I was laid off almost a year ago, and I have been 
     diligently looking for work but have not been able to find 
     anything yet.
       One of my children was recently diagnosed with an 
     incurable, yet manageable disease, and the medical bills have 
     exhausted our emergency fund.
       I have worked extremely hard my entire adult life to 
     provide a good life for my family only to see it threatened 
     by the continual bickering in Congress. For many of us, the 
     recession is not over.
       Please work with other Senators to continue the federal 
     unemployment benefits.

  That is what we are doing. We are going to continue to bring this 
issue to the floor. We are going to continue to work to extend 
unemployment insurance for people such as Matthew, for people such as 
Emily.
  Terry from Medina County writes:

       I am a 59 year old single parent and have been diligently 
     looking for employment since November of 2012, [13 months]. I 
     have been able to secure some temporary work but not a 
     permanent job.
       I have worked since I was 17 years old and I have never 
     been out of work before. I am also a college educated woman 
     with a Masters Degree in Public Administration. If I don't 
     find something soon, I may have to file for bankruptcy. My 
     house will likely go into foreclosure by the spring. My son 
     may have to live with his dad to finish out his last year of 
     high school, and he will struggle to obtain the necessary 
     finances to afford college.
       Senator Brown, I want to work. I do not want to stay home 
     and collect unemployment or not utilize my brain, talents and 
     experience. I am an intelligent, capable, healthy person with 
     a lot to offer. . . .
       It is time to stop blaming those who have been unemployed 
     due to these circumstances and stop publicly declaring they 
     don't want to work.

  I could have brought 15 more letters to the floor from people who 
have had long work histories, of people who lost their jobs because of 
economic situation--not because of anything they did wrong--of people 
who are looking actively for work, of people who simply want to 
continue contributing to their family and to their community.
  I urge my colleagues to get out of Washington, to do as Pope Francis 
said when he exhorted his parish priests: Go out and smell like the 
flock. Go out and understand how people live and what their lives are 
like and how people suffer if they cannot find work and, where we can, 
do something about it to, No. 1, help the 50,000 families in Ohio and 
over a million around the country and, No. 2, help grow our economy by 
the infusion of these dollars into communities that will make a 
difference in the lives of those families and help to create jobs in 
our communities.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Tribute to John Rogers, Sr.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last Friday at Rockefeller Chapel on the 
campus of the University of Chicago hundreds braved the frigid weather 
to pay tribute to a fallen American hero. The life story of John 
Rogers, Sr., recalls an extraordinary chapter in the life of our 
Nation.
  Seventy years ago, during World War II, the first African-American 
military aviators in the history of the United States Armed Forces 
deployed to North Africa.
  These brave men were part of the now-legendary 99th Pursuit Squadron 
of the United States Army Air Corps. We know them better today as the 
very first Tuskegee Airmen to be deployed overseas--the first of the 
first.
  During the war, Tuskegee Airmen were often referred to as ``Red 
Tails,'' after the distinctive color of the aircraft tails. Many of the 
bomber crews whose missions the Tuskegee Airman escorted over Nazi-
occupied Europe had another name for them. They called them the ``Red-
Tailed Angels'' because they made possible for so many other pilots to 
come home after the war to their families.
  Last Tuesday, one of those original Red-Tailed Angels went to his 
final home. I am proud to say that I knew him and his family. His name 
was Judge John Rogers. He was 95 years old. He lived in Chicago.
  Let me tell you about him.
  John Rogers was born in Knoxville, TN in 1918. His father was a 
minister who also owned his own 12-chair barber shop. His mother died 
of tuberculosis when Judge Rogers was just 4 years old. The family 
lives across the street from Knoxville College, which John's parents 
had both attended.
  Their father instilled in John and his three sisters a reverence for 
education. In addition to learning, young John Rogers also developed a 
love of flying. These were years when flying was still a new miracle.
  As a boy, Judge Rogers would construct his own model planes using 
paper, string and the light wood from cheese boxes. When he was 9 or 10 
years old, he walked miles from his family's home to the Knoxville 
airport just to be able to say that he had touched an airplane. When he 
was 12, he suffered another terrible loss. His father died of kidney 
failure.
  John and his three sisters moved to Chicago to live with his mother's 
brother, a kind man who raised them in a loving home. Judge Rogers 
attended Tilden Technical High School in Chicago, walking 4 miles each 
way to school--8 miles a day.
  After high school, he earned a degree from Chicago Teachers College. 
He put himself through college working as a short-order cook, among 
other jobs. After college, he became a teacher in the Chicago public 
schools.
  At the same time he was studying to be a teacher, he was also 
learning to fly in the Army's Civilian Pilot Training Program in 
Chicago, where all the instructors were black.
  He received his civilian pilot's license in 1938, when he was 20 
years old--one of only about 120 African Americans pilot in the whole 
country at that time.
  When World War II broke out, John Rogers tried to enlist in the Army 
as a pilot. The Army told him that it didn't have any ``colored'' 
pilots and didn't have any plans to have any ``colored'' pilots,'' but 
they had an opening for a truck driver. John Rogers told them: No 
thanks. He said he figured if he was going to be in combat, it was 
safer to be in the air than on the ground. So he volunteered in 1941 
for a new Army Air Corps training program that had just been 
established for African American pilots in Tuskegee, AL.
  He became part of the 99th Pursuit Squadron, the first all-black air 
unit, under the leadership of the legendary Lt. Colonel--later 
General--Benjamin O. Davis. In April 1943, he one of the first 28 
African-American pilots to go overseas.
  The 99th was based in Northern Africa and flew escort and bombing 
missions over Italy. Pilots of the 99th once set a record for 
destroying five enemy aircraft in under 4 minutes. Even among such an 
elite group of pilots, John Rogers stood out for his keen eyesight and 
steady nerves.
  Mark Hanson is curator of the Chanute Air Museum--formerly Chanute 
Air Force Base--in Rantoul, IL, where the 99th was first activated. He 
said John Rogers was revered as a pilot who was so good he ``could put 
a 500-pound bomb through a building's window.''
  A photo at the Chanute museum, taken by an armaments officer and

[[Page 1824]]

friend, shows John Rogers standing next to his P-40 Warhawk. An 
inscription on the photo reads: ``This is Jack Rogers, the best dive-
bomber pilot in the business.''
  Another photo of John Rogers and members of the 99th hangs at the 
Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC.
  The skill of the men of the 99th was well known among pilots, 
especially by the British, who often asked for the Airmen's close-air 
support.
  What I am about to say here I read as I sat at that church service. I 
looked at it and I said it must be a misprint, and I read it again and 
it is true. All told, John Rogers flew 120 often dangerous combat 
missions for his Nation, over Europe, most of it over Nazi-occupied 
territory, and he rose to the rank of Army captain--120 missions.
  After the war, he returned to Chicago. He decided at that time he 
wanted to go to law school so he said: I am going to the best. He 
applied over the phone at the University of Chicago law school. He was 
told that he lacked ``the necessary qualifications.''
  Undeterred, John Roger showed up the next day at the law school 
wearing his Army officer's uniform. He said that someone who served his 
country in war deserved a chance to at least take a test to prove that 
he did have the qualifications to go to law school. So they gave him a 
test and he passed it, and he attended law school under the GI bill.
  He went to school year-round, summers too, and graduated ahead of his 
class in 1948. He also, over time, earned a Ph.D. from Ohio State 
University.
  On his first day in law school, John Rogers met his future wife Jewel 
Stradford, who would go on to become the first African American woman 
to graduate from the University of Chicago law school. She later served 
in the administrations of two Presidents of the United States. John and 
Jewel Rogers have one son, John, Jr. Although they divorced after 15 
years of marriage, they remained close friends until her death many 
years later, and they both were actively engaged in raising an 
extraordinary son who is my friend today.
  Judge Rogers practiced law in Chicago for almost 30 years. He gained 
a reputation as an outstanding attorney who was committed to justice 
and to his clients--and to mentoring younger and talented African-
American lawyers.
  In 1968, on a blind date, he met a fellow University of Chicago 
graduate, an educator who was active with the NAACP fund. John Rogers 
and Gwen DuBose dated for 33 years before marrying in 2001. They were a 
good match, and they were devoted to one another.
  In May 1977, John Rogers was appointed an associate judge in Cook 
County, and several months later he was assigned to the juvenile 
division. Some judges don't like the juvenile court and look for a 
transfer. The cases can be heartbreaking and the proceedings occur out 
of the public view, so juvenile court judges don't receive the 
publicity some of their colleagues receive.
  John Rogers loved juvenile court. He spent 21 years as a judge there 
and eventually became the supervising judge. To the often-complicated 
cases involving minors, Judge Rogers strove to bring wisdom, 
compassion, and justice.
  Gwen Rogers has a stack of letters from men and women who appeared 
before Judge Rogers as youths and later wrote him letters thanking him 
for giving them a second chance. There was one letter in particular 
that he kept close and read several times. It was from a man who 
appeared before Judge Rogers on three different occasions. On his third 
court appearance, Judge Rogers said: ``I could send you to juvenile 
detention and you would deserve it. But I still see a glimmer of hope 
in you, so I am sending you to Boystown.'' He made it clear to the 
young man that this was his last chance.
  Years later that boy--now a grown man--wrote to him and said he 
finished at Boys Town, went on to graduate from college, became a 
minister, and founded a church in the Presiding Officer's home State of 
Indiana.
  Judge Rogers was the sort of man who became a father to many young 
men who needed someone to look up to. The young man he really poured 
his hopes and dreams into was his own son John Rogers, Jr. When John 
Jr. was 12 years old, his parents invested in some stock for him. Every 
birthday and Christmas after that, instead of toys John Jr. received 
stock certificates. At the age of 16, he got his first summer job--that 
was a family rule. Judge Rogers saved every dime he could in order to 
send his son to the best school. Eventually John Rogers, Jr. graduated 
from Princeton University. He would go on to found Ariel Capital 
Management, now called Ariel Investments, the first African-American-
owned asset management company in America.
  In 2007, the Tuskegee Airmen were honored right here in the U.S. 
Capitol with a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honor our 
Nation can bestow. The Tuskegee Airmen are the largest group ever to 
receive the medal. About 300 of the airmen crowded into the Capitol 
Rotunda on that cold March day to receive their medals. What an 
incredible sight. Many wore red jackets, a symbol of their Red-Tailed 
Angels reputation.
  Afterwards, I was honored to host a reception in my Capitol office 
for the 11 Tuskegee Airmen from my home State of Illinois. One of them 
was John Rogers. Also joining us for that little reception was my 
colleague at the time, Senator Barack Obama. What a moment that was to 
see the arc of history and justice.
  Five years later, President Barack Obama invited Judge Rogers and 14 
other surviving Tuskegee Airmen to the White House for a screening of 
``Red Tails,'' a George Lucas film about the historic flyers. Talk 
about the arc of history--the first African-American President inviting 
the first African-American aviators to the White House.
  Judge Rogers, this man whose courage helped to break the color 
barrier in America's military, first knew Barack Obama as a promising 
young community organizer who was dating Michelle Robinson. The Rogers 
and Robinson families go back a long, long way. When John Rogers, Jr. 
was captain of Princeton's basketball team, he recruited Craig 
Robinson, Michelle's brother, to play for Princeton. Craig Robinson 
would later help persuade his younger sister to attend Princeton. There 
they were all those years later, Judge Rogers, President and Mrs. 
Obama, together in the White House watching a Hollywood film about the 
Tuskegee Airmen.
  Judge Rogers' granddaughter Victoria said her grandfather actually 
watched the film three different times. Every time he moved his hands 
as though he were flying. She said, ``He said he could remember the 
tension.''
  A while back Judge Rogers told a reporter: ``I hope there are planes 
in heaven so I can fly, because you know how much I love to fly.''
  Well, Judge, I hope there are planes there too for your sake, and I 
hope you are sitting in first class or in the cockpit where you belong. 
You earned it.
  In closing, Loretta and I and our family extend our sincere 
condolences again to Judge Rogers, his beloved wife Gwen, his son John, 
Jr., his granddaughter Victoria, to the rest of the Rogers family, to 
Judge Rogers' many friends, and all of those whose lives he touched and 
enriched.
  That gathering in that Rockefeller Chapel was such an outstanding 
turnout of people in Chicago who wanted to pay tribute to the great man 
John Rogers, Sr. He will be dearly missed.

                          ____________________