Floor Statements

Mr. President, my remarks to the Senate will deal with the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act. I am pleased the Senate is close to considering a bill to protect homeowners and businesses from unintended increases in the cost of flood insurance.

In July 2012, as part of a larger legislative package that included the highway bill and the Gulf Coast RESTORE Act, Congress passed the so-called Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act with no opportunity for amendments. The Biggert-Waters Act generally succeeded in its aim to strengthen and ensure the long-term fiscal solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program.

But we need to take another look at a few of the act's reforms that are causing a great deal of consternation throughout my State and the rest of the country. At the time of its consideration by the Senate, we knew Biggert-Waters might cause modest increases in flood insurance premiums. Administration officials testified repeatedly before our committees that the increases would be manageable for American homeowners.

Unfortunately, the increases have been anything but manageable, as skyrocketing premiums are driving citizens out of their homes and threatening the future viability of entire communities.

These Americans are receiving notices that their flood insurance premiums are rising to stratospheric heights, regardless of the fact that their homes may have never flooded or despite investments in flood control infrastructure and mitigation against future risk.

A constituent from Ocean Springs, MS, contacted my office to give us her perspective on the legislation. She wrote:

Built in 1986, [my house] survived all hurricanes including

Katrina. I used my retirement savings to buy the house.

Before closing, flood insurance was grandfathered at $245 per

year. After closing, the rate skyrocketed to $18,450. You can

understand my shock.

If you do the math, her new rates are more than 75 times the rate when she purchased her home. I hope Senators will vote to end this debate tonight and proceed to the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act. This is our opportunity to protect homeowners from skyrocketing flood insurance premiums until Congress is provided assurances from the administration related to affordability and the engineering practices it is using to make flood insurance rate determinations.

A study by the National Academies of Science produced in March 2013 has

called into question some of the engineering practices the government uses to determine rates. It is important that we make certain the government's engineering practices and procedures are sound and understand the implications of these rates before we allow them to devalue private property and ruin people's lives. It will be very challenging to rebuild neighborhoods or restore home equity once they are lost. We must get it right.

The long-term solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program is critical to protecting taxpayer investments, communicating flood risk to homeowners and encouraging communities to invest in mitigation measures. The reform legislation enacted in 2012 made positive changes to the program. However, some of those changes are now working in opposition to the broader goals of reform. These shortcomings are alienating the very people the program is intended to help and actually threaten to make the program less solvent in the long run.

The long term viability of the flood insurance program is important to many inland and coastal States. The new insurance rates penalize citizens, who have followed the rules and places the heaviest burden on those who are just now recovering from recent disasters. In my State, communities continue to work to overcome the damage caused by the greatest natural disaster in our Nation's history, the effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, and now dramatic flood insurance rate increases.

Our bill does not create new programs to address rising premiums. It simply leaves in place some current practices so that we can make sure the productive reforms we enacted in 2012 will actually improve the credibility of the program among communities and homeowners. Our bill would not affect the positive reforms related to expanding program participation or the phase-out of subsidized flood insurance premiums for vacation homes and homes that have a history of repeated flooding.

The consideration and passage of this bill would represent a bipartisan consensus to make modest changes to existing law, while protecting homeowners and steering the National Flood Insurance Program onto a path to fiscal sustainability.

Madam President, the Senate has had an opportunity to be given an update on the status of our negotiation on the farm bill. It is my pleasure to announce that since our first conference committee meeting in October, we have been working to reach an agreement on a new 5-year farm bill. This is a bill we can take to the House and Senate. By working in collaboration and through our differences, we made progress and established a framework for our agricultural sector to continue to contribute in an important way to the economic life of our Nation. I am pleased to say we are making progress, but there are still some decisions that lie ahead of us. I am hopeful that on both sides of the aisle, in both bodies, we can come together on a farm bill agreement that will reform and modernize programs and produce budget savings at the same time as well as provide certainty about the government's role to producers and consumers alike.

I might also add that related to this is an interest many homeowners have in flood control insurance protection and government assistance. There is a reform bill, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, that I am pleased to have cosponsored that would delay premium rates temporarily until we can review and make sure these changes are going to serve the interests of homeowners and landowners in areas that are threatened by natural disasters. We don't want to a Federal Government Agency to draw a line on a map arbitrarily without fully considering all of the ramifications.

We must put the Flood Insurance Program on a path to fiscal solvency, and one way to do that is to ensure that it is a good deal in terms of investment and prospective return on investment for individuals as well as communities.

On another subject, I recently had an opportunity to review some correspondence and notes about calls my office received from constituents on the subject of the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act. This is a major piece of health care legislation, as everybody knows. It affects insurance companies, it affects individuals, it affects the entire country, and it is a very important area of concern.

In order to comply with the law's requirements, a family could see their monthly premiums increase from $700 to almost $1,400, which is an increase of more than 90 percent. To put it in perspective, it is more than $16,000 per year that a family would have to spend on health insurance premiums alone. These figures are just not affordable for most Americans. So there is sticker shock associated with this misguided effort to help improve and expand our Nation's health insurance programs. These figures just signal to us how serious the implications are, and we must address this problem and seek proposals with very serious care and diligence.

Monthly premiums, for example, do not include copayments or out-of- pocket expenses. It does include the cost of several health benefits deemed ``essential'' by the administration, regardless of the fact that many people do not need or want to pay for these services. One constituent posed an interesting question to me, which is, Why can't we, the policy owners, decide what benefits and deductibles we want? I think they are right. They ought to have that right, and they ought to be given that choice.

Choice is what families should have when it comes to health insurance. Unfortunately, the freedom to make a decision based on what is in their best interests is no longer an option for millions of Americans who have to search for new insurance coverage, pay for benefits they will not use, and potentially even give up the doctors they know and wish to keep.

Despite assurances by the President that people who like their health insurance will be able to keep it, we have learned that the administration has known for at least 3 years that millions of Americans would lose the health insurance they currently have and would like to keep, as advertised.

Reports indicate there are an estimated 15 million people facing a potential coverage gap because many currently have insurance from the individual market but have received cancellation notices because their policies don't meet the law's requirements.

Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted-- incidentally, without a single Republican vote--in 2010 the administration has struggled to meet its own deadlines for implementation of the law. The ongoing problems with the law's enrollment Web site conspicuously foreshadowed the more significant failures that can be expected as this law is implemented.

The most recent marketplace enrollment report, which was released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, states that less than 365,000 individuals have selected plans from the State and Federal marketplaces since October 1. It has been estimated that more than 47 million nonelderly Americans were uninsured in 2012. This means that less than 1 percent of the uninsured population in the U.S. has selected a health insurance plan by way of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

We are told that it is likely that on January 1 of this next year, more Americans will be uninsured than were uninsured at the time the health care law was enacted. This law's primary intent was to expand coverage, to encourage insurance, but it seems to be failing on both counts.

Implementation of the law's mandates reveals that the legislation will fail to reduce health care costs as well. In 2013, we are projected to spend $2.9 trillion on health care in the United States. This is approximately 18 percent of the entire U.S. economy. National health care expenditures are expected to increase substantially in the years beyond that.

Health insurance is just one component of our Nation's very complex health care system, and we could do better, should do better, and I think we can do better than this initial work product. We should get together and find common ground to improve the quality of health care in our country, to improve access, and reduce overall health care costs. We owe that to our constituents, our national economic interests, and to the future of quality health care in the United States.

Madam President, I invite other Senators to come to discuss this or other

issues we have identified as important for our consideration. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, as the majority contemplate changing the rules of the Senate to expedite the confirmation of several executive branch nominees, I hope that serious consideration was given to the adverse effects this change could have.

We should resist embarking on a path that would circumvent the rights of the minority to exercise its advice and consent responsibilities provided in the Constitution.

The consequences of the action by the majority should not be minimized. Former Senator Ted Kennedy, in 2003, testified before the Rules Committee that by allowing a simple majority to end debate on nominees, ``the Senate would put itself on a course to destroy the very essence of our constitutional role.''

Such a departure from precedent would dilute the minority rights that differentiate the Senate from the other body. It also opens the door to applying this same rule to debate on judicial nominations, as well as the legislative process.

Mr. President, Roger Sant's service to the Smithsonian is an example of his strong commitment to the public good. Prior to founding the AES Corporation in 1981, Mr. Sant served as the Assistant Administrator

for Energy Conservation and the Environment at the Federal Energy Administration. He also directed the Energy Productivity Center, an energy research organization affiliated with the Mellon Institute at Carnegie-Mellon University. He is the chairman of the Summit Foundation and the Summit Fund of Washington. He serves on the boards of the World Wildlife Fund-U.S. and the DC College Access Program.

In recognition of his outstanding contributions to the institution, the Smithsonian Board of Regents conferred the title of Regent Emeritus on him in October. His service has helped the Smithsonian become a stronger institution.

Mr. President, Ms. Stonesifer's service to the Smithsonian is just one example of her commitment to the public good. She currently serves as president and CEO of Martha's Table, a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing sustainable solutions to poverty in the Washington, DC community. She was the founding CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for 10 years, leading the efforts to strengthen public libraries and improve education in the United States and to improve world health by mobilizing the fight against polio, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and other devastating diseases. In 2010, she was appointed chair of the White House Council on Community Solutions by President Obama.

In recognition of her outstanding contributions to the institution, the Smithsonian Board of Regents conferred the title of regent emeritus on her in October. The Smithsonian is a stronger organization because of her service.

If the distinguished Senator would yield, I would be pleased to respond.

It is a fact that the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, which we are discussing, seeks to protect homeowners from increases in the cost of flood insurance premiums until the administration reviews and reports to the Congress on the flood mapping technologies, methodologies, and insurance affordability that are being issued under the authority of existing laws.

One problem we are concerned about is that the program was supposed to protect taxpayer investments, communicate perceived flood risks to homeowners, and encourage communities to protect themselves against flood risks.

The reform legislation enacted in 2012 made some positive changes in the program. Today some of those changes are now working in opposition to the broader goals of reform; hence, the importance of this legislation. These shortcomings existed in the law and they actually threaten to weaken the National Flood Insurance Program.

The success of flood insurance is so important to many inland and coastal States, such as mine and Louisiana, the State of the distinguished Senator. Communities there continue to work to overcome damages caused by the greatest natural disaster in our Nation's history, the effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010 and now skyrocketing flood insurance premiums.

Under the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, the administration would be required to provide assurances to Congress that it is using sound mapping methods to make flood insurance rate determinations. A study by the National Academy of Science produced in March of this year has called into question some of the engineering practices the government uses to determine rates.

Before allowing unaffordable flood insurance rates to devalue private property and harm local communities and economies, we should be absolutely sure the government's engineering practices and procedures are as sound as possible. It will be very difficult to rebuild communities or restore home equity once they are lost, so we had better get it right.

Our bill does not create new programs to address rising premiums. It simply leaves in place some current practices so we can make sure the reproductive reforms we enacted last year will actually improve the credibility of the program among communities and homeowners.

Our bill would not affect positive reforms related to expanding program participation or the phaseout of subsidized flood insurance premiums for vacation homes and homes that have a history of repeated flooding.

My principal purpose of coming to the floor was to thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for her leadership as she continues to be our outfront person in dealing with some of the very challenging facts and decisions that are coming from those who are trying to improve the program at the Federal level but also at the State and local level, which is where the action is. I am pleased to join her in this plea to the Senate.

Mr. President, the more my constituents learn about the administration's so-called Affordable Care Act, the more it becomes clear that major changes should be considered.

I recently heard from a constituent who had learned from accessing the Obama administration's enrollment Web site that the plan with the lowest cost available to him has a $7,000 yearly deductible, with a $12,000 out-of-pocket maximum and a premium of a little over $2,400 a month--nearly twice as much as he and his wife currently pay.

This family is just one example of millions of Americans who are suffering from sticker shock because of the cost of insurance plans on the President's new health insurance exchanges. The shock is made worse for those who are being rejected by the plans they were told they could keep but now cannot.

It is clear we need to urge the administration to consider going back to the drawing board. We should get together, too, here in the Senate and find common ground that makes better sense for the American people.

Mr. President, Veterans Day 2013 gives us an opportunity to set aside our day-to-day worries and celebrate the men and women who have served in the United States Armed Forces. It is a national day of recognition and gratitude for those who have bravely served and fought to defend the freedoms that make the United States a beacon of liberty to the world.

I am heartened each year by the pride that Mississippians have for our Armed Forces, and their appreciation for the sacrifices made by loved ones on behalf of our Nation. The ceremonies, parades and programs taking place this year will reflect the admiration we share for our veterans. It is gratifying to see the deep respect that the people of my State have for those who have served, from the first Mississippians who took up arms to defend this land to those currently deployed around the world.

Today, the new generation of all-volunteer veterans returning from more than a decade of sustained combat operations reminds us of our sacred obligations to all our veterans and their families. We must dedicate ourselves to meeting those commitments. Doing so will make us a stronger Nation.

I appreciate that on Veterans Day the world will witness an American people united in its appreciation of the men and women who have served and fought for our republic.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation seeks to protect homeowners across the country from severe flood insurance rate hikes until Congress is provided assurances from the agency related to flood mapping methodologies and affordability.

The long-term solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program is critical to protecting taxpayer investments, communicating perceived flood risk to homeowners, and encouraging communities to invest in mitigation measures. The rates imposed by the legislation we adopted last summer are working against those worthy goals.

A constituent from Ocean Springs, MS, contacted my office to give her perspective on the legislation. She wrote: ``Built in 1986, [my house] survived all hurricanes including Katrina. I used my retirement savings to buy the house. Before closing, flood insurance was grandfathered at $245.00 per year. After closing, the rate skyrocketed to $18,450. You can understand my shock.'' If you do the math, her new rates are more than 75 times the rate when she purchased her home.

I heard from Thomas Schafer, the Mayor of Diamondhead, MS. This city in Hancock County was ``ground zero'' for Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Mayor Schafer called this legislation a ``devastating loss to [his] community,'' pointing specifically to ``plummeting property values with increased cost of flood insurance.''

These are communities that suffered the greatest natural disaster in our Nation's history in 2005, the effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, and now this.

The bill I join my colleagues in introducing today aims to restrain the rate increases to homeowners that are very troublesome.

Under this bill, the Federal Emergency Management Agency must provide assurances to Congress that it is using sound mapping methods to make flood insurance rate determinations. A study by the National Academies of Science produced in March of this year has called into question some of the engineering practices FEMA uses to determine rates. Before we let these rates devalue private property and perhaps even devastate local economies, we need to be absolutely sure our practices and procedures are as sound as possible.

Second, FEMA must complete the affordability study mandated by the same legislation that is driving insurance rates up. If rates become so high that homeowners cannot participate in the program, or entire communities opt out of the program, all participants in the program will suffer from a smaller risk pool. It is important that we understand the implications of these rates before we allow them to ruin people's lives and communities.

I am pleased with the work accomplished by the bipartisan group of Senators who introduced this bill. The bill reflects the priorities of Senators from both parties and several regions. I believe it gives the Senate a strong starting point to address this important issue.

Mr. President, I am optimistic that soon we will be able to enact legislation to reopen our government and affirm the world's longstanding confidence in our financial stability and system of democracy. The current situation is an unfortunate byproduct of our sometimes discordant form of government which at this time happens to be divided between our two parties.

Despite the challenges of recent weeks, I hope this experience demonstrates to the Senate, to the other body, and to the administration, that the Nation is best served when we work together. If we allow our current hardships to pass, only to immediately entrench and get ready for the next crisis, we will be wasting an opportunity to extract a positive outcome from these last, difficult weeks.

Under the rules of the Senate, individual Senators are provided with significant power to shape the activity of this body. That is the way the Senate was designed to operate, and it has served this body and the country well. Recognizing that the rights entrusted to each of us can be powerful, we must be judicious in their application. We must always remember that each of us was elected by the people. If we work in cooperation, and even opposition, with a sense of realism and respect for ourselves and our institution, I believe this body can function effectively.

In getting past our current fiscal stalemates, I hope that we can next achieve a long-term agreement that will reduce our debt through structural changes to government spending. As a part of that process, we must talk seriously about the President's health care law, its serious flaws and its impact on families and businesses. I have consistently opposed this law, and one of my goals is seeing that it is repealed, delayed or made voluntary. Achieving that goal may take longer than we

would prefer because we are in the minority, but the law's declining popularity should give Senators from both parties reason to reevaluate it.

As part of a sustainable budget plan, I hope we can reach a long-term agreement on a farm bill to provide producers and consumers with certainty and to preserve the security Americans enjoy by our ability to generate, independently, food and fiber for ourselves and for the world.

The farm bill this body adopted earlier this year would help accomplish those goals and save $23 billion over the next 5 years.

If we can achieve a responsible budget agreement for fiscal year 2014 and beyond, I am confident the Appropriations Committee can produce bipartisan bills to fund the government in a responsible manner. I hope all Members have begun to recognize that our inability to act on individual appropriations bills has reduced each Senator's opportunity to help shape Federal programs and has eliminated a principal means of overseeing the executive branch.

The Appropriations Committee has long been able to produce bills that reflect input from all Members, reflecting their different needs and their different priorities. The committee has continued to do so since passage of the Budget Control Act, which will have the effect of cutting--reducing spending by more than $2 trillion from discretionary accounts over the next 10 years. It is the only significant deficit reduction legislation enacted in recent memory. I supported that act, as did a majority of Senators on both sides of the aisle.

Now we have given ourselves another opportunity to make broader budget reforms. It will be of benefit to the legislative branch and the people who elected us if we can establish a budget framework that will enable us to deal in a more transparent manner with all legislation, including appropriations bills and reform measures to simplify our Tax Code.

I am pleased that we seem close to resolving the current impasse, and I hope that over the coming weeks we can devote ourselves to thoughtful and productive deliberations on the budget.

It is important that we act to restore the confidence of the American people in the Senate. We must take real steps to strengthen our Nation's fiscal foundation so our economy can grow, and American families and businesses can prosper.

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

Mr. President, I regret also we are now experiencing a partial shutdown of our Federal Government. Through no fault of their own, some citizens who are visiting Washington are also being denied government services and access to memorials that their tax dollars support. I hope we can soon eliminate any inconvenience that is being caused by this shutdown for visitors and citizens who planned trips into our Nation's Capital.

The effects of the shutdown are real and they are being felt in practical ways, well beyond the Nation's Capital. But certainly here in Washington we witnessed an example of the unintended and sometimes absurd consequences of the Congress and the President's inability to reach an agreement.

Today, for example, a large group of World War II veterans from my State of Mississippi caught an early flight from Gulfport to Washington as part of the Honor Flight program. These flights allow veterans who might not have the ability to come here on their own to visit the national World War II Memorial that was built to honor their brave service--service that saved the world from some of the greatest evils ever known. Confronted with barricades, however, that were erected this morning around the open-air memorial, as a part of the shutting down of the Federal Government, the citizens from my State carefully removed the barriers and made a path so they were able to walk on to the memorial and lay a wreath beneath the memorial's Mississippi column.

I am very pleased the visit of these veterans to Washington was not ruined by the government shutdown, even though there were some obstacles. But I hope their experience reminds all of us--Federal agencies, Members of Congress, and others who live here in the Nation's Capital--to not make this situation more difficult than it has to be for veterans or other visitors who are coming to the city. For some this may be the only time in their life they will be able to do that.

So I take this opportunity to thank the veterans from our State for their calm, cool, and collected demeanor during what could have been a frustrating experience, and I salute all veterans for their service to our Nation and the access they have even on a day where the agencies are ``closed.'' There are certain premises that should remain open and available for visitation and visibility.

I thank the Honor Flight volunteers for their calm, cool, and collected demeanor and their support for the freedoms of our country. I am sure they will all receive a very warm welcome tonight when they return home to Gulfport.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since it was forced through a Democratic-controlled Congress without the support of a single Republican in the House or Senate. I have voted to dismantle, defund, delay and reverse this law every chance I have been given. I will continue to take every possible action that might be effective in achieving its repeal.

As the negative impacts of this law become more apparent, people in my State of Mississippi have expressed a great deal of concern about how the law is affecting their families and businesses. They have articulated a pronounced unease about the costs of the law, and the extent to which the Federal Government will be involved in their personal healthcare decisions. I share their concerns.

My constituents recognize that the law is not working as promised. The administration has delayed implementation of several of the law's key provisions. These special exceptions and exemptions are clear indications that the law is overly complex and ill-conceived.

As their representatives in Washington, we should respect the fact that the majority of Americans do not support this law, otherwise known as ``Obamacare.''

I dislike Obamacare as much as any of my colleagues. I strongly support the provisions in this appropriations bill that would bring implementation of Obamacare to a halt. However, to now vote to stop that very bill in its tracks makes little sense to me.

Shutting down the government to show how much we dislike the law would not stop Obamacare. The mandates in Obamacare do not go away if we do not fund the rest of the government. Most of the funding to implement Obamacare does not depend on us passing this appropriations bill; that funding is mandatory spending that has already been provided in law.

To stop Obamacare we have to enact a law that does just that. That requires a sufficient number of votes in the House and in the Senate, and it requires either the President's signature or a veto-proof majority in both houses. I suspect that we do not currently have the votes in the Senate to pass such legislation. But more importantly, I do not think voting to stall the very language that we opponents of Obamacare wish to see enacted--and risking a government shutdown as a result--will get us closer to the goal of stopping Obamacare.

I think a government shutdown might have the opposite effect. It will

shift public and media focus away from the costly and damaging aspects of the health care law just as it is being fully implemented, and it will detract from the ability of the American people to clearly express their discontent about the law. It is only such expressions of discontent that will either change the minds of a sufficient number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, or send new representation to Washington to aid in the fight against Obamacare.

It is shortsighted for those of us who oppose the Obamacare law to take actions that would not reverse the law's potentially devastating impacts, and will likely damage our prospects of achieving that goal in the future. The stakes are too high.

I will continue to fight for our shared end goal--to fully repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished senior Senator from Florida in submitting a resolution to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Corporation for National and Community Service, our Nation's largest grant-making organization for service and volunteering. Since its inception in 1993, more than 5 million Americans have participated in its programs.

The mission of the corporation is to improve lives, strengthen communities, and foster civic engagement through service and volunteering. The Corporation for National and Community Service is committed to helping address national and local needs by supporting our country's nonprofit sector.

My State of Mississippi remembers how important this commitment was to our recovery from Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. We remember the incredible outpouring of support from around the country. Many people in our State invest their time and energy, through everyday acts of kindness and charity, in our neighborhoods, schools and churches.

National service opportunities also contribute to workforce development, offering participants practical experience and on-the-job training. Service is part of our American way of life, and it is about making a difference in each and every community across the country.

It is important for us to support and applaud the contributions of the Corporation for National and Community Service on its 20th anniversary.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to join my colleagues in wishing Dave Schiappa well in his next adventure in life, and I know he will be successful and also build upon his knowledge and experience here in the Senate. I know his contributions will continue, and it will be a pleasure to continue to follow Dave in his career, noncareer, or long vacation. Whatever he chooses to do will be happy and rewarding as has his tenure here in the Senate.

No one is more respected or more appreciated than David Schiappa. So is it a sad day, in many ways, to see him leave, but a happy one to know he is going to begin a new era. We will watch him closely and stay in touch with him and continue to appreciate him throughout his career.

I yield the floor.