Mortgage Forgiveness Tax Relief Act

Mr. President, before my colleague leaves the floor, I thank him for his leadership of the banking committee in the Senate for now several years and his commitment to try to find the right regulatory framework for the largest banks in our country as well as our community banks. I think the chairman has had a lot of challenges, as we all have, and I thank him, and for his strong advocacy of this particular nominee and for his help on so many issues, one of which I am going to speak about now with my colleagues from Florida and New York.

National Flood Insurance Program

Mr. President, many of us on both sides of the aisle, from all parts of the country, have been working very hard for the last year--and some of us even longer than that--to try to present good, solid information to the Senate and to Congress about how important the National Flood Insurance Program is in many different dimensions, first of all for those who live along the coast, which is 60 percent of our population in the United States, and those who live on inland waterways, whether it is in the Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey or in States such as Pennsylvania, New Mexico, North Dakota--not near any ocean--or whether it is in States such as Florida or Louisiana that do sit, in Florida's case, on the Atlantic, and in our case the Gulf of Mexico.

This is a very important issue because our businesses and our families have to have a system of very strong levees, smart building codes, and ways of building and expanding our communities with a good flood insurance safety net, if you will, or security net, along with levees that do not break as they did in New Orleans in 52 places and three-quarters of a great international city of half a million people in a region of almost 1.2 million virtually went underwater. We have to do better than that because we are the greatest Nation in the world, we are the greatest economy, and this is an important issue for the Nation.

Some of us in places such as these spend a lot of time thinking about levee infrastructure, flood protection, all of the different pieces. It is not just one piece. Insurance is a very important piece, as my colleague from Florida will explain in a minute. He was a former insurance commissioner and knows this as well as anyone in this body. But flood insurance is one piece for Americans, some of whom live in low-lying areas, some in flood-prone areas, but they have been there a long time--like 300 years in our case. They did not just move down here in the 1980s. We have been here since the 1780s and the 1680s. So we have been here a long time as a country. We have built up a protection, if you will, of good, solid affordable flood insurance over the last 40 years. We have been building levees a long time. Thank goodness we are building more of them and building them better because our people need them and we could all use more of those. I try to provide funding for that every chance I can as a member of that Appropriations Committee.

Contrary to some of our critics, we are promoting very good policies in this country about smart growth, how to build stronger, higher, more resiliently. We are not blind to the challenges. But we have right now before this body a flood insurance bill that will fix the most pernicious parts of a ``reform bill'' that was passed 2 years ago called Biggert-Waters with all the best intentions, but it had disastrous--disastrous--consequences for people in New Jersey, Florida, New York, Louisiana, and Texas.

There are 5 million policies.

I want to put up one chart, and then I am going to turn it over to the Senators who want to join me. But because critics say this is just a Louisiana issue or this is just a Florida issue or this is really not about anything other than coastal States, let me put that to rest. That is not factual. It is a damaging myth. You can see here on this chart that all of the flood maps in effect are in purple. These are Mardi Gras colors in honor of our season coming up after Christmas. But these are the flood maps in purple that exist as of July 12. These are proposed flood maps in green and new flood maps in yellow. Literally, there will not be a State in the Union--not one State in the Union; not one--that is exempt from the requirements of Biggert-Waters to produce new flood maps, some of which have not been produced for decades, putting communities that have never been in a flood zone, in a flood zone and then having these pernicious pieces of Biggert-Waters say: OK, you have never flooded, you have never been in a flood zone, but let me tell you, when you put your house up for sale, your rates are going to go up 10 percent. It is like stealing, taking--whatever word you want to call it--the equity right out of someone's home. It is unconscionable, and it must be fixed now--not a year from now but now. These rates have gone up in October, in January.

So I am here to say a couple of things. This is a national issue, No. 1. No. 2, we are very proud of putting together a great coalition. The leaders of this coalition are Senator Menendez

from New Jersey, the Presiding Officer's senior Senator, who has worked so hard; and our Republican leader, for whom everyone has a lot of respect, is Johnny Isakson from Georgia, who is recognized as an expert in the real estate markets of this country. It is his expertise. We should listen to him when he says real estate markets are going to take a terrible hit if we cannot fix this.

The final point is that this is not just to help homeowners and businesses; it is also to save the program because, as Chuck Schumer, the Senator from New York, has said many times, if we do not fix this, not only will people not be able to afford the insurance but because they cannot, the program will collapse under its own weight of inaccessibility and unaffordability, and then the taxpayers are going to pick up a bigger tab.

We could not make any clearer, stronger arguments. A coalition has come together. We have 60 votes.

I see my colleagues from Florida and New York. I do not know what their schedules are in terms of time. The Senator from Florida is well- versed. Again, as through the Chair, the Senator from Florida served, before being a Senator, as an insurance commissioner. I would like for him to add a word because our goal today is to acknowledge that, unfortunately, because of the difficulties we are having on process, we are not able to get a vote, it looks like, before we leave, but we are under the understanding--and I want to ask the Senator--that Leader Reid has agreed to call this bill up for a vote, for a cloture vote, in which we have accepted the 60-vote threshold. We believe we actually have more than 60 votes. We just need to get it up when we come back in early January.

Through the Chair, is that the Senator's understanding?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Through the Chair, could the Senator explain a little bit more clearly for so many people who are listening to what we are saying this morning, because the Senator has been around here a while in leadership. When the leader, Harry Reid, rule XIV's a piece of legislation, how sure are we that we are going to get what is required and can we be--I have been saying I am very confident this vote will occur sometime in a week or two when we get back. What is the Senator's understanding?

Is the Senator aware of a comparable effort going on in the House? The Senator has been at a couple of news conferences with us. Could the Senator maybe speak for a minute to explain, does he think there is pretty good support building in the House of Representatives from the Senator's delegation in New York as well as other delegations the Senator might be aware of?

To the Senator from Florida, through the Chair, what is the Senator's understanding of the Florida delegation? The Senator has one of the largest States in the Union and has one of the largest delegations. Is it something that the Senator is sensing people are becoming more and more aware of, not just from the coastal counties but throughout all parts of Florida?

I thank the Senator from Florida. I would ask unanimous consent if we want to extend our colloquy, but I think I am going to wrap up with a few remarks for about 5 minutes.

I see the Senator from Texas on the floor and he may want to speak. But let me put a couple of startling facts in the Record.

There are over 450 counties, parishes, and boroughs which are located directly on open oceans, the Great Lakes, major estuaries, or coastal flood plains. We know from our geography that there are over 3,144 counties--parishes in our case, boroughs in some--in the country. But this is the important fact here. In 2010, these coastal counties contributed more than $8.3 trillion, which is 55 percent of the national economy. I want to underscore that and highlight its importance. We have 3,100 counties. But there is a subset of those counties which is mostly affected by this particular issue, flood control and flood protection, that produces 55 percent of the GDP for this country.

So, yes, this is a homeowner's issue, it is a middle-class issue, it is: They are suffering, let's relieve the pain. But it is also: We better wake up and realize the economic impact this is going to have on the entire country if this is not fixed. This is not about millionaires on a beach. It is about the future of the economic strength of America.

I cannot be more emphatic about that. It is not overstating our challenge. This is not about millionaires. It is about the middle class. It is about the middle class who need affordable insurance so they can live where they need to work--let me say that again: Live where they need to work--not rest where they need to vacation. There is a big myth here that flood insurance is about resting on vacation.

Flood insurance is about working hard where you need to work to keep this economy moving forward. Nothing could be more clear than in the State of Louisiana, but this is true in Texas, this is true in New Jersey, this is true in many places, in California, in our country.

People live near the water to harvest seafood, to produce domestic energy, to manufacture and transport the goods necessary to keep this economy moving.

If we shut down these communities because of a capricious law such as this that was not well thought through, that was not fully debated the way it should have been throughout this Congress, we are jeopardizing the dreams of not only these particular homeowners and business owners, but--and people will hear this from me--we are jeopardizing the future of the economy in the United States.

We cannot let this get any further than it has gone or we will start feeling the ramifications. Again, this is not flood insurance for people resting on vacation. This is flood insurance for people working every day because they need to live where they work to do the jobs our economy requires.

I showed this flood map graph a few minutes ago, which is where all of the flood maps are going to be. No State is exempt, not one-- clustered in some areas, more than others, but not one State is exempt. Heads up to Oregon, Washington, California, Pennsylvania, Michigan, of course, the east coast, the gulf coast, and everywhere in between.

But this is where levees are. I know a lot about levees. Unfortunately, I have to know a lot about them because we have a lot of them. They break too

often and breach too often. I am trying to figure out ways to build them higher and better with nickels and dimes and trying to piece them together. I was surprised there are levees in other parts of the country that I was not aware of. This is a big issue, flood protection, particularly with our sea levels rising, the weather patterns getting more erratic, flash floods happening in deserts.

Colorado is not even around an ocean. How could we have millionaires on a beach when there is no beach? I mean, there are millionaires in Colorado, but there is no ocean. This visual some critics have painted is so wrong. It is so distorted.

What Colorado does have--and look at Arizona--they have these flash floods, important flood controls for people who even live in dry parts of our country. We have to fix this.

The great news is we have a bill that is broadly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. I am sorry there is seemingly one objection from the other side, a Republican Senator from Idaho. Many colleagues are talking with him about lifting his objections. If he has suggestions for amendments, we are flexible, we are open to hear any reasonable suggestions.

We have more than 60 votes. Around here, in the old days, when we had 60 votes, we could do a lot.

Unfortunately, there are some people who think we have to have 100 votes to do anything, and that is a big problem. It is a big problem for our democracy because that is not the way it was structured to be.

However, we are going to continue to work. I thank the coalition. I wish to read a couple of things into the Record, and I will turn the floor over in a minute.

I have on my Web site--and I have encouraged Senators to have ``My Home My Story.'' There are literally hundreds every day that come into my office with a picture of the house and their individual stories. I think it is worth reading one or two into the Record briefly.

This is from the New Orleans area where there are 303,000 policies. This particular story is from Jefferson Parish, a suburb of New Orleans, which has the most insurance policies of any parish of our State.

Richard of Metairie writes:

My wife and I purchased it as our first and so far only

house in the fall of 1997.

We put down roots, befriended our neighbors, hosted family

gatherings, and celebrated the birth of our daughter.

If the rate increases we're hearing about go forward, you

will have succeeded in doing what Katrina didn't; break the

back of Southeast Louisiana.

Homes will be unsellable, businesses will shutter, banks

will fail from the doubtless tens of thousands of defaults

that will occur as people simply walk away from their now

worthless homes.

I don't know how much clearer we could be, and this is not an exaggeration. The data shows it. The coalition has proved it. We are building tremendous support, and I can only hope we vote as soon as possible within the first week of coming back.

Wendy of Metairie, another person from Jefferson Parish, says:

I built my house 3 feet above required base flood elevation

in 1998.

Now with elimination of grandfathering, I will be paying

$28,000 per year for flood insurance.

Why should we be penalized for building our houses in

compliance?

That is a very good question, and I don't have an answer for her other than to say we hear you and we are changing the law. It was poorly designed, it can be fixed, and it should be fixed.

Finally, from Baton Rouge, which is our capital city now, because so many people were literally flooded out of New Orleans in the southeastern part of the State. Baton Rouge is now the largest city, almost 500,000 people.

Ken writes:

My wife and I live on Social Security and a small annuity

from my work.

We have lived in this house for 37 years.

All our bills take almost all the income.

We constantly look at our finances to see if there is

anything else we can cut or reduce.

An increase in flood insurance may increase my house note

beyond our capacity to pay for it.

Brian of Baton Rouge writes:

My house was built in 1969 before there were flood maps.

I accepted a job in TN, I thought my house would sell.

I have a neighbor who wants to buy my house, but they have

withdrawn their offer since they found out how much flood

insurance will be.

Flood insurance rate hikes on this single property affects

3 families; my family, the family I want to buy from, and the

family that wants to buy my house.

I wish to underscore this and then I will end. I wish everyone to get a picture of the 5 million people caught in this web. We think: Well, we have a lot of people in America with 350 million. This is 5 million. Let's say 2 per house. That is only 10 million. This is a very small number compared to 350. Maybe we don't need to pay attention to the 10 million people.

But every home has a buyer and a seller. Most every home has a bank. Most every home has a worker or two or sometimes three in that house. It is affecting so many businesses. If this gentleman can't get his finances straight, he will leave his job in Tennessee. The business in Tennessee that is not anywhere near an ocean will be affected.

I know I sound a little bit like a broken record, and I don't mean to, but this is serious for the whole country.

I wish to end by thanking Harry Reid for understanding, for hearing us amidst all of the yelling and screaming that is going on around here about this and that. He has been able to focus and understand that this is an important bill for the country. He has agreed to use his power-- which he has only; only the leader has this power--to pull the bill from the calendar. He has promised us he will do that the first week we get back, and then it is our job to deliver the 60 votes to pass it. If we don't get 60 votes, the bill will fail and it will be a terrible shame.

I don't think this bill will fail because I know how important this issue is for every single Member of this Senate. I know they are hearing from their middle-class homeowners, lower income homeowners, businesses, bankers, and realtors. All I can say is we are going to have to work over the holidays--unfortunately, we would like to rest but no rest for the weary--and we are going to have to work hard to convince many people so we have a successful vote when we get back.

I have hundreds of personal requests I received. I know Senator Vitter has received the same. I thank him for his help as well. Again, this is a Democrat and Republican working together to get the job done.

I yield the floor.

As we all learned in civics class in high school, the purpose of the Senate was to ensure that every State in the Nation had at least two votes on important matters that might affect not only the country generally but also our States. Some of us represent small States and some of us represent large States.

I am privileged to represent one that has 26 million people in it, and we are growing by roughly 1,000 or more people a day. They are moving to Texas because that is where the jobs are. Our economy is prospering relative to the rest of the country because, as I like to tell my friends in this Chamber from time to time, we still believe in the free enterprise system in Texas and the private sector that creates jobs, opportunities, and where people can move to pursue their American dream.

Regardless of which party we come from or which part of the country we come from or who controls this Chamber, the Senate has historically recognized two fundamental rights; the right to debate legislation and the right to offer amendments to legislation.

When those rights are denied, our constituents--particularly of those of us who are serving in the minority--are essentially severed. They lose their voice. They lose their opportunity to have their views represented in the amendment process, the shaping of legislation that could be improved or not.

We know that when the minority voice is quashed--as this majority leader has done time and time again--and when minority rights are trampled, the Senate becomes a very different place indeed. We have become a place where mistakes get made, where purely partisan legislation is passed. The most obvious current example is ObamaCare, which was jammed through this body on a party-line vote in the House and in the Senate.

People are finding out that if they like what they have, they can't keep it.

Families of four will not see their premiums go down by $2,500. That is the kind of thing that happens when the majority succumbs to the temptation to jam things through without giving the back-and-forth opportunity, the deliberation that national legislation--legislation that will affect all 300-plus million Americans--should have.

When the majority leader denies those rights and those opportunities or those sorts of checks, balances, and the natural correction that comes from building consensus in the Senate and instead resorts to a partisan power play, mistakes get made and people get hurt.

Since the majority leader has taken that role, Senator Reid, the senior Senator from Nevada, has filled the amendment tree more than 70 times.

For those who get bored at the concept of Senate procedure and how the Senate's rules actually work, I wish to say what that means is effectively the majority leader has denied the opportunity to offer any amendments to legislation by ``filling the amendment tree.'' That is the way he actually accomplishes that.

By comparison to this majority leader who has done it more than 70 times since he has been majority leader, the previous majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, did it 12 times in 4 years. Before him, majority leader Tom Daschle only did it once in 1\1/2\ years. Majority leader Trent Lott of Mississippi did it 10 times in his 5-year tenure as majority leader of the Senate. Majority leader George Mitchell did it only three times in 6 years and majority leader Robert C. Byrd did it only three times in 2 years.

In other words, this used to be an extraordinarily rare use of the tool that the majority leader has to block amendments to legislation. Majority leader Bob Dole did it seven times in 3\1/2\ years, about once every 6 months.

By contrast, Majority Leader Reid has done it 70 times. What recourse does the minority have when they are blocked out of the legislative process on the Senate floor? The only tool we have available to us is to block cloture because it still takes 60 votes to get to a final passage of legislation. But when the minority exercises its rights, then we are called obstructionists. Because the majority leader has blocked any amendments and denied us an opportunity to have a choice in shaping legislation, the only recourse we have is to say that 41 Republicans will stick together and block the legislation, and, hopefully, set up a negotiation. But what happens more often than not is it is a politically posturing exercise and the majority leader will pull the bill down and rail against the minority as obstructionists. Well, this is a manufactured crisis.

This place did not always work the way it does now. Last month this resulted in an unprecedented power grab by our friends across the aisle when they violated the Senate rules in order to further weaken the rights of the minority and to help President Obama turn the second most important court in the Nation into a liberal rubberstamp. I am talking about the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding the fact this court has the lightest caseload of any of the circuit courts, the intermediary appellate courts in the Nation, it literally doesn't have enough work to do, while there are other judicial emergencies both at the district court and at the appeals court level that need additional judges--but because this court is the one that reviews many of the administrative regulations issued by the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency--in other words, they are the ones that will do the review of ObamaCare regulations or Dodd-Frank regulations-- the President and his allies saw this as an essential way to stack the court in a way that will rubberstamp his agenda.

So what happened is the majority leader decided to further erode or basically deny the minority any right in the process for executive nominations and judicial nominations and said: You know what. With 51 Democratic votes, we can do anything we want--anything--when it comes to nominations.

By using the so-called nuclear option, as it has been called, the majority leader and his allies went against the advice of some pretty wise Members who have been in the Senate for a long time, and I am thinking particularly about the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, who has served for six terms in the Senate and who is going to be retiring at the end of this next term.

Prior to that vote, Senator Levin warned his fellow Democrats not to take up the nuclear option, to leave it on the table and to walk away, because he said pursuing the nuclear option in this manner removes an important check on majority overreach, which is central to our system of government. It is the checks and balances that are so important that Senator Levin was talking about.

I know most people get bored when talking about the process by which things happen here or don't happen or the Senate rules, but they happen to be pretty important to our democracy and demonstrating respect for minority rights. And when minority rights aren't respected, we make some pretty bad mistakes, and I am thinking about two of them right now.

We are currently debating the Defense authorization bill, which is a very important piece of legislation, because this is the authorization given to our national security agencies, particularly the Department of Defense, to be able to function and to keep our country safe. Yet once again, the majority leader is refusing any amendments to this underlying piece of legislation, including an amendment which would address the military pension cuts that were part of the recent budget agreement that passed yesterday.

It was amazing to hear the mock horror of people in this Chamber when they found out that our Active-Duty military were being discriminated against and punished by the budget agreement that was passed yesterday to the tune of roughly $6 billion over 10 years. In other words, among everybody else in the Federal Government, they were singled out for worse treatment and were not grandfathered in to the pension reforms that were part of this deal for other Federal Government employees.

This is one of the things that happens when things get jammed through: Mistakes are made and people get hurt. In this instance, the people who happen to get hurt are those who wear the uniform of the U.S. military and who have served with great hardship in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of these people have suffered the wounds of war--lost a leg, lost an arm, suffered traumatic brain injury or post- traumatic stress syndrome. What is the majority leader's answer to our attempt to fix that mistake in that legislation? You are out of luck. And not just those of us who are trying to fix it, he is telling those wounded warriors: You are out of luck.

So when power plays take place in the Senate, when minority rights are denied and an opportunity to amend and improve and fix mistakes in legislation because of this power play by the majority leader, and the majority party that supports him, people get hurt. These pension cuts will impact veterans across the country. As I said, they will even impact combat wounded veterans who have been medically retired. This is a provision my colleague from Washington State, the Senate Budget Committee chair, called a technical error.

As I said, not surprisingly, Members of both parties have come to the floor since this was highlighted and they have called either for rescinding those cuts to the pension benefits of our Active-Duty members or those who have been medically retired or they have proposed to come up with alternative measures to reduce the deficit by a commensurate amount. At the very least, the military retirees who have already sacrificed so much for our country should have been exempted. Well, they weren't.

I am encouraged there has been some talk across the aisle about acknowledging the problem and the mistake. Yet instead of taking action today or yesterday, when we passed the budget deal that discriminated against other Active-Duty military, we were told: Just wait until next month; we will take care of it then.

It sort of reminds me of why the most feared words in the English language are sometimes said to be: Don't worry, we are from the government. We are here to help.

These wounded warriors need more than our rhetoric. They need our action. And they are the ones who are

being punished by the strong-arm tactics of the majority leader and the majority party. Why should they have to wait? We know things don't always happen on schedule around here. There is time as the world knows it, and then there is Senate time, and those are very different things.

Shouldn't we do everything possible now, today, to make sure these folks have peace of mind, particularly during this season of the year? If it was a technical error to include military retirees in the pension cuts, why are we not fixing the problem today? There is no good reason. There is zero good reason.

These kinds of strong-arm tactics need to be called out. Because while some people seem to think these are technical rules of the Senate and they are bored by them--the press doesn't want to write any stories about them--what I am here to say is that people get hurt by hyper partisanship and strong-arm tactics in the Senate. People get hurt.

Let me tell you about some other folks who are being shown disrespect as a result of the strong-arm tactics by the majority leader. I have introduced legislation that would allow for medals to be awarded to members of the armed services and civilian employees of the Department of Defense who were killed or wounded in an attack perpetrated by a home-grown violent extremist who was inspired or motivated by a foreign terrorist organization.

Of course, what I am talking about is what happened about 4 years ago at Fort Hood, TX, when MAJ Nidal Hasan, who had been radicalized by a Muslim cleric the President subsequently put on his kill list, and who was killed in a drone attack in Yemen--Anwar al-Awlaqi. Nidal Hasan had communicated with al-Awlaqi more than 20 different times by email, and over the years he had shown increasing tendencies to blame the United States for what was happening in the Middle East. He basically ended up declaring war against his own country, even while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army. Hasan killed 12 people in Fort Hood, TX--Killeen, TX--while standing up and yelling ``allahu Akbar,'' the cry often used by suicide bombers and other terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Clearly, this was not a case of workplace violence. That is what the government called it: workplace violence. This was a terrorist attack, pure and simple; no more, no less than what happened that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. And we know what the U.S. Government did in 2001, quite appropriately, in my view. The Secretary of Defense exercised his discretion to award Purple Hearts and the appropriate and commensurate benefits that go along with being casualties of war. That was war being declared against the United States. And the U.S. Congress issued an authorization for the use of military force, recognizing it as an act of war.

But when I tried to offer this amendment to recognize the loss of life in the line of duty of 11 military members and a Department of Defense contractor being awarded the Medal for the Defense of Freedom, which is sort of the civilian equivalent to a Purple Heart, when we sought to make sure the 30 other people who were shot but who survived would also be recognized and given the appropriate benefits, what was the response of the majority leader of the Senate? Well, about the same as it was for those military pensioners--the people who are wearing the uniform today and are hoping to accrue a retirement they can live on when they leave the military service. The majority leader's response to both the victims at Fort Hood and to Active-Duty military with regard to their pensions that are now being cut back as a result of the vote yesterday, was exactly the same: Tough luck. Tough luck. I don't care.

As I said earlier, while people may not care about the Senate rules and the traditions of the Senate, while they may not recognize this power grab that resulted in an unprecedented trampling of minority rights in the Senate, when these sorts of partisan power grabs happen, people get hurt.

The ones most people feel today are the broken promises of ObamaCare, which passed on a party-line vote in the Congress.

Mistakes get made. People get hurt. But today the people who are getting hurt the worst are the people we ought to be most concerned about--those who lost their lives in the line of duty in the war on terror, those who have been injured and survived those wounds, and those who keep us safe by fighting our Nation's wars. These are the people being hurt today.

I will support the underlying Defense authorization bill, but I did vote against closing off debate yesterday because I felt the denial of the opportunity to offer amendments and the opportunity to vote on important corrections to the bill, which I described a moment ago, was a terrible mistake. But those cries for rationality and reason were simply ignored.

I will vote for the underlying Defense authorization bill because it does contain some good work, but I am absolutely outraged on behalf of the people I represent in my State, some of whom I have described, by the majority leader's refusal to allow consideration of any amendments to the bill and his blatant disregard for the rights of my constituents.

I close by reminding the majority leader what he himself said--words out of his own mouth--7 years ago shortly before his party took control of the Chamber. And it is amazing to me to see how people change around here when they get in the majority. Sometimes they forget they will not always be in the majority. I have been here in the majority, and I have been here in the minority. I can tell you that I enjoy being in the majority more. But we need to respect minority rights in the Senate because eventually, if you serve here long enough, you will find yourself in the minority, and what goes around comes around.

But here is what the majority leader said before his party took control of this Chamber:

As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect

for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect.

. . . The Senate was established to make sure that minorities

are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but

minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about.

Back in 2006 I found those words inspiring. Today they are a bad joke.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for her heartfelt words. I couldn't agree with her more. I thank the majority leader and my colleagues from Ohio and New Jersey as well for recognizing the importance of this package of tax relief.

The Tax Extenders Act of 2013 would extend tax relief which business and middle-class families in my home State of New York and across the country depend on. They are noncontroversial. They have received bipartisan support in the past. And because of the great uncertainty over our economy, doing this quickly and not saying we will do it 3 months after they expire makes a great deal of sense. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have objected to all of these. I hope they will reconsider, because for the good of the economy--which is just beginning to pick up a little bit--we need to do these extenders.

I am going to talk about four of them, but one is particularly critical because it doesn't work very well retroactively. The others do. That is why I urge my colleagues to reconsider and will ask for a separate UC before we leave here on this particular one because it has particular need right now, and that is the mass transit commuter tax benefit.

There are about 700,000 commuters in the New York metropolitan area, including from the Presiding Officer's home State, who take advantage of this current incentive. The commuter benefit currently covers up to $245 a month from a person's income to pay for their mass transit commute to and from work. So whether you take the subway, bus, train, or drive to work and park, the benefit provides significant savings.

The tradition, unfortunately, in this Senate and in this Congress was to treat mass transit as a second-class citizen, because the benefit traditionally had been significantly greater for those who drive and park than for those who take mass transit, and we have had serious problems.

First, until we changed it a few years back, the mass transit was half the benefit of parking and driving. Second, it was not indexed for inflation the way the parking benefit was. So if we let this provision expire, the mass transit benefit will revert to $130 a month, while those who drive and park will actually get an increase to $250 for 2014 because of inflation.

We cannot let these transit benefits for mass transit users get left behind. To do them is a win-win. It is a win, of course, for those who use mass transit--and we have so many in the New York area. It is also a win for drivers, because every person who is encouraged to use mass transit by this benefit will actually take a car off the road, remove some degree of congestion, and allow drivers to move more quickly. And, of course, it is a win for our environment, because mass transit is a far more effective way environmentally of moving things along.

So when the leader a few minutes ago requested the Senate pass the tax extenders act, I was disappointed it was blocked, and particularly disappointed that this benefit was blocked, because while we can do it retroactively, it is harder to implement than the others that are done retroactively, because most of them take effect when you pay your taxes in 2015, whereas this one takes effect month by month.

The proposal we are asking for is exactly the same as was included in the bipartisan negotiated tax extenders package considered by the Senate Finance Committee and passed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis for one additional year, through 2014. I hope we will consider it now, not retroactively later next year as we did last year. Employers need to plan whether they will provide the benefit. Commuters need to elect to take it. And as I said, it is done on a monthly basis. You can do it retroactively, but it is much harder.

I know we have lots of problems here between the parties, but we should not hold the mass transit commuters of America hostage. We should not make

them second-class citizens. Their deduction is every bit as important, every bit as justifiable, as for those who drive and park. I hope my colleagues, before we adjourn this year for the Christmas holiday, would in the Christmas spirit extend this benefit.

Now I wish to talk about a few other credits which are also part of the package being blocked right now. One is the new market tax credit. Individuals and businesses across my State are counting on the new market tax credit. The new market credit program was created to stimulate private-sector investment in economically distressed communities. It has done exactly that. I have seen it work in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and the capital district in New York.

Over the first decade of the program, $20 billion in new market tax credit investment leveraged an additional $25 billion in capital from other sources to finance economic development in communities where financing might be difficult to come by.

The program is a proven job creator. Between 2003 and 2010, new market tax credit investments created over 500,000 jobs across the country. Again, it has always had bipartisan support. It is sort of a no-brainer. It should be continued.

I will now talk about the short line rail tax credit. It is a little like the new market tax credit in that it is a tax credit which encourages private investment and jobs.

We have short lines all across the country. They connect the main trunk lines on rail to the more isolated regions. But in those somewhat isolated regions are factories. We have opportunities for tourism, say, in the Adirondacks, and the short line rail tax credit helps maintain and renovate the short line rail system.

Rail is very prosperous these days. The big carriers can maintain the trunk lines very well. But it is harder to maintain the short line, and Congress in its wisdom decided to give a tax break for those. If you are unfamiliar, the short line rails are a web of tracks all over the country connecting local businesses and manufacturers to interstate rail systems. The unheralded links that bring raw materials into our businesses and connect them with other cities and supply chains must be maintained. Over 50 percent of rail track in my home State is short line rails. Approximately 550 short line railroads provide 50,000 miles of track in the country, and the credit is extremely useful in my State, financing hundreds of thousands of dollars of rail infrastructure investment annually. It is used all across the country. We have 42 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate for this legislation. So I hope we will consider this one and pass it.

Finally, the IRA rollover. The IRA rollover provision is also set to expire, affecting so many retirees. They need to know whether it will be extended in order to plan their charitable giving in the coming year. If it isn't extended, many taxpayers over 70\1/2\ years of age will be surprised with a tax bill when they transfer funds from their IRA to their favorite charity in 2014. So this is important and, again, is one that truly is in the Christmas spirit.

In conclusion, businesses, families, retirees will pay the price if all of these valuable tax relief provisions, and many of the others mentioned by Senator Reid, are not extended by the end of the year. I would hope, in the same spirit of comity that we passed the budget, we could come together and pass these extenders. They have always had bipartisan support. They are, after all, tax reductions. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe in tax reductions. To delay them and do them retroactively would be doing a disservice to our economy and to the millions of Americans who are working or seeking work in our country today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to echo the outstanding words of my colleagues from both Florida and Louisiana. They echo the views of many. Everyone says the public is exasperated with the Congress. Our approval ratings are low. They are. Why? It is simply because when huge problems occur that affect ordinary people, we seem paralyzed. What is happening with flood insurance embodies what I am talking about. Average homeowners who purchased flood insurance through the years for $800, $1,000, are now being hit with bills of $4,000, $5,000, $6,000. If you are rich, that is nothing. But the vast majority of people who have flood insurance, whether they live on the oceans in my State or the State of the Senator from Florida or on the gulf of the State of the Senator from Louisiana or on the bodies of water such as the Mississippi or Missouri Rivers, are not wealthy people. You tell them all of a sudden out of the clear blue they have to pay $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 for flood insurance, they do not know what to do. It is a crisis for them. They say to us: Congress, fix this.

This is what we are supposed to do. So in their wisdom, the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from Georgia, the Senator from Florida, myself, many others have come up with a proposal that says: We know flood insurance is broken, but we do not want to see it broken on the backs of average homeowners. We have a plan that will delay these increases until 2017, while FEMA studies affordability, and while Congress reexamines this issue.

There was an affordability study in Biggert-Waters. Somehow FEMA ignored it. We are not letting that happen. So that is why we have to act here. There are three types of people who are in danger. The first are those who know or are about to know they are going to be hit. They have flood insurance already and their costs are going to go way up. The vast majority are middle-class people.

The second are those who will be told: Your insurance will not go up, but when you sell your home it is going to go way up. Any bureaucrat who tells us, well, that does not affect the average person--it affects the value of their home immediately. But it also says they cannot sell their home. In my area, if flood insurance is going to be $8,000 or $10,000 or even $20,000 a year, who is going to buy the home, except at a greatly reduced value?

But, my colleagues, there is a third group. They do not know who they are. FEMA is changing flood maps throughout the country. They will get to your State, unless maybe Utah or a State such as that does not have any flood insurance. I do not know. But the vast majority of our States that either bound the Great Lakes, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the gulf, the great rivers--the Mississippi, the Missouri, the Ohio, the Platte--are all going to be affected.

A year from now your constituents are going to come to you and say: Stop this. This will affect the overwhelming majority of States and Senators, even if they do not know it now. So our solution is not an ideological solution, it is not a solution that picks one side or the other. It says: Put a moratorium on this until we can figure it out in the right way that does not put the burden of flood insurance solely on the backs of people who cannot afford it--average folks.

In my State--my good friend from Florida mentioned it--we have people who have struggled to fix their homes from Sandy, spending tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then all

of a sudden they are hit with a huge flood insurance bill. They are already in debt.

That is not fair. Just when they move back finally into their homes, FEMA comes in and tells them in a year or two they cannot afford to live in those homes they fixed. That is intolerable.

The bottom line is simple. We have a good piece of legislation. We would hope we could pass it by unanimous consent, as my colleagues from Florida and Louisiana said, as a nice Christmas--not present, because it is not a present. These are people who deserve to have this. But it is a nice Christmas thought. But if not, we will come back in January. That is my expectation. That is what the leader has told us. We are willing to go through a cloture vote and bring this legislation to the floor. We expect and hope that we will get the same kind of bipartisan support that has helped us put this bill together with Senators from every part of the country.

I would say to homeowners: It is my hope and prayer and indeed expectation, although around here expectations sometimes are not met, that we will have this bill on the floor and then passed so that homeowners, millions of homeowners across America, can breathe a sign of relief; they can stay in their homes, and flood insurance will be amended in the right way.

I would be happy to yield for a question.

My understanding is just that, that in the--even possibly in the first week when we get back, that the leader, having rule XIV'd it, which means he can bring it to the floor right away, can put it on the floor and, of course, then people can demand--those opposed--that we invoke cloture so we can proceed to the bill and then vote on the bill. But if we have 60 votes, we will be able to meet that cloture barrier. So it is my understanding the plan is to actually do it as soon in January as the first week we get back, which I believe is January 6. If we cannot do it then, we will be pushing very hard to do it shortly thereafter.

I thank my colleague for that question. Exactly. This is affecting so many people in so many parts of the country. It does not affect just Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or moderates, Independents or liberals. The support is building daily. Senators and Congress Members are getting calls from their constituents pleading with them to do something.

So it is my view, it is my understanding that the House is undertaking a very similar piece of legislation. I would expect it would pass the House, where they do not even need the 60-vote majority. I know in my delegation it has bipartisan support. As I understand it, in most delegations it has bipartisan support.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague from New Hampshire Senator Shaheen to talk about the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. This is one of those pieces of legislation we ought to pass around here. It is bipartisan. It is good for the country. It is part of an energy plan for America that can help bring the jobs back, help fix our trade deficit, help make our manufacturers more competitive, help save taxpayers money, and actually help to clean the environment. That all sounds pretty good, doesn't it, and it does so without a single mandate. It does so without any new spending. It is fully offset, and, in fact, I would make the strong argument it is going to save taxpayers a lot of money. Why? Because putting energy efficiencies in place in the Federal Government, the biggest energy user in the world, we are going to see a lot of savings to U.S. taxpayers.

Over the last several months we have been working to clear a few last few hurdles that stand in the way of passing this legislation. I am pleased to say from what I am hearing from the other side of the aisle--Senator Shaheen can talk more about this--it looks as though we are going to have a good shot to move this early next year.

Before we leave for the holidays, I wanted to have a chance to talk about it a little bit. I know Senator Shaheen did, I know Senator Wyden, who is here with us, the chairman, and Senator Murkowski, the ranking member on energy, are all highly supportive of this legislation. After all, it got out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with a strong bipartisan vote, 19 to 3. This doesn't often happen with regard to energy policy around this place. This is one of those things where Republicans and Democrats alike can come together to do something good for our country.

It is also important we do it now because it gives the economy a shot in the arm at a time we need it. There is a lot of talk in this place about an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. To me, this fits perfectly with that. On this side of the aisle we talk a little more about the production side. In other words, we ought to be using more of the energy in the ground in America right now and I think we should. We should be producing more energy. At the same time, the energy we produce we should use more efficiently, and it has all those benefits we talked about earlier if we do that.

We still import a lot of oil. In combination with China it contributes to our trade deficit. In fact, the entire trade deficit one could say is due to energy imports and trade with China alone. By doing away with some of those energy imports, because we are using energy we have more efficiently here, we are going to see lower trade deficits.

The bill creates jobs and that is why it is supported by over 260 trade associations and companies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and others. But it is also good for the environment, which is why the coalition also includes the Alliance to Save Energy, the Sierra Club, and others--again, a big reason this passed the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with a bipartisan vote of 19 to 3.

Simply put, the legislation the senior Senator from New Hampshire and I have worked on for 2\1/2\ years makes good environmental sense, makes good energy sense, makes good economic sense. It makes sense to help move this economy forward.

I visited with businesses and job creators all over my State of Ohio. They tell me the same thing. Energy efficiency is critical to their ability to compete. Think about it. We do live in a global economy. We live in an economy where we are competing in Ohio not just with Indiana but with India. As a result, we have to look at our cost of doing business, and one cost of doing business of course is labor. We don't want to compete with developing countries on labor rates. We want our labor rates to be good. We want benefits to be good.

Another aspect we could look at, of course, is the quality of our goods. We don't want to cut corners on the quality of the manufactured product we produce in this country. In fact, we want to make sure we produce the best in the world. But energy is an area where we can cut costs. By making our manufacturers more competitive by reducing their costs, we are going to be able to compete globally, add more jobs in the country, and again be able to help on our trade deficit. That is why this legislation is so important, because what the Federal Government can do is help the private sector take advantage of the best research that is out there, the best practices that are out there, so our companies can reduce their costs putting those savings toward expanding companies' plants and equipment, hiring more workers.

The proposals contained in this bill are very commonsense reforms needed for a long time. Again, there are no mandates on the private sector, none. In fact, many of our proposals come as a direct result of conversations we had with people in the private sector as to what they actually want and need. That is how we put this together.

It is also about how the Federal Government can become more energy efficient. We talked earlier about the fact that the Federal Government is the largest user of energy in the world. Think about that. Our bill basically says to the Federal Government: Why don't you start practicing what you preach. There is a lot of talk about green energy, green technology, and so on at the Federal Government level. But actually, it turns out the Federal Government itself is inefficient. We have lots of studies that show that.

More importantly, we have ideas to make the Federal Government more efficient and less wasteful. It directs the Department of Energy to issue recommendations that employ energy efficiency on everything from computer hardware to operational and maintenance processes, energy efficiency software, and power management tools. It also takes the commonsense step of allowing the General Services Administration to update building designs to meet efficiency standards that have been developed since those designs were finalized. They cannot do that now. And that makes no sense.

The Federal Government has been looking for places to tighten its belt. Energy efficiency is a very good place to start. It will save taxpayer money and help the environment in the process.

All this adds up to a piece of legislation that Americans across the political spectrum should be able to support, again fully offset, no mandates, and requires the Federal Government to become more efficient. All this makes sense.

What will the impact be? There is a recent study of our legislation that says that by 2025, the Shaheen-Portman legislation is estimated to aid in the creation of 136,000 new jobs while saving consumers $13.7 billion a year in reduced energy costs by the year 2030. It is the equivalent of taking millions of homes off the grid. It is the equivalent of the entire energy use of the State of Oklahoma, for instance, if we just put some of these commonsense efficiency standards in place.

This legislation is not everything everybody wanted. Some of the environmental groups would like to have gone further, and some of the business groups would probably like to see some other things to help them. But this is legislation that is sensible. It will make a difference. It is bipartisan. It can pass in the Senate significantly, and it can also be legislation that will be mirrored in the House of Representatives and passed.

There is a bicameral interest. A number of House Democrats and Republicans are on board. They are interested in our moving this legislation in part so they can then move legislation in the House and we can get it to the President's desk for his signature.

The Secretary of Energy has made energy efficiency one of his new priorities. So this is something we should and can do.

We all often lament the fact that there is not much bipartisanship around this place and not much is getting done; and it is true. It is true. The budget agreement was good this week. We had to do something. It is far from perfect, as I have said, even though in the end I voted for it because I think we need to move forward on this issue and have a budget for the first time in 4 years. But this is an example of bipartisan legislation that is positive and that can help move the country forward.

Any true, all-of-the-above energy strategy has to include not just producing more energy but using it more efficiently. Produce more, use less. That is good for jobs, good for taxpayers, and good for the environment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I hope we will hear from the Senator from New Hampshire who has been my partner in this effort for the past 2\1/2\ years.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:45 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. and that the time in recess count postcloture; further, that the time from 2:15 p.m. until 2:35 p.m. be controlled by the majority leader or his designee and the time from 2:35 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. be controlled by the Republican leader or his designee.

Madam President, my voice is a little weaker than usual thanks to a winter cold, but I nevertheless come to the floor today because there is an issue on which it is important not to remain silent; that is, just a few days from today more than 1 million people across America are going to lose their unemployment benefits. Those benefits are a bridge to the next job. Those benefits are the foundation for a family during a rough time while searching for that next job. Those benefits ensure the stability of the family and provide a solid foundation for the children during those weeks and months. But instead of maintaining this important bridge for more than 1 million American families, we are going to allow it to be dismantled on December 28 of this year, 3 days after Christmas.

This chart gives a little bit of a feeling for how unemployment is working. We have the total number of those searching for work in Oregon who cannot find a job. We can see how it grew dramatically in 2008 when the economy collapsed and how it has gradually improved. Yet unemployment remains quite high in Oregon--not as high as it was but still quite high--and it remains quite high across this Nation.

We have a structure in place where every State provides 26 weeks of unemployment, and then, depending on the unemployment level in different States, States take advantage of a Federal program for emergency unemployment, which works a little bit like this: If the State's unemployment rate is below 6 percent, the State is eligible for 14 additional weeks of unemployment for families, so the total goes

from 26 weeks to 40 weeks. If the State's unemployment rate is between 6 percent and 7 percent, the State is eligible for 28 weeks, for a total of 54 weeks--still less than 1 year of unemployment insurance. If it is between 7 percent and 9 percent, as it is in Oregon, the total goes to 37 additional weeks, which means, with the 26 underlying weeks with the State, 63 weeks. If the unemployment rate is over 9 percent, then the amount is 10 weeks more, for a total of 73.

On December 28, just days from today, there will be about 17,000 Oregonians who will be completely cut off from their unemployment--not tapered, not a few at a time; all of those who have more than 26 weeks right now will instantly be cut off. So that is 17,000 families or, at an average of 3 individuals per family, 50,000 Oregonians who are going to get from the Republicans in this Chamber a big lump of coal in their stocking.

Their argument is that we shouldn't keep this program in place because those folks should just go out and get jobs. I would remind them that this program was set up under a Republican administration, and it was set up to balance the fact that in States where jobs are more readily available, the number of weeks of provided unemployment assistance is fewer, and in States with higher levels of unemployment, where it is virtually impossible to find a job because there are so many applicants for any one job, then the number of unemployment weeks is greater.

This was a bipartisan plan, and this plan was implemented when the national unemployment rate was 5.6 percent. The unemployment rate today is 7.3 percent. The bipartisan emergency unemployment program that provided more than 26 weeks was implemented when there were 137.3 million Americans working--more Americans who were working than today.

So what was good enough under a Republican administration, under bipartisan support--that created a careful balance between unemployment; that is, the challenge of getting a job, and the bridge to the next job--if it worked then, why not now? Why throw 17,000 families in Oregon out in the cold? I hear silence in this Chamber. I don't hear a reply. Why is it justified to terminate this program when unemployment is still high?

Some of my colleagues want to keep all the special tax breaks for the oil companies and all the special tax breaks for the coal companies. But what do they want to give to the families who are looking for work in high-unemployment areas, where it is virtually impossible to find a job? They want to give them a lump of coal. It is wrong.

Moreover, not only does this program help those families directly, but it helps the entire economy improve gradually because those benefits are immediately spent by these families. These benefits help families get through a hard time. They help them pay the mortgage, which solidifies not just this family but by preventing foreclosures solidifies the street and the community from the impacts of foreclosure, of empty homes. It has guarded the family between getting to the next job and ending up homeless.

I call upon my colleagues to come to this Chamber and pass immediately the extension of this carefully balanced program which not only directly benefits families who are doing the hard work of finding the next job but provides a solid foundation for our economy. This is no time to try to deflate our economy and throw more people out of work, but that is what happens when we cut this program.

I encourage my colleagues to think carefully about the fact that this program was neither a Democratic program nor a Republican program. Think carefully about the fact that it was developed during a Republican administration, that it was designed to carefully pull itself back in as employment improved. But what isn't right is for it to be cut off completely in this period of ongoing high unemployment.

While the average in Oregon is between 7 percent and 8 percent unemployment, we have communities with far greater than 10 percent or 12 percent unemployment. So many families are wanting that next job. There is nothing better than a job in terms of any type of social program. It creates a sense of self-worth, it creates a sense of structure, and it creates a sense of satisfaction. The families in Oregon want jobs and they are applying, but there are not enough jobs to go around.

That brings me to my next point. This Chamber should be considering program after program to invest in infrastructure and invest in manufacturing to create jobs. But there are those here who have sought to paralyze this Chamber in every possible way, to prevent any improvements, in terms of trying to sustain partisan campaign warfare rather than problem solving. This is an abdication of responsibility as a Senator. The responsibility is to be here working hard to solve the problems for families across this Nation, not continuing the partisan politics of the last campaign.

The American people see this partisan campaigning, and they do not like it. They want to see problem solving. They want to see us coming together to fix things.

A few moments ago the colleague from Texas was on this floor. He was saying some things that were extraordinarily misleading. He said, basically, that all of the paralyzing strategies that his party has employed stem from a lack of amendments. We have seen those paralyzing tactics in every possible responsibility that this body has. We have seen them on executive nominees. There are no amendments on executive nominees. You either approve them or you do not. We have seen this paralyzing strategy on judicial nominees, but there is no tree--the tree he referred to, the amendment tree--on judicial nominees. We have seen this on conference committees, unparalleled blockade of letting the House and Senate meet together to resolve differences in their bills.

Madam President, I know we are closing down this body, according to the unanimous consent agreement. I am thankful for the opportunity to address this important issue, about the fact that it is wrong to put lumps of coal into stockings of working Americans rather than extending the emergency unemployment insurance provisions.

I yield the floor.