A bill to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to consider reconstruction and improvement of flood protection systems when establishing flood insurance rates.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act. This bill, which I also introduced in the 111th Congress, would extend the important protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples in America.

I am pleased to introduce this bill with a coalition of Senators who are committed to ensuring justice and equality for all Americans. I would like to thank Senators Akaka, Blumenthal, Coons, Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Merkley, Sanders, and Whitehouse for standing with me in support of the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act.

In 1993, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act to, among other things, protect American workers facing either a personal health crisis, or that of a close family member.

People in the workforce who suffer a serious illness or significant injury should be able to take time to heal, recover, follow their doctors' orders, and return to their jobs strong, healthy, and ready to be productive again. Thanks to the FMLA, they can take that time knowing that their jobs will be there when they recover.

As we all know well, most employees are not only concerned about their own health and wellbeing. They are concerned about the health and wellbeing of those that they love. The FMLA gave workers with a child, parent, or spouse that was sick or injured, an opportunity to provide the needed care and support, knowing that their jobs would be there when they returned.

When it was passed, the FMLA was an important and historic expansion of our nation's laws. Unfortunately, as families have evolved and expanded, we've learned that the FMLA does not provide the same level of protection to all American families. Under current law, it is impossible for many employees to be with their partners during times of medical need.

As I stated when I introduced this bill last year, Congress followed the lead of many large and small businesses when it enacted the FMLA. Almost 20 years ago, many of these businesses had already recognized and addressed the need for employees to take time off to care for themselves or a loved one that was battling a serious health condition. These companies had put in place systems that gave their employees time to heal themselves or their family members, and ensured that those employees would return to work as soon as they could.

The FMLA took the model these companies provided and brought the majority of the American workforce under the same protections.

We once again have an opportunity to learn from the best practices of American businesses who have adjusted their personnel policies and benefit packages to better meet the needs of American families, as we find them today. These businesses have assessed the composition of their workforces and realized that, in order to meet the evolving needs of their employees and enhance productivity, they needed to go one step further than the protections provided by the FMLA.

The Human Rights Campaign, leading civil rights organization that strongly supports the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act, reports that 502 major American corporations, 10 states, and the District of Columbia now extend FMLA benefits to include leave on behalf of a same- sex partner. Moreover, as of March of this year, 58 percent of Fortune 500 companies provided health benefits to same-sex partners, a 13 fold increase since 1995.

When the FMLA was signed into law, it was narrowly tailored to cover individuals caring for a very close family member. The law sought to cover that inner circle of people, where the family member assuming the caretaker role would be one of very few, if not the only person, who could do so. That idea has not changed.

What has changed are the people who might be in that inner circle. The nuclear American family has grown, sometimes by design, and sometimes by necessity. More and more, that inner circle of close family might include a grandparent or grandchild, siblings, or same-sex domestic partners in loving and committed relationships.

As the law stands right now, too many of these people are excluded from the protections of the FMLA.

In these tough economic times, when unemployment is high and those with jobs are doing everything they can to keep them, we all know the value of job security. Hardworking Americans should not have to make the impossible choice between keeping their jobs and providing care and support for loved ones in their time of need. Almost 20 years ago, the FMLA ensured that millions of Americans did not have to make that choice. Now, the time has come to ensure that the security afforded by the FMLA is available to a broader range of American workers.

There are many who would understandably question what this kind of change in the law would cost the business community. As I have stated in the past, the FMLA is already a very good law; it is already in place and it is working. It provides unpaid leave when the need arises, and it only applies to businesses that have enough employees on hand to handle the absence of a single worker without too great a burden.

Ninety percent of the leave time that has been taken under the FMLA has been so that employees can care for themselves or for a child in their care, and those situations are already covered under the law as it stands. What the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act would do is provide a little more flexibility, and recognize that there are a few more people in that inner circle of family who we might call upon, or who might call upon us.

We can all agree that family is the first and best safety net in times of personal crisis. Families need to be given the realistic ability to provide that assistance. What the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act does is give those family members the ability to help their loved ones in ways that only they can, without fear of losing their jobs in the process.

The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act enhances the FMLA. The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act, like the FMLA when it was passed almost 20 years ago, is long overdue. Our bill contains reasonable changes that reflect what many businesses have already done and accurately capture the modem American family.

The Family Medical Leave Inclusion Act is supported by over 80 organizations from the business, civil rights, LGBT, and labor communities, including: the National Association of Working Women; AFSCME; American Pediatrics Association; ACLU; Families USA; Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, GLAD; Human Rights Campaign; People for the American Way;

SEIU; and The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act is the right thing to do, and I hope we can join together and pass it on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Flood Protection Fairness Act of 2011.

This legislation will make three common sense changes to the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to ensure that the program incentivizes local participation in the funding of flood protection infrastructure.

The bill allows levees paid for with local tax dollars to qualify for the same discounted flood insurance rates as communities that rely on Federal tax dollars to build their levees.

The bill allows Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to calculate the value of a levee system in current dollars instead of using the uninflated cost of levee improvements completed years ago. This encourages local governments to fix problems as they arise.

The bill allows areas protected by coastal levees to qualify for the same flood insurance rate zones as areas protected by riverine levees, provided they meet equivalent flood protection standards.

The effect of these provisions is simple: local governments will be incentivized to help pay for the flood protection systems in their back yards.

In this time of shrinking budgets we simply can't afford to ask the federal taxpayer to foot the entire bill for flood protection. Federal investments must be leveraged by local and private contributions. Current policy discourages this; so it's time to change the policy.

In some areas of the country, homeowners are told that because their local government built the levee protecting their home, not the Federal Government, that they owe an additional $700 dollars on their flood insurance bill.

These homeowners are not being charged more because they are at greater risk. They are being charged more because the wrong money paid to build their levee. That is not sound policy.

Yet, this is the case in Sacramento, California.

A flood insurance rate map change in Sacramento has classified the area as an AE. This means that many residents living in the area will be forced to pay a rate of $2,187 per year for $250,000 worth of insurance.

However, if the levees protecting these homes were owned by the Federal Government instead of the local reclamation districts and the State or if the Corps of Engineers' approved report was authorized by Congress, the area would be eligible for an A99 zone designation by the middle of 2012. This would mean that the same $250,000 of flood insurance coverage would pay a rate of $1,472 per year.

That is a $715 dollar difference. That is a lot of money regardless of your economic situation.

I want to make clear that this bill is not just some gimmick to undermine the National Flood Insurance Program.

I firmly believe in the strong and rigorous regulations that limit development in flood plains. Development in an unprotected flood plain is dangerous, and I do not support legislation that encourages new construction in hazardous areas.

But the regulations that prohibit local investments from being counted, and prevent coastal communities from having full access to the NFIP are antiquated.

To understand the scope of the problem, it is important to have a little bit of context. FEMA is currently undertaking an extensive Map Modernization effort and examining levees around the country for safety. As FEMA does this, the Agency is learning that many levees do not provide an acceptable level of flood protection. This means that the people living behind these levees are in real danger of flooding, and until recently, were unaware of it.

Fortunately, the Map Modernization effort is bringing all of this information to homeowners and consumers. With this information they are able to protect themselves with flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program.

But as I have said, there is actually a disincentive for local governments to pitch in and help build flood control systems; if the locals build the levee, the National Flood Insurance Program won't give homeowners the same discounts they would receive if the levee were built by the Federal Government.

The program does this by limiting which communities can qualify for reduced rate flood insurance zones.

FEMA created the reduced rate AR and A99 zones to reflect a reduced flood risk as the result of an existing or partially completed levee system. But this designation only applies to communities protected by federally funded levees.

Even in Sacramento where residents have approved two property assessment increases to help pay for levee repairs, the homeowners are still hit with higher insurance rates because the improvements are not being paid for by the Federal Government.

The original idea behind this requirement was that information on non-federal levees was unreliable, and we did not know how safe they really were.

That was 30 years ago. Now we have better information, and better science, and FEMA has sufficient data to make sound judgments on levee safety. The rule is antiquated, and it needs to be modernized.

Not surprisingly, other agencies also recognized the need for a change. In California, the Sacramento and West Sacramento Flood Control Agencies, as well as the California Department of Water Resources are seeking this change.

At the Federal level, FEMA has worked with my office and the office of Representative Doris Matsui to develop these common sense modifications.

I commend each of the agencies that worked on this project and I hope to see these changes enacted quickly.

There are already positive signs in the House of Representatives. Just a few weeks ago, Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus included text of this legislation in a version of the National Flood Insurance Reauthorization bill. I want to commend Mr. Bachus for agreeing to make this important change, and thank Ms. Matsui for her effective advocacy on this issue.

On the whole, the National Flood Insurance Program and the Map Modernization effort each have taken our nation in the right direction. As a result of their successes, Americans are safer, and have the means and ability to insure their homes even in risky areas. These are not trivial accomplishments.

But a little fine tuning is in order.

Communities looking to improve flood protection in their area should not be penalized for paying for it themselves.

Residents should be charged the same insurance rates if they face the same risk--regardless of who owns the levee that protects their home.

The Flood Protection Fairness Act will make these two important principles clear. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and look forward to working with you to ensure its speedy passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Flood Protection Fairness Act of 2011.

This legislation will make three common sense changes to the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to ensure that the program incentivizes local participation in the funding of flood protection infrastructure.

The bill allows levees paid for with local tax dollars to qualify for the same discounted flood insurance rates as communities that rely on Federal tax dollars to build their levees.

The bill allows Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to calculate the value of a levee system in current dollars instead of using the uninflated cost of levee improvements completed years ago. This encourages local governments to fix problems as they arise.

The bill allows areas protected by coastal levees to qualify for the same flood insurance rate zones as areas protected by riverine levees, provided they meet equivalent flood protection standards.

The effect of these provisions is simple: local governments will be incentivized to help pay for the flood protection systems in their back yards.

In this time of shrinking budgets we simply can't afford to ask the federal taxpayer to foot the entire bill for flood protection. Federal investments must be leveraged by local and private contributions. Current policy discourages this; so it's time to change the policy.

In some areas of the country, homeowners are told that because their local government built the levee protecting their home, not the Federal Government, that they owe an additional $700 dollars on their flood insurance bill.

These homeowners are not being charged more because they are at greater risk. They are being charged more because the wrong money paid to build their levee. That is not sound policy.

Yet, this is the case in Sacramento, California.

A flood insurance rate map change in Sacramento has classified the area as an AE. This means that many residents living in the area will be forced to pay a rate of $2,187 per year for $250,000 worth of insurance.

However, if the levees protecting these homes were owned by the Federal Government instead of the local reclamation districts and the State or if the Corps of Engineers' approved report was authorized by Congress, the area would be eligible for an A99 zone designation by the middle of 2012. This would mean that the same $250,000 of flood insurance coverage would pay a rate of $1,472 per year.

That is a $715 dollar difference. That is a lot of money regardless of your economic situation.

I want to make clear that this bill is not just some gimmick to undermine the National Flood Insurance Program.

I firmly believe in the strong and rigorous regulations that limit development in flood plains. Development in an unprotected flood plain is dangerous, and I do not support legislation that encourages new construction in hazardous areas.

But the regulations that prohibit local investments from being counted, and prevent coastal communities from having full access to the NFIP are antiquated.

To understand the scope of the problem, it is important to have a little bit of context. FEMA is currently undertaking an extensive Map Modernization effort and examining levees around the country for safety. As FEMA does this, the Agency is learning that many levees do not provide an acceptable level of flood protection. This means that the people living behind these levees are in real danger of flooding, and until recently, were unaware of it.

Fortunately, the Map Modernization effort is bringing all of this information to homeowners and consumers. With this information they are able to protect themselves with flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program.

But as I have said, there is actually a disincentive for local governments to pitch in and help build flood control systems; if the locals build the levee, the National Flood Insurance Program won't give homeowners the same discounts they would receive if the levee were built by the Federal Government.

The program does this by limiting which communities can qualify for reduced rate flood insurance zones.

FEMA created the reduced rate AR and A99 zones to reflect a reduced flood risk as the result of an existing or partially completed levee system. But this designation only applies to communities protected by federally funded levees.

Even in Sacramento where residents have approved two property assessment increases to help pay for levee repairs, the homeowners are still hit with higher insurance rates because the improvements are not being paid for by the Federal Government.

The original idea behind this requirement was that information on non-federal levees was unreliable, and we did not know how safe they really were.

That was 30 years ago. Now we have better information, and better science, and FEMA has sufficient data to make sound judgments on levee safety. The rule is antiquated, and it needs to be modernized.

Not surprisingly, other agencies also recognized the need for a change. In California, the Sacramento and West Sacramento Flood Control Agencies, as well as the California Department of Water Resources are seeking this change.

At the Federal level, FEMA has worked with my office and the office of Representative Doris Matsui to develop these common sense modifications.

I commend each of the agencies that worked on this project and I hope to see these changes enacted quickly.

There are already positive signs in the House of Representatives. Just a few weeks ago, Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus included text of this legislation in a version of the National Flood Insurance Reauthorization bill. I want to commend Mr. Bachus for agreeing to make this important change, and thank Ms. Matsui for her effective advocacy on this issue.

On the whole, the National Flood Insurance Program and the Map Modernization effort each have taken our nation in the right direction. As a result of their successes, Americans are safer, and have the means and ability to insure their homes even in risky areas. These are not trivial accomplishments.

But a little fine tuning is in order.

Communities looking to improve flood protection in their area should not be penalized for paying for it themselves.

Residents should be charged the same insurance rates if they face the same risk--regardless of who owns the levee that protects their home.

The Flood Protection Fairness Act will make these two important principles clear. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and look forward to working with you to ensure its speedy passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.