Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to talk about another very important bill. There was an hour exchange about unemployment, which is extremely important for the Nation. I think people got to hear arguments on both sides. They can continue to try to process that.

I came to the floor this morning to talk about another very important piece of legislation that we do have very deep and very genuine bipartisan support for; that is, the flood insurance provision, the Homeowner Affordability Act, which will correct some of the more egregious provisions of a bill that passed a year-and-a-half ago called Biggert-Waters.

The bill, Biggert-Waters, that was passed, named for the two Members of the House who led that effort, was well intentioned. In fact, I have had many wonderful conversations with Maxine Waters, the absolutely distinguished Congresswoman from California whose name is carried on that bill.

She had wonderful intentions because California, like Louisiana, depends on a program to work that is sustainable and affordable, but she even recognized and has been so gracious with her time to come to Louisiana to say we intended for this to fix the problem, but I admit we made it worse; the way FEMA has interpreted some of the things we have done has made it worse and the fact that the Federal Government continues, despite our efforts, to recognize levees people have built. So she has agreed to help lead our effort to reform a bill she and Congresswoman Judy Biggert passed a year-and-a-half ago.

I wish to start by commending the leadership. In the House, the effort is being led by Congresswoman Waters and Congressman Grimm. There are chairs of standing committees, working with them as we speak, to figure out how to move forward in the House.

But in the Senate we have been working so well together. Despite all of the commotion and adversarial positions on other issues, we put together a very excellent coalition of about 200 organizations. I am going to read those names in just a minute--200 organizations that have been working with us to fashion a reform bill that meets these objectives.

The Presiding Officer has spoken on the floor of the Senate now at least a half dozen times that I have listened to her speak on the floor, so she knows all this that I am going to say because she said it even better than I can. But the provisions that are in our reform bill for flood insurance meet important goals. First of all, it is affordable to the middle-class people who are required to have it. That is the most important thing about flood insurance, that it be affordable to the people required to have it.

Yes, there are some very wealthy families who live in mansions on beaches that are required to have it. They will have no problem paying a substantial premium. But there are millions of middle-class families--many of them in Louisiana--who do not live anywhere near the water and they most certainly do not live in mansions on the beach. They live in middle-class, blue-collar, working neighborhoods far from lakes, a distance from rivers, and nowhere near the ocean. They have found themselves caught up in paying premiums they cannot afford.

If we do not fix this, the premiums coming into the program will be less and less. People will be defaulting on homes. Banks, communities will take a downward economic spiral and the program itself will collapse.

We cannot have this program collapse. So even though our critics--and this has been in the newspapers--are saying we are trying to saddle taxpayers with a huge debt, nothing could be further from the truth. We are trying to save taxpayers from a big bailout by reforming a program that needs to be reformed and fixed so middle-class people can afford it, banks can operate well with it, homebuilders can build homes with it, realtors can sell the homes with the program, which they are not able to do now. Everyone can get back to work, anxiety can be reduced and give us some time to figure out how to reach those two important goals: so the taxpayers do not have to bail us out and homeowners and businesses can afford it. Is that too much to ask? I don't think so.

Happily, Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson, two veteran leaders of the Senate, have put a very good bill together. We are ready to vote. We are ready to vote. We could vote, actually, right now if we could just get a few matters worked out.

I would like to talk about what those few matters are publicly so people can start working them out because I think the more things that are transparent around here the better off we all are and things that are done in secret are usually problematic.

Let me say to the many people following this that the base bill is still basically in the order that everyone understands it to be. It is printed. It has been visible, public, for weeks now. That bill that is the basic essence of the compromises worked out by Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson and, I might say, with Senator Merkley's extraordinary leadership as a subcommittee chair, that is the base bill. There are amendments that Senators want to offer. Happily they are all related to flood.

To my knowledge--and Senator Isakson has worked through this, as I have, and Senator Menendez--there is a Hagan provision about escrow requirements that we think we should vote on. We are not sure how that vote will turn out, but we are happy to vote on it. There is a Blunt amendment the National Association of Home Builders has suggested we have an amendment on. We could vote on that as well. There is a Crapo amendment that is in the works. Some of these amendments have been filed and have language. Some of them are just in theory form. There is a Crapo amendment that would adjust the rate increases in the underlying bill. We could vote on that. There is a Reed amendment, Senator Reed of Rhode Island. This would require FEMA to conduct a study on the viability of offering community-based flood insurance policies. My notes say there is broad support for that.

There is a Coburn amendment, which is an alternative to the NARAB. That amendment will probably not receive the votes required, but we are happy to talk about his amendment and have him offer it. There is a Merkley amendment that will subject NFIB policyholders to force-placed insurance policies if they let their policies lapse--it is a technical amendment--and also a Rubio-Nelson amendment that is being discussed.

Those are the only amendments we know about. If there is anybody else who has an amendment on flood who would like to offer it or have it considered, the next couple of hours would be the last opportunity to get those amendments in. I know everybody is busy. I cleared my calendar. I had meeting. I cleared my calendar to do this today because it is very important that we not just get so busy with other things that we leave this place and not get this done. We are working transparently, openly, so there are no games to be played by either side.

Again, I wish to repeat, there is a Hagan amendment pending--not pending but that we know of--a Rubio-Nelson, a Reed of Rhode Island, a Coburn, a Merkley, a Blunt, and then Toomey, who was just on the floor, the Senator from Pennsylvania, has indicated he wants to offer a substitute to what we are proposing.

I am not the manager of this bill so it is not my authority to make these definitive statements. Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson will ultimately decide the strategy. But as far as I understand, because we have all been working very hard together to move this bill to final passage--as far as I understand, these are the only amendments people would like to offer and there does not seem to be any objection to offering them.

In addition, if people want 51 votes or if they want 60 votes, we are very open to that as well. We could pass the bill with 51 votes, we could pass the bill with 60 votes, so we are open. That is the game that is played here. You say we want 60, no, we want 51 or 51 and 60-- we can take it in any arithmetic anyone wants to give us. You want 51 votes, we can deliver them. You want 60 votes, we can deliver 60 votes because we have done the homework on this bill, working with coalitions, working with homeowners and businesses from South Dakota and North Dakota to New Jersey and New York, Mississippi, Louisiana, California, and Oregon. There is no disagreement.

Well, there is some disagreement, but there is not enough disagreement to overcome the great coalition which was put together, which was evidenced by an extraordinary press conference a couple of days ago, where almost 20 Senators showed up, or they were represented by their staffs, saying we are ready to go. My message on the floor--I don't know how many more minutes I have.

I would like another 5; I ask unanimous consent.

What was evidenced earlier--and the coalition knows this--there is broad consensus. There are a few Senators who want to vote against this bill. There are a few Senators who want to offer amendments. Fine. Let the record show these amendments could be offered--these amendments, germane to this bill and any that would come to us in the next hour or so that are germane to this bill, we can take these amendments and have a 51-vote, a 60-vote requirement, and final passage on 51 or 60. Let's just get this done.

There should be no confusion at all. I am glad no one on the opposite side is here debating me on this. That is a good sign for us that there truly is only one side to this story and this is the side.

I am trying to be as fair as I can. I have named the people who have amendments, to our knowledge. We, the Democrats, have said we have no

objection to them offering those amendments. If they want 51 or 60 votes, just let us know. I feel confident that our coalition can hold against any amendments that would try to gut this bill.

We will let people know what those amendments are and who has offered them because we think this is absolutely right for the country, for the States we represent, and for the taxpayer. Give us a little time to work together to figure out how to strengthen the National Flood Insurance Program without bankrupting 5 million families. If we don't stop this train that has already left the station--we have to stop it, reverse it, and put it back in the train barn because it is going down the track pretty fast. This is not a good place to be.

As I said, we probably should have never passed this bill, but it was put in a conference committee report that was unamendable and some provisions of it were indecipherable at the time. That is a little strong of a word, but they were not well understood. It wasn't that it was indecipherable; it was not well understood. After the bill was read and implemented, people thought, oh, my gosh, what have we done? This is not going to work. And they were right.

I am going to stay on the floor this morning. If anyone on the Republican side wants to come down and disagree and challenge what I have presented, please do so because I want this to be a very open process. There is nothing for us to hide from, and that is what a democracy is about.

There are some people who want to vote against our bill. Fine. Go ahead and vote against it. We have the votes to pass it. As I said, we have 60 votes. We may even have more than 60 votes. If we don't have the votes, all I can say is we tried our level best and we don't have the votes to correct it. I don't think that is the case.

I am not going to allow the smoke and confusion and all the hot air around here to confuse the coalition that has worked too hard, and they need to hear my voice very clearly, which is why I am here. There is clarity. There is no opposition on the Democratic side to this bill. We are waiting for a few clarifications from the Republican side. We hope to get those clarifications. The only Democrats who have amendments that I know of are Senator Hagan, Senator Reed from Rhode Island, and Senator Merkley. We have no objection on the Democratic side for this bill and there are only three Members who have amendments, and we are happy to have a vote on those amendments. They are not controversial. Somebody might have a problem with them and might vote no. Fine, but they don't gut the bill. There is no problem with the bill.

We are waiting on the Republican side for clarity. Again, I know how busy everyone is. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania is working very hard. He was just here speaking about unemployment insurance, and I know that is a very important issue to the people he represents, and to Louisiana. If he could get a little time to work on the amendment that we think he wants to offer on flood whenever he can, we are happy to have his amendment, and we will vote on it.

Senators Isakson and Menendez will decide when and how and what the number is--51 or 60. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter. If his intention is to gut the bill, the bill will not be gutted. If his intention is to strengthen the bill, then that is a definite possibility. People are desperate to get an answer from Congress now. We should have done this 4 months ago before these rate increases. Escrow accounts are being collected. Some people were paying $500 a year and now they are paying $5,000. According to the Biggert-Waters law, the banks have to get that $5,000 and put it in the bank now to pay that insurance. That is a real hardship on people. We need to stop that and figure this out.

Madam President, I ask for 1 additional minute. I think I have extended my time already.

We have delayed this fix too long, and we need to go ahead and take care of it. I am going to stay on the floor this morning. I will periodically bring everyone up to date.

I will close by reminding people what we are talking about. These are the new flood maps in the United States. The purple shows where it is in effect, green shows the proposed areas, and yellow shows the new flood map. There is not a State that is exempt from what I am speaking about. The amazing thing is to see this cluster in Pennsylvania, New York, and in Ohio. Everyone thinks about this as a Texas, Florida, or Louisiana issue. But when we see the inland States being affected by flood maps--States that have never been issued before are being issued without good data because FEMA doesn't have the science, technology, or resources to do this correctly yet. The affordability study has not even been done, and they didn't do it even though the last bill asked them to do it.

We need to put this train back in the station. It is not ready for prime time. We need to bring it out in a way that, yes, rates may have to rise. No one is opposed to that. But rates have to rise in a way that people can afford them and can be notified.

From our standpoint, Louisiana would like levees to be recognized. Since we spent billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money building them, we would like them to be recognized. If you are behind a levee, you don't have to pay $15,000 a year because you already paid for the levee. You don't pay twice. Taxpayers should not have to pay three times. They are happy to pay their fair share. Most everybody I know is happy to pay their fair share. But under Biggert-Waters, it is not fair, it is not shared. It has to be not completely pushed back but it has to be delayed, which is what our bill does.

I will stay on the floor, and if someone comes to the floor, that is fine. I will talk about this. It is important to get this done. I am an appropriator. I am chair of Homeland Security. This is a big, important bill for our country. This bill is almost as important--don't get me wrong, it is not as important as the whole Appropriations bill, but there are 5 million people who are getting ready to lose their home or business, and it is really important to them. It is important for us since there doesn't seem to be any real objection to work hard to get it done.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Madam President, may I say, before the Senator from Georgia leaves, how appreciative this coalition is of his leadership. He has been literally--I am not making this up--extraordinary in his time and effort to work through the final amendment process because this process has been going on for over a year.

We just did not start talking about this last week. He has given over a year of his time, and as the chief cosponsor he has been phenomenal. I think he would agree with me--if he doesn't, then we could respectfully disagree--that it is time now for the Members that have been hearing about this and have been told about this for weeks, weeks and months, to get their amendments to Senator Isakson so that we can make some decisions about how many amendments we can have. We could have four. We could have six. We could have ten. We can have a 51-vote threshold. We are ready. The Democratic side has, for the most part, cleared the amendments we know about.

So the Senator is terrific. I thank him for coming. I do not intend to ask unanimous consent at this point. The leaders are still working together, Senator McConnell and Senator Reid.

I know the Senator from Georgia is trying to work through this. Would that be a generally good description of where we are?

I am aware that we are not quite there yet. But I am also aware that the clock is ticking, that it is Wednesday, that we may be out of here on Saturday, and we need to pass an appropriations bill. This is something that also deserves a tremendous amount of attention.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time in quorum calls be equally divided.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues from Minnesota and North Dakota who are on the floor. I know they want to enter into a colloquy, but they have been gracious to allow me 1 minute on a separate subject, which is flood insurance. I thank them so much.

Before I start, I congratulate the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, who not only understands the issues in a major piece of legislation, from science to space to technology to defense to homeland security to education, and really keeps so much of that in her mind and her heart, but she also can explain this important bill to us in a way that everyone can understand.

The Senator from Maryland is truly a champion and a treasure in the Senate. Before she leaves the floor I want to acknowledge her extraordinary leadership. It is a very tough time to find common ground, but she has found it with her Republican colleagues. I hope we can get this bill through the floor of the Senate in the next 2 or 3 days.

Let me say for one moment how important it is to pass this extraordinary appropriations bill, which many of us have been working on for over a year, literally, in public hearings and meetings, negotiating with our Republican colleagues. Of course, in the last month these high-level negotiations have been going on. We hope to be on that bill sometime tomorrow. Leader Reid has expressed that we will not be leaving for the break next week without getting that work done.

I am prepared--all of us are here--to handle that business. But there is another piece of legislation of which, Madam President, you have been a cosponsor, and Senator Hoeven, who is on the floor, has been an extraordinary leader on, and that is to fix our well-intended but disastrous flood insurance program referred to as Biggert-Waters, which was passed a year ago with very good intentions, but it has had disastrous consequences in Massachusetts, South Dakota, Louisiana, Texas, Montana, and in Pennsylvania.

This is not a coastal issue. This is an issue that affects millions of Americans owning their own homes, their primary homes, and business owners--solidly middle-class people who do not live anywhere near a beach and people whose homes have never flooded.

They found themselves, because of the unintended consequences of this well-intentioned law, in a terrible circumstance in which they may actually lose their home and lose their business. We can fix that. The great news is we have a bill that is being led by Senator Menendez from New Jersey and Senator Isakson from Georgia. It is truly bipartisan. We have almost 30 cosponsors in the Senate. While it has been difficult to find common ground, we have worked very hard to find it. I am here on the floor to say to our knowledge we have pretty much worked out most of the objections on all sides.

We think there might be amendments that are wanted to be offered by Senator Toomey, Senator Coburn, Senator Crapo, and on our side Senator

Hagan and Senator Merkley. We are working through that now.

The amendment of Senator Blunt we believe can be incorporated into the bill. The amendment of Senator Tester can be incorporated into the base of the bill with no harm to the underlying balance of the bill.

I come to the floor to say to everyone, we are really making progress. We could work on these few amendments in the next hour, and the leaders might be able to ask unanimous consent for us to get on this bill in the morning and actually finish it before we go on appropriations. If everyone will cooperate just a little bit more on this, we could have several amendments and limit the time to 30 minutes of debate on each amendment. We would end up with about 6 or so amendments, and we could fit this into tomorrow morning's work.

That is my hope. If we do not, then we are going to have to stay here, I think, even after the appropriations bill to get this. I don't know about you, Madam Chair, but I just cannot go home again without getting this fixed. We have been working on this patiently. We have had hearings. We have had meetings. We have had press conferences. We have a coalition of over 200 organizations.

We have worked with the House in strong partnership. They will be ready to act when they get back on our bill. If we can get a strong vote of 70 Senators--which we are hoping for, maybe more--that will send a very strong signal to the House of Representatives. This bill has no score--a zero cost to this bill, zero. It doesn't repeal Biggert-Waters, it postpones it until we can fix it, and it gives us the impetus to fix it.

Let's work hard in the next hour or so. I really thank Senator Isakson for working so hard--the Senator from Georgia--for trying to clear the objections that are on his side, and Senator Menendez and his staff for working on our side.

I yield the floor.

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.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 7 minutes as in morning business.

I appreciate the courtesies of the Senator from Washington, who is on the floor managing the bill. I thank her for allowing me to make these brief remarks regarding one of the nominees of President Obama--someone we will be confirming, hopefully, in the next short period of time.

I come to the floor to give my strong and unequivocal support to Alejandro Mayorkas as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Before I speak about his many extraordinary qualifications for this job, let me say that it has been very disappointing and very concerning to me that so many high-level leadership positions in this particular Department have gone unfilled for so long.

It has been 6 months since Secretary Janet Napolitano stepped down, having given notice of her departure after serving with such distinction and contributing so much to the strengthening of that agency. All agencies of the Federal Government are important and there are advocacy groups who argue for them, but I think everyone understands the real significance of the Department of Homeland Security. It is a relatively new agency. The Department is only 10 years old, but it plays a key role in the security of our homeland. Because it is new, it is still struggling with how to coordinate and unite all of the internal parts and coordinate effectively with the Department of Defense.

It has new and emerging technological challenges that are extremely demanding. The cyber attack which is happening daily and which is a growing threat to us is a very important part of their mission.

May I remind Senators that immigration, border control, and border security are right in the middle of the mission of this Department. So if we want to have strong immigration policies and smart immigration policies and secure our borders with smart fences, we better get somebody who is experienced and smart to run the operation.

That is why I am here to support Alejandro Mayorkas, who has been the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for the last several years. He has received many compliments from both Republicans and Democrats in his role as our chief immigration officer. He has worked to secure the border and has made tremendous improvements with the resources, which have been quite significant, that we have provided to strengthen the border. He brings tremendous experience as having run one of the most significant agencies within the Department.

Today we have a chance to start filling the leadership vacuum at the Department of Homeland Security not only with visionary leaders such as Alejandro Mayorkas but with leaders who have practical hands-on experience running the important parts of this Department.

As I mentioned, the nominee is the current Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is really how I got to meet him and to know him and to work with him in such a close fashion.

Many of my colleagues know that I have the responsibility and privilege of informally heading up our Senate adoption caucus, and I do some international travel, helping to strengthen child welfare work around the world as well as, of course, in Louisiana and here domestically in the United States. We ran into a significant problem several years ago, which we are still trying to unwind, when Guatemala closed adoptions and our own State Department was a partner in that closure. There might have been--might have been--some good reasons for closure. The problem was that in the middle of that, there were 900 American families from every State in the Union who were caught. They were not placed on any transition list nor were they given any support--virtually no support from either our State Department or from the country of Guatemala. So some of us stepped in with partners at the State Department and others to see what we could do to help.

It has been a long, hard road for many of these parents and children who have now been stuck in orphanages, in group homes. They are no longer infants. Some of them are 8 years old and have waited 6 years for their adoption to be finalized. Some of them are 15.

Amidst all of the work the nominee had to do on immigration and so many conflicting pressures, Alejandro Mayorkas took the time to give leadership and voice and help to the powerless. That speaks a lot to me, and it should to the members of our coalition, which is very broad and completely nonpartisan, when a very important person with a lot of power steps out of that comfort zone and helps people who have no lobbyists, no power. Without his help, we would not be making the progress we are making. That is one example that proves to me he is the kind of leader we need more of, not less of, here in Washington.

I have full confidence that--based on my knowledge of his experience of running immigration and my personal knowledge of his character and his integrity and his tremendous ability in terms of diplomacy and negotiating, which I witnessed firsthand, working with many high-level government officials from outside of our own government--he has the skills to negotiate within this agency to bring everyone to a common cause, a common vision, and a common plan to move this very important Department forward.

Prior to his directorship as immigration director for the United States, he served for a good bit of time as a U.S. attorney prosecuting criminal and white-collar crime and gang violence in California. He is known very well to the two Senators from California. I think it was Senator Feinstein who recommended him to that position. She has testified on his behalf and has submitted statements for the Record. Both Senators from California can also vouch for his almost flawless record of service.

He has already been confirmed twice by the Senate. Yet, unfortunately, there were some political concerns that are not valid that held him up. So we have moved him forward. He got a strong vote from the members of our committee who know him well and understand his high level of integrity and his proven record of service to the people of the United States.

Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a strong look at this nominee, understanding that he has been confirmed twice before. He is an outstanding, unblemished prosecutor of crime. He would be a perfect person, with his background and experience, to serve as a Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I, frankly, think he is one of the most qualified people whom I have seen nominated.

Today, we have a chance to start filling the leadership vacuum at the Department of Homeland Security with visonary leaders. Ali Mayorkas-- the current director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services-- is exactly

the type of leader we need in the deputy secretary position.

Since his confirmation as head of USCIS by voice vote by the Senate in 2009, Director Mayorkas has led the effort to turn around an agency that was widely considered to be foundering and helped build a professional and competent workforce.

Director Mayorkas brings all the right qualities for this critical position; these qualities include a pushing for collaboration and efficiency within the workplace. As a prosecutor and a former U.S. attorney for California, Mr. Mayorkas demonstrated his commitment to enforcing the law to protect U.S. citizens.

As Congress and our Nation move closer to comprehensive immigration reform, we must have the proper leadership in place in the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that the laws we pass are enacted with the same transparency and accountability that he brings to his current post. I can think of no better leader to guide DHS in this pursuit, as he will do so in a way that balances the needs of our business communities and families while keeping our border safe and secure.

Mr. Mayorkas' previous experience provides a solid foundation for his future work and an extensive knowledge of our immigration system and the overall mission of the Department of Homeland Security. As the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I am keenly aware how important it is to have strong management at the head of this Department and believe him to be uniquely qualified for the job.

I have every confidence in his devotion to safeguarding our Nation and his ability to effectively perform his duties in this new role. I will be proudly casting my vote in support of his nomination as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

I yield the floor. I don't see any other Senator wishing to speak at this moment, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I see my good friend the Senator from North Dakota on the floor today, and I wish to yield to her to begin this very important discussion on the importance of flood insurance relief for the country. She has been an outstanding spokesperson and a true advocate to help us get this right, this Flood Insurance Program that can help sustain the program itself for the benefit of the taxpayers as well as for the people in North Dakota, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey who depend on it so much. So let me turn to our leader, Senator Heitkamp.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for her very kind and very generous comments. She underestimates her own tremendous leadership skills. Arriving here as a new Member, she jumped right into this issue. She didn't need a lot of prep work. She understands her State. She understands basements, which we don't have in Louisiana because if we dig down even a few inches, we will hit water. So I had to become very well educated by my good friends, the Senators from New York, New Jersey, and North Dakota, about true basements. It just goes to show that when we work together, we can come up with good legislation that can really help our people, give them relief, being in partnership with them, helping them to keep and strengthen the equity in their homes and businesses as well as do right by the taxpayer. So I thank the Senator very much for her kind comments.

I wish to through the Chair recognize the Senator from New York, who has been an absolutely outstanding advocate for the people of the east coast--particularly New York but the entire east coast in the aftermath of Sandy. It was so helpful to that region to bring them the relief they needed, which has worked, and I understand it is still going on and we have to do more. But if we don't fix this flood insurance issue, which, in fact, was a manmade disaster, it is going to make the natural disaster of Sandy that much worse.

I wish to ask Senator Schumer if he has any comments to add to what has already been said.

Mr. President, there are several other Members. Senator Menendez is the leader of our efforts. He and Senator Isakson have joined and have put together an extraordinary coalition. I would like to read the names into the Record because it is a testimony. In a place that cannot get three Members to agree on anything, we have over 20 Members who agree to change the Biggert-Waters law. I want to read this into the Record and then ask through the Chair for the Senator from Massachusetts--both Senators are here--the senior Senator to be recognized for just a moment and then the junior Senator to speak on this issue.

But Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson are our leads--again, New Jersey and Georgia. They are two very different States but have very similar challenges. They have people--middle-class families, small business owners--who have poured their life savings into homes and businesses, only to be destroyed by a piece of legislation that had great intentions but disastrous results. We do not have a lot of time to fix this. We need to do this before this body leaves, which is next week.

Myself, Senator Cochran, Senator Merkley, Senator Vitter, Senator Hoeven, Senator Scott from South Carolina, Senator Wicker, Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota, Senator Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Markey, Senator Warren, Senator Nelson from Florida, Senator Begich from Alaska, Senator Manchin from West Virginia.

There is no ocean anywhere near West Virginia, but they have many middle-class families who are getting caught up in a quagmire here. This bill is the only bill that can release them and save taxpayers money. Senator Casey from Pennsylvania, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Booker, Senator Graham--who is also on the floor--and our newest cosponsor today, Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska.

This is a very unusual coalition. I have been here a long time now. I have hardly seen a coalition this broad and diverse. So clearly we have something meaningful to say that needs change.

Please let us not let procedures and pride, bad tempers, keep us from doing what we know we need to do for our people.

I thank Senator Warren who has been a tremendous help to us in putting this bill together, and might I add that it costs nothing. There is no score on this bill. So to anyone that could object because it costs the taxpayers: Nada. It does not cost anything. It is a zero score. We have done it that way to be respectful of all of the different opinions. But it will help to give us relief.

Through the Chair I would like to ask Senator Warren to add her terrific voice and perspective on how it is affecting Massachusetts, one of our most important States.

I see the Senator from South Carolina on the floor to speak, but I wish to give some concluding remarks in this very important hour about this very important issue. We are down to the wire, and we do not have any time left to provide relief to homeowners and business owners all over this country.

About 1 hour ago there was an objection registered from the Republican ranking member of the banking committee. I have a great deal of respect for that particular Member. I hope he will consider the tragic ramifications of his objection for millions of homeowners and businesses around the country and work with us over the next few days to mitigate any of his objections so we can move this bill to the floor and provide 2 hours of debate. We will accept, those of us in our coalition, a 60-vote threshold.

Let me remind colleagues that a hearing was held in the banking committee by Senator Merkley, who chairs the subcommittee. This bill has been discussed for hours and hours in committee, in public. There are hundreds of stakeholder groups led by, I am very proud to say, GNO, Inc., Greater New Orleans, Inc., a very broad coalition of business owners and parish residents. They reached out across the country, down the coast, the gulf coast, to the east coast, to the west coast, North Carolina, to the good Senator on the floor from South Carolina, reaching out in areas in the Midwest and up in the Northwest.

The reason they did that is because there are new flood maps going into effect in all of these places. I call attention to the diagram of flood maps in the United States. In purple, these were the flood maps that were in effect as of July 2012. In the green, these are proposed flood maps that have been introduced. We can see how many green designations there are.

In the gold color, there are new flood maps possible. There is no State that is going to escape these new flood maps. As Senator Elizabeth Warren said, they are inaccurate. They don't have the capability, the finances, the resources to produce--or the technology, in some cases--accurate flood maps. There have been a record number of mistakes made that we have provided for from the public testimony.

In addition, I wish to show a map of where levees are. There are many levees. I was surprised, myself, having become an expert on levees, I thought. No, I am not the expert I thought I was because I did not realize how many levees there were in other States. I have been so focused on mine that broke in 52 places and almost destroyed a great international American city, New Orleans. We are on the mouth of the Mississippi River, and I am well aware of the levee system that was one of the great engineering feats ever in the world, on the planet. It keeps the Mississippi River in its channel so we can have the great commerce we have had that helped build this great Nation. I am well aware of the great story about that.

I was not aware of the tremendous flooding risk in California, in Arizona, in New Mexico, and in Montana, of all places. I knew about Arkansas, Illinois, and St. Louis because of the Mississippi River up to Minneapolis.

Look at Pennsylvania. I was shocked to see so many flooding areas in the State of Pennsylvania.

I wish to say it is not only a coastal issue, it is a national issue. We are the national Congress. These rates are going up now and it needs to be fixed now.

I hope the Republican opposition will think clearly about their objection, the ramifications it will have, and find a way to say yes-- find a way to say yes.

The bill that Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson are offering costs zero. It helps millions of people and ultimately will make the program fiscally sound.

As the Senator from New York said so eloquently and so accurately: If you price people out of the program, there will be no one to support the program. The program will default, taxpayers will still have to pick up the debt associated with that program, and then we will also have millions of people losing their homes and their businesses. It makes no sense. It makes no financial sense.

I am not going to speak too much longer, but I do wish to state I am very happy, as an American, there are many newspapers we can read. There are many blogs, a lot of radio shows, and all sorts of different opinions. We have to read a lot, think a lot, and get different views to find the truth.

I am going to read the first paragraph of the Wall Street Journal because they need to listen to a couple of other bloggers or writers because they are way off base. The Wall Street Journal said last week: ``Federal flood insurance is a classic example of powerful government aiding the powerful, encouraging the affluent to build mansions near the shore.''

That statement is so inaccurate it is laughable.

The people I represent in Louisiana--we hardly have a beach. I don't know if anyone has visited Louisiana. We don't have beaches. We have marshes. No one I know who lives in New Orleans or Baton Rouge is anywhere near a beach. I am going to read a letter from a very affluent and powerful person:

I am a 66-year-old woman and have lived in the same house

in Broadmoor since 1974.

I knew this neighborhood when the letter arrived at my desk because that is the neighborhood where I grew up and still reside. There is not a beach within miles of Broadmoor.

She continues:

I lived there with my family, raised a son who also lives

and owns a house in Broadmoor--

It is a very middle-class neighborhood that we come from.

Continuing:

--and plan to stay in my home for the remainder of my life.

I live on a very strict budget and have just this month

received my first Social Security payment. If something is

not done to change the law that will potentially raise my

flood insurance by the thousands, it will not be possible for

me to keep my home nor sell it.

I wish to have the Wall Street Journal editorial board hear this. This is not a millionaire mansion on a beach. This is a 66-year-old woman who just received her first Social Security check. If this law is not changed by the 100 Members of this body in the next few days, she can either stay in her house or sell her house.

Please do not lecture to us from some high place in some big corporate office about Senators on the floor of the Senate trying to fight for powerful interests for people in mansions who live on fancy beaches. That is not what this bill is about.

I have hundreds of pictures. If the Wall Street Journal or any newspaper wants to editorialize about this, please check my Web site, ``My Home Story.'' I have hundreds of pictures and other Senators have hundreds of pictures. I don't see a mansion.

All I see are cries of people who say: Wait a minute. My house has never

flooded. I live in a simple neighborhood. I am a simple person. I am an American who works hard, and you are running me out of my home.

The bill that passed, Biggert-Waters, was well intentioned but drafted inappropriately and has some very pernicious guidelines or rules in it that can only be changed by Congress. Some people wish to think that FEMA can wave a magic wand and make it work. FEMA cannot wave a magic wand. We have to do our job as Senators. I hope the Senate will do its job.

We cannot agree on everything that needs to be fixed, I understand. There are many arguments about other things that some people think need to be fixed and others don't. But I don't know of anyone nor have I heard anyone on the floor give us one good, solid reason that the Menendez bill shouldn't pass, such as: I don't like section 1, I don't like section 2, I don't like section 10, maybe section 5--not one. It is all posturing.

Please let us get over the posturing and help people who live nowhere near a beach, who are going to lose their homes and need us to act. I believe we can do it. As I said, we have great Republican leadership and great Democratic leadership.

In closing, the Senator on the floor has my great respect. Also, Senator Isakson, who is the lead Republican Senator, is known in this body as an expert on real estate and finance. He is very clear in his appreciation and understanding that the real estate market is going to be shaken to its core, as well as homebuilders and community bankers who are holding mortgages on these 5 million properties.

We have come too far. We have come too far in restoring this housing market. This bill was well intentioned but poorly drafted, stuck into a conference committee report at the last minute, not with as much oversight as we should have given. We can fix it. Let's do this.

I thank the Senator for being so generous. It is a very important issue. I am prepared to stay here for as long as it takes before Christmas--even, I hate to say, up to Christmas Eve, as I wish to get home for a little bit of time, but this needs to be fixed before we leave for Christmas.

The House can come back in January, take up this bill, and we can send it to the President's desk early in February, make it retroactive, and give people relief. This is not about helping out powerful interests and millionaires on the beach. This is about helping many Americans who have done nothing wrong and everything right. They have been in their homes since the 1960s, 1950s, in some cases from the 1800s, and are going to be priced out of their home. Their equity will be stolen from them by a poorly drafted piece of legislation.

We can do better and we should.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I too hope we can resolve the issue my colleagues were just discussing. It is an important one for the country. We are very blessed in Louisiana to have a relatively low unemployment rate because our economy is doing so well, in large measure because of extraordinary new technologies, which I think the Chair understands as well in Indiana, where they used to discover oil and gas, and particularly natural gas in places and in ways we never thought possible. That is creating a real resurgence of manufacturing in our State, and that is benefiting not only us and our neighbors along the gulf coast, but it is benefiting States all over America.

The economic numbers, despite the great challenges we have here in the Congress on our budget, on paying down our debt, on reducing our annual deficit, on procedural measures and how to run the Senate and work more effectively on behalf of the people of all of our States, are really quite good in

North Dakota, in South Dakota, in Texas, Louisiana, and other States. They are experiencing really very low numbers of unemployment because the jobs are plentiful. Our challenge is, just to comment briefly, on training the workforce we are going to need to fill all the jobs we have. These are very good-paying jobs, some starting at $40,000 or $60,000 a year--construction, welders--going up to $125,000. Some are temporary, but many of them will be permanent.

So I hope we can resolve this unemployment issue, because, unfortunately, in Senator Reed's State--the State of Rhode Island--and in 20 other States there is very high unemployment. In some States it might still be over 9 percent. They are chronically unemployed because of the competition of globalization and other factors. So I think we have to try to find a way to work together as a Nation. As I said, Louisiana is blessed to have relatively low unemployment, but we have a big job skills training gap we are working on in our State.

Mr. President, I want to actually talk a few minutes this evening about a very important bill the House just passed by an extraordinary vote of 346 to 1. My colleague, Congressman Boustany in the House, was the lead sponsor, and I want to really congratulate him for his extraordinary work on this particular bill. It is something he and I have worked together on across party lines. He is a Republican and I am a Democrat, but we worked very closely together to get this entire bill passed not only for the benefit of Louisiana--which is shaded here on this chart as one of the States that would benefit--but we can see here how many other States between 2013 and 2017 will be affected positively by the passage of this bill.

The bill is the Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Lease Authorization Act. That is a mouthful, but it takes important action. It basically uses the guidance of the Office of Management and Budget-- we received a letter from them at my request--and formulates a piece of legislation that will allow the Veterans Administration to build clinics the way they have been building clinics for our veterans--who really need the highest and best quality care--using a lease arrangement.

The reason we had to pass this bill--and I will be working with Senator Vitter and many others to ask unanimous consent at the proper time for this bill to pass through the Senate--is because about 6 years ago there was an administrative ruling that basically stopped the ability of the Veterans Affairs Department to be able to build these very needed veterans clinics by using a lease.

Internally, the administration just decided to score it differently. That threw lots of sand into the gears, and those gears have been stuck for 6 years. In our State, veterans in Lafayette and in Lake Charles have been waiting and waiting and waiting. We had some added complications, which the Veterans Administration has taken the blame for, in that the bid process that was used initially for one of our clinics was defective and they had to throw it out.

But the end of this sad story is that a great bill passed the House of Representatives, literally just a few hours ago, and I wanted to come to the floor to say how proud I am of Congressman Boustany and his dogged pursuit of justice. The district of Congressman Boustany is in the part of the State where these two clinics will be built, in Lafayette and Lake Charles, so I worked closely with him, as has Senator Vitter, to make sure we brought some clarity and focus to this issue in order to move forward. As the bill moved through to help us with our problem, it turns out it is also going to help many other States that are scheduled for veterans clinics.

I also want to thank Congressman Miller of Florida, who is the chair of the VA committee. He worked very closely with Congressman Boustany. Also I want to thank Bernie Sanders, our Senator from Vermont who chairs our committee here. Senator Sanders--whose desk is right here, next to mine--has been very supportive of this effort. While I am not going to ask unanimous consent at this moment, he and I have had a discussion earlier today about how strongly he supports this effort and how much he wants to help us get this done.

There are 27 clinics in 22 States. This process--or nightmare, I should say--began in Louisiana about 6 years ago. Four years ago the ruling was made, but our legislation that was passed in the House will override that and basically set us on a course that is both fiscally responsible and so important to our veterans. We must honor the promises we made to them that we would provide clinics close enough so they could access them and so they are not driving hundreds of miles for regular care. We can be very smart in the way we design these leases so it will be a benefit to the taxpayer, a benefit to the veterans and it will really meet our obligation to them.

So again, the bill just passed the House, and tomorrow I will be asking unanimous consent, along with Senator Vitter, to move this bill, to get it to the President's desk and get it signed so that veterans who have been waiting--particularly in our State--for so long will have something extra special to celebrate this Christmas holiday.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I regret having missed two votes on November 18, 2013. The two votes that I missed are as follows: motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Robert L. Wilkins to be a U.S. circuit judge for the DC Circuit and motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1197, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of both motions to invoke cloture.

Madam President, I have come to the floor today to moderate a colloquy between my colleagues for the next 20 minutes or so regarding a very important amendment that has been filed to the Defense authorization bill we are considering. The colloquy will be between myself, Senator Wicker, Senator Warren, Senator Cochran, Senator Hoeven, Senator Nelson, and Senator Merkley. I ask unanimous consent that we have the next 20 minutes to conduct the colloquy.

Madam President, I really appreciate the courtesies of the manager of the bill on the floor, Senator Reed. I really appreciate his courtesies because those of us who have come to the floor today to speak about this issue are extremely concerned about this problem that has presented itself based on a bill that was passed 2 years ago called Biggert-Waters. With all the best intentions, a bill was passed 2 years ago to try to fix and reform and reauthorize the Nation's Flood Insurance Program, which is a very important program that allows millions of people who live not just along the coast but along our rivers and bayous and streams--from coast to coast, inland and coastal communities--to live safely and to live affordably and to have flood insurance they can count on. That was the intention of the bill, but something went awry through the passage of the bill, and the consequences are devastating.

Now, as we look back 2 years, and we see how FEMA and some of these Federal agencies are implementing the law we passed, we have some very serious concerns not only about how they are implementing it, but about the law itself.

So a group of us have come together to change that law so we can provide opportunities for our families, for our individuals and our businesses, to be able to buy and keep the kind of flood insurance they need to stay in business and to keep their communities intact.

In the last couple of weeks all we have heard about is health care insurance, and that is important, and we have some things to fix and move forward on, providing the country with a health care system they can depend on, but we also have a real challenge in flood insurance and affordability to our communities.

In Louisiana alone we have 400,000 flood insurance policies. Florida--I see my good friend, Senator Nelson from Florida, on the floor. His State has the largest number of policies; followed by Texas, with the second largest number; and, of course, Mississippi has quite a few as well. Senator Wicker joins me on the floor.

I want to start by showing this map I have in the Chamber so everyone who is following this debate--and there are literally millions of people following this debate; not only homeowners, business owners, but bankers, realtors, developers, et cetera--because if we do not get this right, these communities where you see these dots on the map, which are shown in the Mardi Gras colors--purple, gold, and green--these dots represent communities that are being affected by this program that needs to be changed and reformed.

These are flood maps that are being issued. Look how many there are in Oregon, Washington, California, Texas. What really surprised me-- because I know the gulf coast well; that is the area, of course, that I represent, Louisiana; and I know Texas and Mississippi and Florida very well--but the area that surprised me was Pennsylvania and Illinois and, of course, New York, New Jersey, and the east coast because of Superstorm Sandy. But this is a national issue. It is not a Louisiana issue. It is not a gulf coast issue. It is a national issue.

You will notice that these flood maps are not just along the coast. Some people say to us who are working on this: Well, I am not concerned because I do not represent a coastal State. Well, heads up, everyone. Even if you do not represent a coastal State, you are having flood maps issued from North Dakota, South Dakota, interior States, Kansas, Arkansas, et cetera, because you have rivers and flood zones.

If we do not change this bill in a significant way--what we are asking for in the Menendez-Isakson bill, which we are here offering as an amendment to the defense authorization bill--many of these communities will be devastated. That is because the Biggert-Waters bill has mandated fairly steep and unsustainable and unaffordable--to the middle class--rate increases that will simply prevent people from being able to stay in their homes.

My friend Senator Wicker is following me in this colloquy. He wants to speak specifically about the hardships that some of our people are experiencing as they are getting these notices about the rate increases. I ask Senator Wicker, what is he hearing in Mississippi? Could the Senator elaborate a minute about the unintended consequences of Biggert-Waters and the increases that some of our people are seeing in their primary homes as well as their businesses.

I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his comments and engaging in this exchange on the floor this morning.

The Senator from Florida has been particularly concerned because Florida has a very robust population as one of our largest States. I think the Senator has over 2 million policies in Florida.

Through the Chair, I wish to ask what the Senator is hearing in Florida about this situation.

I thank the Senator from Florida.

The Senator is correct about urgency. As the Presiding Officer knows, in her own home State, we are hearing from people who are stuck literally between a rock and a hard place because they can't get their insurance renewed. They can't afford the premium increases.

If they were thinking about selling their home, their home basically has become literally worthless, losing what equity they have-- temporarily we hope because we intend to fix this--because no one can purchase a home if the flood insurance went from $300 a year to $13,000 or $15,000 a year. It is affecting home ownership.

This is why I am proud to say--I see the Senator from Mississippi on the floor.

I wish to say how grateful I am to the great coalition of Senators who have come together, 24 Senators and 128 House Members. In addition, we have the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, and the Independent Community Bankers of America.

I wish to ask the Senator from Mississippi, through the Chair, does the Senator think we have a better chance of getting attention for our bill with the national strong support of the realtors, the homebuilders, and the bankers?

What is the Senator hearing from them in his State of Mississippi?

I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. I appreciate his hard work as well as the staff. It has been a real team effort and without him we wouldn't be where we are today.

The Senator from Massachusetts is scheduled next in this colloquy. She has brought a particularly spectacular view, a different view, and a much needed view from the east coast, not only in light of the devastation from Hurricane Sandy but the ongoing challenges to that region.

I wish to ask unanimous consent, as it is 12:30 p.m., when we were supposed to end, if each of us takes 4 minutes in the order of Senator Warren, Senator Hoeven, and Senator Merkley, we could then recess for lunch as was required earlier.

What is the Senator hearing at home from the people of Massachusetts about this, and how important does she think it is for us to have the support of the realtors and the homebuilders and other national organizations that understand the dire consequences if we are not able to get some of these fixes in place?

Madam President, I thank the Senator so much.

Senator Hoeven has joined us, and he has been particularly forceful on the issue of basements in a State that doesn't have an ocean anywhere around it but has some serious flooding challenges. I would hope the Senator would take a minute to explain to everyone what he has been telling us and how important this particular piece of this bill is for the basement situation in his State.

Madam President, we have all been extremely helpful, of course, as a team in bringing this issue forward and crafting a bill, but literally we would not be here if it were not for the leadership of the subcommittee chairman who has jurisdiction over this issue--if he had not said yes when we asked him for a hearing in his committee to allow us to present the facts in hopes that we could find a way, as all of us have said, to make this program self-sustainable for the taxpayers but helpful to the people who need it. These are twin goals, both of which must be met or there won't be any program because no one will be able to afford to be in it. I thank the Senator for getting to that so quickly.

He is the last in our colloquy. Again, what is he hearing from home and can he give us, as chair of the subcommittee, some insight into how he thinks this will affect real estate markets if we are not able to fix this.

Our time has come to an end. In conclusion, I thank the Senator from Oregon again, the subcommittee chair, for his leadership. I also particularly thank Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson, the two lead sponsors of this bill, who have come together to provide the leadership to move this bill forward. They will be looking for a vehicle. We filed it on this bill in the event we have an opportunity for an amendment on the Defense bill. If not, we will be looking for the next possible opportunity.

I thank the Presiding Officer for her cosponsorship and her leadership for North Dakota.

This is a map of all the counties which have levees. I was surprised when I saw this map. I am very familiar with the levees in Louisiana. I helped to build a lot of them. I am very familiar with the Mississippi River generally because we have so much commerce along the Mississippi. I am generally familiar with Missouri, Illinois, and Arkansas. But what really

stood out for me was the levee systems in Montana, Arizona, and California. A lot of these are levees, dikes, and dams that are different from the river levees that we see. But look at Pittsburgh, New York, North Dakota, Montana, Washington. There is not a place in this country--not on the coast, not on the interior--that doesn't have a threat of flooding. Either a levee can break, a dam can break, a river can overflow, or there can be flash flooding because of droughts. Even in Texas where there is a lot of flash flooding. So not only on the coast, but inland as well, in Kansas.

The conclusion is this is a real challenge for our whole Nation. We have a bill led by Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson that costs and scores zero. We have written this bill in a way that just postpones these draconian rate increases so we can take a little more time to study it, do some modeling, and get it right. This bill was passed with very good intentions, but prematurely, without the data we need to make smart decisions for our communities. This is giving us time to get it right. There is zero cost the way this bill is structured.

Again, I appreciate the courtesies of our leader managing this bill on the floor.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam President, today I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing one of Louisiana's courageous civil rights leaders, the Reverend Theodore Judson ``T.J.'' Jemison, who passed on November 15, 2013, at the age of 95 in Baton Rouge, LA. Reverend Jemison, the youngest of six children, was born in Selma, AL in 1918.

Reverend Jemison attended Alabama State College for his undergraduate degree and received a master's of divinity degree from Virginia Union University. He became a heroic leader in the civil rights movement, served as pastor of Mount Zion First Baptist Church for nearly a half century, and was president of the National Baptist Convention for 12 years.

Reverend Jemison orchestrated the Baton Rouge bus boycott of 1953--a model that would later be adopted by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in Montgomery, AL. Reverend Jemison actively pressured the Baton Rouge City Council to ensure equal treatment for African-American passengers who were barred from seating in areas designated White-only. Through this work Reverend Jemison helped expand the civil rights to many of the citizens of Louisiana.

Reverend Jemison served as president of the National Baptist Convention, the largest Black Baptist organization in the United States, from 1982-1994. As the organization's president, Reverend Jemison worked to promote the principles of the social gospel. He also oversaw the construction of the Baptist World Center in Nashville, TN. Reverend Jemison worked tirelessly to fight for equality, education, and opportunity not only for African Americans in Louisiana but across the country as well.

Reverend Jemison was a true inspiration to all that had the great privilege to know him. I am grateful and honored to have known him. My deepest condolences go out to his family and all of those whose lives he touched. My deepest condolences go out to his family and all of those whose lives he touched. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, today I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Gary Ostroske, who retired on July 1, 2013, as President and CEO of the United Way of Southeast Louisiana. Mr. Ostroske has been an integral part of the United Way Worldwide system for 40 years and has served as President and CEO of the Southeastern region for the past 25 years.

Throughout his tenure at the United Way, Mr. Ostroske implemented important changes to a wide breadth of programs to improve the lives of residents of Southeast Louisiana. Mr. Ostroske has worked tirelessly to provide citizens with quality healthcare, education, and human services and has undoubtedly provided many opportunities for residents of Southeast Louisiana to succeed and improve their lives.

As the President and CEO of United Way of Southeast Louisiana, Mr. Ostroske worked collaboratively with community organizations and Greater New Orleans leaders to create innovative ways to deliver critical services to Southeast Louisiana residents. Through these community partnerships, Mr. Ostroske strengthened United Way's impact and allowed it to play an integral role in crafting a strong economic agenda for our region.

Mr. Ostroske's unwavering leadership in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Isaac and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was truly remarkable. Mr. Ostroske's diligent efforts to rebuild our region after these disasters ensured our region's renewed sense of vitality and economic strength.

Upon his retirement, Mr. Ostroske is looking forward to volunteering in our community and spending time with his wife of 35 years, Mary Ann and his family--their son, Peter Ostroske, president of O Look!, an internet company

based in Sao Paulo, Brazil and their daughter, Jenny Ostroske Luke, who is a veterinarian, married to Fletcher Luke. Gary and Mary Ann are the proud grandparents to Jenny and Fletcher's children--Ellis and Myles.

Mr. Ostroske's service to the people of Louisiana has been truly extraordinary and serves as an inspiration to us all. It is with my greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me along with Mr. Ostroske's family in recognizing his dedicated service to the people of Louisiana, as well as wishing him well in his retirement.

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

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski, earlier this week. She has really been an extraordinary leader for many years in this Congress. She is truly an expert appropriator. We could have no better person trying to bring this body together--Democrats and Republicans--in my mind than Senator Mikulski. She is trying to get our appropriations bills through the process--which is so important for the country, not just for our agencies and our departments, as

the Presiding Officer knows, as a Senator from Massachusetts with thousands in his State and millions of private contractors and nonprofit organizations, not the least of which is one my favorites, the Catholic Church, which delivers so many social services to the people of our State and Nation.

It is very hard for anyone to plan anything when the Federal budget is in such disarray. If there is anyone that can figure this out, it is Senator Mikulski. So as one of her subcommittee chairs, I want to be here to support her work. I am the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, and I add my voice to how important it is for us over these next few weeks to get a budget resolution done.

Senator Murray has passed a budget on this side. After the recklessness of a government shutdown, finally everyone has come to their senses, and we are now in conference with the Budget Committee. We have to get that budget number down so that once we agree on what the top-line spending is, the budget for the country, we can then go about building the 12 bills that actually run the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, and the others.

The important reason for Congress to adopt a budget resolution would be for us to provide some stability--not just for the next year but the next 2 years, and not only for stability to our agencies but to our many private sector partners, so that we can give some idea of what the outlook for spending and investing is going to be by the Federal Government. It is very important for our overall economic strength. We cannot afford another government shutdown which puts our economic viability at risk and denies assistance to millions of Americans.

In my State, I was trying to figure out a way to describe the cost of the shutdown--reckless, and it should have been avoided, and it was not. So I asked, what are some of the things that cost about $92 million in Louisiana? One of the things I found out is that the New Orleans Saints payroll is $70 million a year. That would be like telling the Saints we are not paying you for one whole year. We would never do that in New Orleans. But when we think about not paying the salaries of the players and then the effect that would have on the whole operation, the whole organization, the city itself, the games, we can see the ripple effect; and that was just the impact to Louisiana. The impact to the Nation was extraordinary. We have to avoid it at all costs.

One of the missions of the Appropriations Committee is to make sure the Federal Government continues to operate on behalf of the people, the taxpayers we serve, and that we invest in their future, in their opportunities to strengthen families and grow businesses. They need a budget that they can count on just like we do. When the Federal Government is not functioning under normal order and getting our budgets, our appropriations bills, it really does wreak havoc in many communities throughout our country. We need to pass our 12 appropriations bills that set priorities and invest in our future.

If we are not able to get to an agreement on the budget and to set top lines for all of our appropriations bills, we will basically punt to a continuing resolution--CR--which I think Senator Durbin said is like running your business for 2014 based on your checkbook receipts from 2013. Why would any smart businessperson do that? No one would run a family budget or business operation using last year's stubs from the checkbook. We want to pay for this year coming up. We want to budget for the future.

Anytime we can't pass an appropriations bill and we punt to a continuing resolution, it is like putting the country on autopilot set for last year's weather, not what is coming ahead for next year. It really is a waste of money. It wastes taxpayer money.

So I am hoping that cool heads can prevail and we can get a budget number. It is going to take some additional revenues put on the table, as well as some smart cuts and reductions, balancing between the Murray priorities and the Ryan priorities. Then we can be given our numbers to build the Homeland Security budget. That is what I want to talk about now just briefly.

Everyone knows how important it is to keep the homeland security of this country intact. We have done a very fine job. It has been expensive. This budget has gone from zero to its current level of $42 billion post-9/11, in the last 12 years, but it has been an investment worth making. We have a lot of threats against our country every day from border intrusions, to cyber security threats, to explosions, as the Presiding Officer knows so well, with the Boston Marathon, which frightened and terrorized an entire community and city. So there are lots of challenges. Throwing money at the problem isn't going to fix them all, but not having enough money to invest will ensure vulnerabilities which we cannot allow.

When a homemade explosive device wreaked havoc at the Boston Marathon, we saw how critical it was that law enforcement and first responders had proper training and equipment. That training and equipment is funded through the Homeland Security bill. We have given robust grants over the years. We want to continue to be able to do that. However, if we don't get to a budget, if we don't get to an agreement, grant funding would be reduced to the lowest level since it was formed 10 years ago. I don't think we want to go back to pre-9/11 investments. This is a new world. It is a dangerous world. The threats are evolving, as we saw play out in Boston. We need to be ready for the next attack, and we won't be if we can't get a budget agreement.

Our cyber networks are under constant attack. There are 6 million probes on U.S. networks alone. Among the attackers we know are 140 foreign spy organizations. One example: The Syrian Electronic Army defaced the Marine Corps Web site and hacked into numerous print media Web sites. A recent Annual Report to Congress from the U.S. Secretary of Defense documents that China is using its network exploitation capability to support intelligence collections--of course, that is understandable--but hacking into some of our manufacturing and private sector databases to steal U.S. trade and manufacturing secrets. We know this. It has been put into the record before, but it is worth repeating.

Also this year, in the wake of serious chemical plant incidents in West Texas and Ascension Parish in Louisiana, we are reminded that people live around chemical plants and industrial sites that are very dangerous. Lots is done to keep them safe, but if that perimeter was ever breached by people who had intentions other than to work there and produce legal products, it could be a disaster. That is ongoing. It is a big country. It is an open country. We have partnerships to build in the private sector, and in large measure that is part of what our budget does. Last week, a Transportation Security officer lost his life, and two others were shot in the line of duty at the Los Angeles airport.

So these attacks are real. This budget does what it can with limited resources. We try to be strategic. We try to be as efficient as we can to make sure that we keep our hundreds of airports, land ports, and water ports safe for people to move, for manufacturing and trade, and for our economy to advance. It is a big job. It takes a lot of money to do that, and it takes cooperation. I sure hope in the next couple of weeks we can find it.

We continue to face threats of weapons of mass destruction. Dirty bombs being detonated in one of our cities or ports is an ongoing worry. A radiological attack would incite not just harm but mass panic and shut down transportation systems. We just cannot afford not to have a Department of Homeland Security budget that is looking to the future. As these threats evolve, they are ever changing. People say: I just bought a cell phone. Do I have to buy another one? The technology is changing so fast, it is hard for people to keep up. I just got a laptop last year. I need to buy another one. The technology is changing. In the same sense, threats are evolving. We can't budget for what happened 2 years ago. We need to budget for the future, and if we can't get this budget worked out, if we can't get our appropriations numbers, we will either be in a continuing resolution--which is basically funding what happened in the past, which makes no sense and wastes taxpayer money-- or we will be short-changing our constituents.

For 4 years in a row the Department of Homeland Security has had to tighten its belt. Everyone has. We have been willing to do that. We have operated at reduced funding. But the impact of the sequester-- which is really a blunt instrument that cuts funding in a not very smart way. They are automatic cuts that were never intended, that were never designed to run the government. They were really designed to motivate us to do a better job of getting to the budget. That seems not to be working. As a result, these automatic cuts that are blunt, that are harsh, and that really are not smart are happening to all of our agencies, defense and nondefense alike. It is time to get rid of that inefficient way of operating and go to a more strategic, forward- leaning planning budget process.

I just want to mention an agency that I am very supportive of, the Coast Guard, not only because we build many of the boats in Louisiana but because so many of our people--and Massachusetts as well--are literally saved every year by the Coast Guard. We have lots of water, lots of lakes, lots of important work going on with offshore oil and gas drilling, and we are intercepting drugs that come into the United States. The Coast Guard is on the front line. They are operating their surface and air assets at 25 percent below planned levels because of sequestration--not smart cuts. It has resulted in a 30-percent reduction of drug seizures--people are not happy to hear this; I am not happy to say it--and an 11-percent reduction in the interdiction of undocumented migrants.

Under a yearlong CR, Customs and Border Protection would not be able to hire any new officers for our air, land, and sea ports of entry. This is bad news for travel and trade. The Presiding Officer knows, as people come into America they ask: Why do we have to wait so long in line? We just came here to do business. We have to get to New York, Chicago, Boston, Louisiana, California, and to other places where people come to do international business.

We can't shift assets from the past to the front line with a sequester. We can only do it with a rational budget that will help cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, Dallas, New Orleans and Miami to grow. This is important to business. It is important to the Chamber of Commerce.

So I urge my colleagues, let us work very hard together in a bipartisan way to come to some agreement on our budget, so that we can have direction as appropriators to design bills--whether it is for the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Commerce--to fashion budgets that meet future needs, that are not funding tired past priorities but are funding investing in the real future and real-time needs, present and future, of our citizens and of the great country that we believe in and want to see get stronger.

Under a year-long CR, DHS would not be able to implement safeguards to prevent unauthorized release of classified information. Vulnerabilities in the existing system were highlighted in the Wikileaks releases and the more recent disclosures by Edward Snowden. There was no funding in fiscal year 2013 to stop this type of activity so DHS's classified data will not be adequately protected without fiscal year 2014 funding.

Critical infrastructure protection efforts would be hindered. For example, without the $34 million above the fiscal year 2013 sequester level, inspections of chemical plants to prevent weaponization by terrorists will be delayed. Funding to better coordinate Federal chemical programs in the wake of the West, Texas facility explosion will not be provided. Increases to prevent catastrophic impacts to critical infrastructure during manmade or natural disasters will be eliminated.

Because of these impacts, it is critical that we conference our fiscal year 2014 Senate bills with our House counterparts so that we can address the weaknesses that continuing to operate at sequestration levels would entail. A conference would also permit a necessary delay to flood insurance rate increases for properties that were formerly grandfathered into affordable rates since the House and Senate Homeland Security bills contain identical language on this issue. This is one small step in a larger effort I have been working on to fix flood insurance so that it is affordable, accessible and self-sustainable. Time and time again, Senators have heard from their constituents about the skyrocketing increases in flood insurance rates. Many homeowners throughout the United States will see their rates rise to unaffordable levels. For example, up to 2.9 million policies nationwide could see their previously grandfathered rates become absolutely unaffordable. One resident in my State of Louisiana could see rates increase from $633 to over $20,000 per year. That makes homeownership unachievable for many Americans and traps others in houses that they cannot sell.

We must get our work done. We need to agree on a budget for fiscal year 2014. Then we need to finalize our fiscal year 2014 bills so that our agencies have the appropriate funding for their critical missions-- instead of lurching from one funding crisis to the next. This is a hard task but one I believe that is achievable. This is exactly what we were elected to do.

I thank Senator Mikulski for her leadership.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank my colleagues who led this effort on this nondiscrimination bill, which is historic, and I am pleased we had a bipartisan vote to make America more accepting and a just place. It is a work-in-progress, and I am very pleased we could find the support on this floor to do that. Now the bill goes to the House, and I urge my colleagues in my congressional delegation and others to look at this bill with an open mind and an open heart and end discrimination in the workplace. I urge them to support this bill.

(The further remarks of Ms. Landrieu pertaining to the introduction of S. 1642 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.)

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about a bill I plan to introduce in a few moments, and hopefully we will have a chance or an opportunity in the future to debate it because it is a very important fix, if you will, to the Affordable Care Act.

We debated this bill for literally years--months in committee for hours and hours, in daylight and during the evening sessions. There were hundreds of amendments. This bill was built with Democratic input and support and Republican input. The Republicans did not vote for the bill, but they most certainly had a tremendous amount of impact in the amendment process.

Building a new health care system for this Nation has been very difficult, but it holds a great deal of promise. The Affordable Care Act--and the easiest way to explain it--was somewhere between what some people on the left wanted, which was a government-run system, something like Medicare for all--it is appealing, but it is very expensive. We couldn't figure out a cost-effective way to provide that. Members on the right, the more conservative-leaning in this body, wanted to provide savings accounts. This works beautifully for people who have money to save in the account, but people who live paycheck to paycheck and have no money to save would never get any account to be able to provide for their health insurance.

Between those two bookends, we debated for a long time about how to provide a market-based approach to insurance. No nation in the world has attempted this. This is a big effort, but it is an important effort because we are a developed nation. We need to have a healthy workforce. It is about as simple as that. We can't be No. 1 in the world and we can't be the strongest economic power in the world if our people are sick and weak. It is as simple as that. We can't be the strongest economic power in the world if our health care system is sapping so much money out of our economic power--19 percent of the GDP, when Japan is 8 percent. We can't expect to beat Japan in economics if we are paying almost twice as much for health care and getting less results.

We had to change. We did, and we built a market-based approach, contrary to what all of the opponents of the Affordable Care Act say. We built a market-based approach that basically said that if people are over 65, they will be on Medicare. We are continuing to reform and strengthen Medicare. There are some very good parts of it, and then there are some weaker parts or difficult parts that need to be corrected. Over time we will continue to streamline, save money, provide better service, more choice, et cetera.

People who are among the poorest members of our country--133 percent of poverty, which is an income of about $15,000 or less--potentially may not be able to find a good-paying full-time job or perhaps didn't receive the education others received, perhaps have some disability, they would go on Medicaid. Then everyone in between the lowest income and under the age of 65 is in a private health care system, which is a market-based system, with competition driving prices down.

The idea would be that there would be 20, 30, 40 health care plans offered in every State. People could choose what they want with a minimum bronze, silver, or gold plan with many choices. That is the promise; that is the hope; that is the idea. The great promise of this is that if someone has cancer, they can't be dropped. If they have diabetes, they can't be turned away. Everyone is covered, the risk is spread, the price comes down, and the free market operates. We would never know that based upon the criticism we hear on television and radio all day long, but this is the truth.

One of the important components of that bill that many of us talked about was the fact that if someone had individual insurance on the market, they could keep it. What is happening now, unfortunately, because of the grandfather provision in the Affordable Care Act, in my view--this may not be shared by everyone on the floor--it was not written as tightly as it should have been, as clearly as it should have been. The bill I am introducing today, Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act, will clarify this grandfather clause in the Affordable Care Act so that it will clearly say that if a person has an insurance plan they like, if it is what they want and can afford, they can keep it. This bill, if it passes, will help anywhere from 5 to 7 million people who are getting notices in the mail every day like the one I will read into the Record, which was sent to someone in my State.

Thank you for your support of Vantage Health Plan, Inc.

("Vantage'') over recent years. It has been our pleasure to

serve you and we hope that you have been satisfied as a

Vantage member.

In light of recent changes in the health insurance

industry, Vantage will be discontinuing our offering of

Grandfathered Individual plans, effective January 4, 2014.

This discontinuance will affect your policy.

Vantage is pleased to announce the availability of several

new individual products in 2014:

Beginning in January 2014, you will have the option to

enroll into a new plan through the Health Insurance

Marketplace (or the Exchange). Members enrolling into

Individual plans through the Marketplace may be eligible for

premium and/or cost sharing subsidies.

This is because everyone in Louisiana with a family income of up to $90,000 a year will have some sort of premium support, which will be a great help to many of our middle-class families.

Continuing:

Many of the Marketplace plans will provide you with more

generous coverage than your current Grandfathered Individual

plan. We invite you to visit Vantage online at

www.VantageHealthPlan.com/marketplace to review our Exchange

plan offerings. You may also enroll online at

www.Healthcare.gov, by calling (800) 318-2596 or by

contacting your agent or broker.

In addition to the Exchange plan offerings, Vantage will

have several new plan offerings available outside of the

Exchange for 2014. These plans are similar to your current

Freedom or High Deductible plan. We will have more

information on those plan options later this Fall.

This is the letter thousands of people are receiving. This letter should have never gone out. We said to people that if they have insurance they like, they can keep it. We didn't say that if they have insurance they like that doesn't meet the standards or that meets the minimum standards, they can keep it. We said and the President said over and over that if people have insurance and they like the insurance they have, they can keep it. That is my bill. That is the single focus of my bill. It is not to undermine the Affordable Care Act; it is to strengthen it and to keep our promise to the millions of Americans to whom we said if they have insurance, they can keep what they have. If they don't, there is a new marketplace where they and their families can go and choose among a variety of different plans.

Depending on their income, they may have support from their community or from the government. If someone is extremely poor, we can provide options for them through Medicaid. It is not as desirable as through private insurance, but many Governors, including some Republican Governors, are being very creative with their Medicaid plans and actually changing them into more of a private-like insurance model. There is great flexibility in how Governors who have good hearts and good intentions are using their Medicaid dollars wisely.

Having said that, having reread the grandfather clause, having looked at it very closely, I have determined that this is the best course to introduce this bill, which I will do later this evening to actually file it. Again, it has two simple directives:

No. 1, all insurance companies shall continue to offer grandfather plans that were in effect prior to a certain date.

No. 2, every insurance company that provided those grandfather plans has to explain to those policyholders how their current plan falls short of the new standard on the market and what might be available to them that is better, but they are not forced to buy it.

So I hope we can debate this. Unlike many on the other side who want to tear the act down and repeal it, to defund it--they even took the whole Federal Government hostage and the whole economy of the United States hostage because of it--or that is what they tried to do. They failed, thank goodness, and the hostages have been released. The government is back up and operating. There are some of us who are sincere about supporting the concepts of this bill, the promise of this bill, which is extraordinary and historic. We recognize there are some pieces of it that need to be fixed or tightened or tweaked to make sure it is going to work in the future as we have said.

Again, that is simply what my bill does. I am happy to introduce it. I have one cosponsor, Senator Manchin of West Virginia, but many others have expressed their interest in working with me, and I look forward to bringing this before the committee for full debate and hopefully to the Senate floor in some way in the near future for debate and hopefully for passage.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about a bill I plan to introduce in a few moments, and hopefully we will have a chance or an opportunity in the future to debate it because it is a very important fix, if you will, to the Affordable Care Act.

We debated this bill for literally years--months in committee for hours and hours, in daylight and during the evening sessions. There were hundreds of amendments. This bill was built with Democratic input and support and Republican input. The Republicans did not vote for the bill, but they most certainly had a tremendous amount of impact in the amendment process.

Building a new health care system for this Nation has been very difficult, but it holds a great deal of promise. The Affordable Care Act--and the easiest way to explain it--was somewhere between what some people on the left wanted, which was a government-run system, something like Medicare for all--it is appealing, but it is very expensive. We couldn't figure out a cost-effective way to provide that. Members on the right, the more conservative-leaning in this body, wanted to provide savings accounts. This works beautifully for people who have money to save in the account, but people who live paycheck to paycheck and have no money to save would never get any account to be able to provide for their health insurance.

Between those two bookends, we debated for a long time about how to provide a market-based approach to insurance. No nation in the world has attempted this. This is a big effort, but it is an important effort because we are a developed nation. We need to have a healthy workforce. It is about as simple as that. We can't be No. 1 in the world and we can't be the strongest economic power in the world if our people are sick and weak. It is as simple as that. We can't be the strongest economic power in the world if our health care system is sapping so much money out of our economic power--19 percent of the GDP, when Japan is 8 percent. We can't expect to beat Japan in economics if we are paying almost twice as much for health care and getting less results.

We had to change. We did, and we built a market-based approach, contrary to what all of the opponents of the Affordable Care Act say. We built a market-based approach that basically said that if people are over 65, they will be on Medicare. We are continuing to reform and strengthen Medicare. There are some very good parts of it, and then there are some weaker parts or difficult parts that need to be corrected. Over time we will continue to streamline, save money, provide better service, more choice, et cetera.

People who are among the poorest members of our country--133 percent of poverty, which is an income of about $15,000 or less--potentially may not be able to find a good-paying full-time job or perhaps didn't receive the education others received, perhaps have some disability, they would go on Medicaid. Then everyone in between the lowest income and under the age of 65 is in a private health care system, which is a market-based system, with competition driving prices down.

The idea would be that there would be 20, 30, 40 health care plans offered in every State. People could choose what they want with a minimum bronze, silver, or gold plan with many choices. That is the promise; that is the hope; that is the idea. The great promise of this is that if someone has cancer, they can't be dropped. If they have diabetes, they can't be turned away. Everyone is covered, the risk is spread, the price comes down, and the free market operates. We would never know that based upon the criticism we hear on television and radio all day long, but this is the truth.

One of the important components of that bill that many of us talked about was the fact that if someone had individual insurance on the market, they could keep it. What is happening now, unfortunately, because of the grandfather provision in the Affordable Care Act, in my view--this may not be shared by everyone on the floor--it was not written as tightly as it should have been, as clearly as it should have been. The bill I am introducing today, Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act, will clarify this grandfather clause in the Affordable Care Act so that it will clearly say that if a person has an insurance plan they like, if it is what they want and can afford, they can keep it. This bill, if it passes, will help anywhere from 5 to 7 million people who are getting notices in the mail every day like the one I will read into the Record, which was sent to someone in my State.

Thank you for your support of Vantage Health Plan, Inc.

("Vantage'') over recent years. It has been our pleasure to

serve you and we hope that you have been satisfied as a

Vantage member.

In light of recent changes in the health insurance

industry, Vantage will be discontinuing our offering of

Grandfathered Individual plans, effective January 4, 2014.

This discontinuance will affect your policy.

Vantage is pleased to announce the availability of several

new individual products in 2014:

Beginning in January 2014, you will have the option to

enroll into a new plan through the Health Insurance

Marketplace (or the Exchange). Members enrolling into

Individual plans through the Marketplace may be eligible for

premium and/or cost sharing subsidies.

This is because everyone in Louisiana with a family income of up to $90,000 a year will have some sort of premium support, which will be a great help to many of our middle-class families.

Continuing:

Many of the Marketplace plans will provide you with more

generous coverage than your current Grandfathered Individual

plan. We invite you to visit Vantage online at

www.VantageHealthPlan.com/marketplace to review our Exchange

plan offerings. You may also enroll online at

www.Healthcare.gov, by calling (800) 318-2596 or by

contacting your agent or broker.

In addition to the Exchange plan offerings, Vantage will

have several new plan offerings available outside of the

Exchange for 2014. These plans are similar to your current

Freedom or High Deductible plan. We will have more

information on those plan options later this Fall.

This is the letter thousands of people are receiving. This letter should have never gone out. We said to people that if they have insurance they like, they can keep it. We didn't say that if they have insurance they like that doesn't meet the standards or that meets the minimum standards, they can keep it. We said and the President said over and over that if people have insurance and they like the insurance they have, they can keep it. That is my bill. That is the single focus of my bill. It is not to undermine the Affordable Care Act; it is to strengthen it and to keep our promise to the millions of Americans to whom we said if they have insurance, they can keep what they have. If they don't, there is a new marketplace where they and their families can go and choose among a variety of different plans.

Depending on their income, they may have support from their community or from the government. If someone is extremely poor, we can provide options for them through Medicaid. It is not as desirable as through private insurance, but many Governors, including some Republican Governors, are being very creative with their Medicaid plans and actually changing them into more of a private-like insurance model. There is great flexibility in how Governors who have good hearts and good intentions are using their Medicaid dollars wisely.

Having said that, having reread the grandfather clause, having looked at it very closely, I have determined that this is the best course to introduce this bill, which I will do later this evening to actually file it. Again, it has two simple directives:

No. 1, all insurance companies shall continue to offer grandfather plans that were in effect prior to a certain date.

No. 2, every insurance company that provided those grandfather plans has to explain to those policyholders how their current plan falls short of the new standard on the market and what might be available to them that is better, but they are not forced to buy it.

So I hope we can debate this. Unlike many on the other side who want to tear the act down and repeal it, to defund it--they even took the whole Federal Government hostage and the whole economy of the United States hostage because of it--or that is what they tried to do. They failed, thank goodness, and the hostages have been released. The government is back up and operating. There are some of us who are sincere about supporting the concepts of this bill, the promise of this bill, which is extraordinary and historic. We recognize there are some pieces of it that need to be fixed or tightened or tweaked to make sure it is going to work in the future as we have said.

Again, that is simply what my bill does. I am happy to introduce it. I have one cosponsor, Senator Manchin of West Virginia, but many others have expressed their interest in working with me, and I look forward to bringing this before the committee for full debate and hopefully to the Senate floor in some way in the near future for debate and hopefully for passage.