[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19362-19377]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R.
3304, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Resolved, that the House concur in the Senate amendment to
the title of the bill (H.R. 3304) entitled ``An Act to
authorize and request the President to award the Medal of
Honor to Bennie G. Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United
States Army for acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and
to authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other
veterans who were previously recommended for award of the
Medal of Honor,'' and be it further
Resolved, that the House concur in the first three Senate
amendments to the text of the aforementioned bill, and be it
further
Resolved, that the House concur in the fourth Senate
amendment to the text of the aforementioned bill, with an
amendment.
Pending:
Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid amendment No.
2552, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 2553 (to amendment No. 2552), of a
perfecting nature.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1859
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to S. 1859,
submitted earlier today, a bill that includes the following provisions:
an extension of the provision to exclude mortgage debt forgiveness from
taxable income; deductions for State and local sales taxes, qualified
tuition expenses for students, and classroom expenses that teachers pay
for out of their own pockets; a commuter benefit that helps workers who
take mass transit to their jobs every day; the new markets tax credit
and the low-income housing credit; tax benefits to encourage investment
in our Nation's infrastructure, such as the short line rail tax credit;
provisions that encourage the development of renewable energy
technology, including the production tax credit for wind, as well as
credits to promote biofuels, alternative fuel vehicles, and energy-
efficient buildings; and tax incentives for small and large businesses,
including section 179 expensing, bonus depreciation, and the R&D
credit.
I further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed and the
motions to reconsider be made and laid on the table, with no
intervening action or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, it is unfortunate the
Senate's schedule is completely full with pending cloture motions on
controversial or completely nonurgent nominations.
If these nomination were deferred, we could consider this timely and
important legislation today.
I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the pending cloture motions
on executive nominations be withdrawn; that following disposition of
the Defense bill, the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of H.R.
2668, a House-passed revenue measure; that the text of S. 1859 be the
first amendment in order; and that the majority and minority sides then
be recognized to offer amendments in an alternating fashion so these
important issues could be considered this week.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I would refer to the
statement I gave earlier today, and I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard to the
modification. Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I wish to briefly comment on the absurdity of what just
transpired on the Senate floor. My friends on the other side have been
the longest serving majority since 1980. We are enduring, some would
say, the 7th consecutive year of their majority. Yet if someone were to
take a close look at the strategy and tactics of the Senate Democratic
leadership, they would think the roles were reversed.
Democrats are the majority. They have even enhanced their majority by
breaking the rules of the Senate to give themselves more power. Indeed,
they have not been a bit reluctant to overreach.
Part and parcel of having a majority in the Senate is control over
the Senate's schedule and committees. Yet still we see what we saw
today from my friends on the other side of the aisle.
Under the Senate rules, tax policy matters, including the tax
extenders, are referred to the Senate Finance Committee. Trade
adjustment assistance, which was also included in this bill, also falls
under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
The Finance Committee processed tax extenders in a bipartisan fashion
last year and that legislation was eventually enacted into law. The
committee has also been able, though without as much bipartisan
support, to deal with the TAA in the recent past.
Yet now what do my friends want to do? They want to ignore the Senate
rules, the expertise and proper role of the Finance Committee, and pass
a complicated set of policies on the floor without discussion or
debate. With regard to tax extenders, Finance Committee staff from both
parties have, in only the past few days, started the process of
developing tax extenders legislation.
To put it bluntly, the majority leader's partisan actions today make
a sham of that deliberative, methodical, and constructive bipartisan
effort.
[[Page 19363]]
Why are they afraid of going through regular order? They are the
majority. Including my friend, the chairman, there are 13 Democrats on
the Finance Committee and only 11 Republicans.
What are they afraid of? Don't they set the committee agenda? Don't
they have the votes?
Political stunts, such as unanimous consent requests that are
designed only to draw objections from the other side, may be good
political fun for the proponents, they might even provide some good
campaign fodder, but they don't solve any problems.
It is amazing to see this kind of activity from the Senate majority
party when it controls the agenda both on the floor and in the
committees. We might expect these kinds of actions from a frustrated
minority party that feels shut out of its role in committees and on the
floor, but here we have a role reversal.
I am currently a member of the minority party in the Senate,
defending regular order, Senate customs, and the role of the committee
system. I will reiterate my challenge to my friends in the Senate
Democratic leadership: Why are you so afraid of regular order? Why not
process this legislation in a careful, methodical, and transparent
manner?
Being in the majority means being accountable. Today my friends on
the other side of the aisle tried, once again, to avoid accountability
in order to blame their own failings on Republicans. As the saying
goes: That dog just won't hunt.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. If I may, before the Senator from Utah leaves the
floor, he correctly stated the state of the Senate today. It is not the
same body it was only a few years ago in the way we are being treated.
It is a very discouraging development, as we approach the end of the
year, to see the way the Senate deteriorated under the current
leadership.
I thank the senior Senator from Utah for pointing out that it was not
too long ago that the two parties actually functioned on issues such as
the majority leader was trying to ram through today without any
committee consideration.
Mr. HATCH. The distinguished minority leader expresses it very well.
I am appalled. I have only been here 37 years, but I have never seen
the rules violated as they have been--frankly, violated in a way that
is destructive to the Senate, not helpful or constructive to the
Senate. This is just another illustration. Our side is getting very
sick of it.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Utah.
Stifling Dissent
Earlier this year the Internal Revenue Service admitted
responsibility for an incredible abuse of power. In the midst of an
election season, it targeted and harassed Americans for the supposed
crime of thinking differently. An agency with access to some of the
most personal information of every tax-paying American betrayed their
trust. In doing so, it showed the lengths to which this administration
will go to stifle those who dissent from its policies. All of this was
and remains a complete outrage.
It is the kind of thing we might expect from a banana republic or a
third-world dictatorship, not the world's leading democracy. The worst
part is we still don't know everything that happened or if it is still
going on. That is because the bipartisan investigation into all of this
still hasn't concluded.
It is unclear to me how seriously the White House is taking this
investigation. In many ways it seems to have treated the scandal more
as a public relations problem to get past than a serious problem to
solve and now, get this, they expect the elected representatives of the
people to roll over and rubberstamp a new Presidential nominee to head
the IRS. They want Congress to forget what happened and simply move on.
They expect us to clear the way tomorrow and let them ram through the
President's new pick to run the IRS. The American people deserve
answers about how and why this targeting happened. They deserve justice
too.
I will not be supporting any nominee to lead this agency until the
American people get the answers they deserve. Of course, the Democrats
in charge of the Senate changed the rules a few weeks back in order to
ensure they could get their way on nominees, no matter what the
American people think. It is the same kind of attitude we have seen on
the Defense bill, where the majority leader prevented other Members
from offering amendments. They will do what they want, even if it means
breaking the rules.
If John Koskinen does find himself confirmed tomorrow, I want him to
know a few things. First, he should understand I don't hold any animus
toward him personally. Under different circumstances, I might well have
been able to support him. We had a good conversation when we met
recently to discuss his nomination, but he is also someone I will be
keeping a close watch on, as will the other members of my conference,
as will the American people, because big challenges lie ahead for the
next IRS Commissioner, no matter who he or she may be.
We expect the next IRS Commissioner to cooperate fully with the
ongoing investigation into this scandal. We expect whoever is
eventually confirmed to hold those who broke or bent the rules fully
accountable. We expect the next Commissioner to fairly implement the
laws he or she is charged with executing.
To his credit, the nominee has assured me he agrees with me on a
topic I feel very strongly about--that the IRS should stay out of
regulating political speech. Let me say that again. The IRS should stay
out of regulating political speech. He told me himself he agreed with
that, and I was pleased to hear it.
Were he to become Commissioner, I would expect him to oppose the
extremely misguided proposed IRS rule that aims to overturn more than
50 years of settled law and practice by unfairly targeting the speech
of those who criticize the administration while leaving its supporters
untouched.
This proposed role, which will redefine what social welfare means in
order to target certain groups that seek to educate the public, would
end up penalizing Federal, State, and local organizations for the
supposed crime of providing information, much of it nonpartisan or
bipartisan. The goal is clear: to make it easier to push through the
backdoor what congressional Democrats have been unable to pass through
the front door, discriminatory policies that seek to silence those who
dare to oppose them. It is just the latest in a long and troubling
pattern of Chicago-style tactics under this administration, and it is
exactly the kind of political meddling the next Commissioner needs to
ensure never happens again.
Let us not forget, the IRS should be a boring place, an impartial
agency of tax collectors, not the vanguard of the left.
The next Commissioner needs to see to it that the organization
finally returns to its mission, and he or she needs to root out those
who would have the IRS target Americans for the way they think.
Lastly, as I have told the nominee, I am deeply concerned about the
IRS role in implementing ObamaCare. The fact is that ObamaCare
represents a dramatic expansion of the use of the Tax Code to pick
winners and losers. It gives the agency broad new responsibilities for
enforcing ObamaCare's most onerous mandates and to hand out nearly $1
trillion in taxpayer subsidies. And in order to do all this, it will
need to know who has insurance, penalize those who don't, and determine
who is eligible for subsidies and how much they ought to receive--
something the agency has a very troubled history in doing with other
programs. If they get any of that wrong, they will need to come back
and repossess subsidies after the fact.
In my view, the IRS doesn't have any business snooping even further
into the lives of our constituents, especially at a time when it is
already under a cloud of scandal. It is just one of the many reasons I
opposed ObamaCare in the first place and why I continue to oppose it.
[[Page 19364]]
If the nominee is to become Commissioner, then at a minimum I expect
him to hold the agency to the highest standards--the highest
standards--when it comes to protecting the privacy of the people we all
represent. I expect him to provide regular transparent updates to
Congress on the status of implementation and to let us know of any
problems as soon as they arise. The last thing we need is for the IRS
to compound the pain it and ObamaCare have already inflicted upon the
American people by allowing fraud and further mistreatment to happen
under its watch. The IRS has done a lot to lose the trust of the
American people. It will need to do a lot more to regain it.
Following the advice I just laid out will put the IRS on a better
path. If this nominee ends up becoming the next Commissioner, that
advice will form the criteria upon which his performance will be
judged.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from New Jersey.
Tax Extenders Act of 2013
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to call attention to
a critical provision in the Tax Extenders Act, which I wish had
received consent because it is important for creating prosperity and
economic opportunity in our country and giving certainty to businesses
in order to achieve that goal. That Tax Extenders Act provides our
Nation's most innovative businesses with some certainty as they plan
their investments for next year.
Every year the Congress extends a very popular law that provides a
tax credit to businesses for certain research expenses. This credit is
important for a number of reasons. It creates jobs, it encourages more
research, and it bolsters U.S. competitiveness.
Unfortunately, despite the efforts of a number of us here in the
Congress--notably, the distinguished chairman of the Finance
Committee--this credit is temporary and has been extended on what has
been an annual basis. That is unfortunate because the lack of long-term
certainty prevents businesses from fully relying on the credit when
making their global investment decisions.
I know the Presiding Officer understands this very well, as the State
of New Jersey has some of the leading innovative companies in the world
that very often rely on the research and development tax credit to make
those millions and sometimes billions of dollars' worth of investment
in order to produce the next lifesaving or life-enhancing drugs or the
next technology breakthrough.
In the meantime, at the very least, we can ensure the credit is
extended. If we can't make it permanent, it should be extended in a
timely fashion to give businesses confidence in putting more investment
in research in the United States in 2014. This bill would extend the
research and development tax credit for another year, and I sincerely
hope we will be able to get this done very soon in order to maximize
the credit's effectiveness and unlock that investment which creates
economic opportunity and jobs and growth in our economy.
I yield for my colleague the senior Senator from Ohio to discuss
another important provision in this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. I thank the Presiding Officer and the Senator from New
Jersey, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington be
allowed to speak following my comments on the extenders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues in asking
for unanimous consent--which we will do formally later on--to pass the
Tax Extenders Act of 2013.
The bill will do a number of important extensions, including--
particularly important for my State--extending the health care tax
credit or the HCTC. It is important that we extend it for workers and
retirees who lose their jobs and benefits due to no fault of their own.
Extending the HCTC preserves a program that people in my home State
of Ohio--such as Delphi salaried retirees, who worked hard and played
by the rules--know, understand, and trust. These tax credits are set to
expire in just 2 weeks, at the end of the year.
While affordable health insurance will be available on the health
exchanges, one of the most important aspects of the Affordable Care
Act--ObamaCare--extending the HCTC ensures that retirees who have
already faced a number of transitions can keep insurance that is
familiar to them while they learn about new options.
Extending the tax credit for 1 year is fiscally responsible. We could
and should do more. We should improve the HCTC and make it permanent,
as I proposed in legislation I introduced along with Senators
Rockefeller, Stabenow, Hirono, and Donnelly. But in the meantime, we
could and should at the very least maintain this critical tax credit
for a population that needs it desperately. That is what this bill
does. That is why the Senate should move it soon by unanimous consent.
I would like to take a moment to emphasize how important the Tax
Extenders Act of 2013 is on a number of other issues besides the HCTC
and credits my friends have discussed.
Among other important measures, we should also move to extend the new
markets tax credit and the low-income housing tax credit. These
programs are oversubscribed and are able to help revitalize communities
by leveraging tens of billions of dollars in private investments. They
are among the best programs we have for economic development in Ohio
and across the country. I strongly support that extension.
Finally, I would like to associate myself with Senator Stabenow in
calling for unanimous consent to pass the Tax Extenders Act of 2013 in
order to extend mortgage debt relief. Without this critical extension,
homeowners who make modifications to their mortgage or receive loan
forgiveness could face a crippling tax bill. Imagine that. After you
have done a loan modification, you are taxed on whatever money you
save. Imagine getting that tax bill. That is why the mortgage debt
relief extender is so very important.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wish to thank Leader Reid, Chairman
Baucus, Senator Schumer, Senator Stabenow, Senator Wyden, Senator
Brown, and Senator Menendez for coming to the floor to talk about this
important issue of tax extenders and why we need to get them done now.
In the State of Washington taxpayers are opening the morning
newspaper and finding the Seattle Times editorial entitled ``Congress
should extend the sales-tax deduction.'' The Seattle Times has been
following this issue for years and knows that taxpayers are waiting to
find out whether we can continue to deduct our sales tax from our
Federal income tax obligation. As Washington is a State that doesn't
have an income tax, we want parity with other States and we want to be
able to deduct our sales tax as one of those taxes from our Federal tax
obligations.
Every year millions of Washingtonians have to wait to find out
whether that particular tax provision is going to be extended. I want
to make it permanent, and I hope when we do tax reform we will be able
to do so. But in the meantime we have to give certainty to the
taxpayers in Washington State that as far as these important tax
policies are concerned, Congress can act and get things done.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
that particular Seattle Times editorial.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From The Seattle Times, Dec. 18, 2013]
Editorial: Congress Should Extend the Sales-Tax Deduction
Congress needs to end its magical thinking and pass a
permanent federal income tax deduction for state and local
sales tax.
Year after year, Washington state taxpayers are forced to
play Congress' aggravating game of fantasy role-playing.
Alas,
[[Page 19365]]
there are no elixirs or elves, although there are a few
ogres.
In this game, Congress pretends it will magically transform
into a body capable of passing a comprehensive tax bill. Such
a bill would almost assuredly include a permanent federal
income-tax deduction for state and local sales taxes, on par
with the existing permanent deduction for state income taxes.
This matters because some states, such as Washington, have
the former, but not the latter.
Instead, every year since 2004, Congress has passed a
temporary extension of the sales-tax deduction. Next year,
fantastical thinking goes, will be the big fix for the tax
code.
Washington's delegation, led for years by U.S. Sen. Maria
Cantwell, has tried to pop this absurdity. So too this year,
with Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, hammering away. President
Obama is on board, recommending a permanent sales-tax
deduction. But the U.S. House left town on Friday for the
year without so much as another temporary extension,
effectively ending the deduction beginning in 2014.
This is big money for Washington state. An analysis by the
Pew Charitable Trusts released this week shows Washington is
the state most dependent on the sales-tax deduction, with 29
percent of filers in the Evergreen State claiming it. The top
seven states all have limited or no state income taxes.
Filers who claim the deduction typically save about $500 off
their tax bill.
The fantasy game will likely resume on Jan. 6: Congress
could pass a retroactive exemption, allowing deductions for
the full 2014 calendar year. They could even pretend it had
never expired, and, with a sprinkle of pixie dust, wipe clean
the memory that the 113th U.S. Congress was the least
productive in the history of the country, passing just 56
bills as of Friday.
Congress should end this game. Pass a permanent sales-tax
deduction.
Ms. CANTWELL. At New Year's, as the ball drops in Times Square, a
number of other tax provisions are going to expire, and the lapse of
these important tax provisions makes it harder for Americans to invest
in clean energy, to hire veterans, to pay for public transportation,
and to build low-income housing.
As my colleague Senator Brown was discussing, the Tax Extenders Act
of 2013 is about providing predictability and certainty to citizens and
to American businesses about tax benefits and investments.
On January 1 the commuter tax benefit will expire. That will mean an
increase in household expenses for 2.7 million public transit
commuters. In King County, which is the county Seattle is in, more than
1,600 employers use the commuter tax benefit to enable employees to get
to and from work.
If you have ever been in the Puget Sound area, you know that
transportation and traffic are big issues for us. So, obviously, trying
to defer some of that traffic congestion by getting people into
commuter transportation is a key part of our strategy. But if we take
away the certainty and predictability of tax deductions with regard to
commuting, we are going to make our transportation problems worse.
On New Year's Day the tax benefits for those employees who take
public transit will be cut nearly in half, from $245 to $130 per month.
We need to extend this benefit as a matter of tax fairness.
Transportation is the second largest expense in an American
household. American families should be able to choose whether they want
to drive or take public transit, and they shouldn't be punished because
they are taking a bus or ferry or train.
Across Washington State we have seen firsthand how the other tax
extenders help to actually create an environment of certainty and
predictability for jobs and job creation. These are bipartisan
principles we can all get behind.
Of particular importance to me, as I said, is the State and local
sales tax deduction, which affects many people in our State.
Individuals living in other States with a State income tax are not
faced with these same challenges. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming are all in the same boat, and I
am sure these citizens would want to have the sales tax deduction
certainty and predictability. As a result, an average of $640 in
deductions is real money back into people's pockets when they itemize
those various tax benefits.
We hope this won't continue to be a burden placed on Washington
State. We need these tax extenders now.
Additionally, there are other credits, such as the new market tax
credit, which is a great program for encouraging investment in
challenging areas of our country; the biodiesel tax credit; and the
veterans work opportunity tax credit, which is a tax credit to
encourage employers to hire veterans. We have had many of these events
around Washington State, talking to employers who have successfully
used this tax credit. There is also the low-income housing tax credit.
I am sure the Presiding Officer probably has projects all over his
State that have benefited from the low-income housing tax credit. This
is a great incentive to get more affordable housing built in hard-to-
serve areas and challenging areas because of high cost. I have already
mentioned the commuter tax benefit. All of these are tied to job
creation.
Instead of giving predictability and certainty on tax credits, here
we are not getting our job done. We should get this done as soon as
possible. It is time for Congress to extend these important provisions
and to make plans accordingly.
I hope the IRS could be given the predictability and certainty as
well in the new year about these provisions so that we are not delaying
or affecting the tax season at the end of next year.
The time to act is now, and I hope my colleagues will help us get
these measures--which are usually renewed in a bipartisan fashion--done
as soon as possible.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I thank my friend and colleague
from Washington for her passionate advocacy, and I join with her and
other colleagues today in supporting the unanimous consent request to
pass immediately the Tax Extenders Act. There is no reason not to get
this done, as colleagues have said--absolutely none.
We are in a situation where there are critical tax policies that will
directly affect families. Middle-class families across the country are
going to be hit by a number of different policies. Small businesses,
large businesses, and a number of different entities will be affected
if we don't get this passed.
I would like to specifically talk about an urgent priority I have
been offering, which we have been able to shepherd through a number of
different times, which needs to get done as a part of this package or
by itself, however we want to do it. We need to make sure struggling
homeowners across the country--and in terms of all of the economy as
well--are able to continue using tax policy to protect them from not
only being hit with a mortgage problem that puts them underwater and
struggling to keep their homes but an extra tax bill on top of it that
makes absolutely no sense.
Let me explain that. At the end of the year, a law I offered back in
2007 to protect homeowners against unforeseen and unfair tax bills is
set to expire. Before this law, when a portion of a distressed
homeowner's mortgage was canceled--either in a loan workout with a
bank, a short sale, or even a foreclosure in some instances--the IRS
treated the canceled debt as taxable income. Think about that: You are
already struggling with your home. You could lose your home. Or maybe
you are able to refinance in some way, work with the bank, get a short
sale, and then on top of that get a tax bill for whatever the value was
of what you were able to work out. It makes absolutely no sense. It is,
frankly, outrageous.
The IRS was telling homeowners that money they had already lost on
their home was income, so we have essentially been correcting that
since 2007 through a tax change. The IRS before that was taxing
families on what is considered phantom income at the worst possible
time for the family.
With the onslaught of the housing crisis, Congress recognized how
critical it was to protect struggling homeowners from paying this kind
of tax on mortgage debt relief. In 2007, we provided tax relief for
homeowners by excluding mortgage forgiveness from their income for tax
purposes. It made
[[Page 19366]]
sense then, it makes sense now. It expires at the end of the year.
We came together on a bipartisan basis. We said to millions of
working families, middle-class families struggling to keep a roof over
their head for their families that: If you are struggling with an
underwater mortgage, the IRS shouldn't kick you while you are down. You
can seek relief without having to worry about incurring a massive tax
bill.
This provision has aided millions of families and helped enable the
housing market to begin to recover. However, in too many areas of the
country and for far too many homeowners, the housing crisis is far from
over. Nearly 6.5 million homeowners are still underwater in their
mortgages. They owe more than their homes are worth. That includes
250,000 hard-working families in Michigan. Nearly 13 percent of
homeowners nationally are underwater. Again, 18 percent are in
Michigan--above the national average.
It is critical that we extend this provision, and it is very
important it be done before the end of the year. It needs to be done
ahead of time so homeowners know what the IRS rules are going to be in
2014, as they are literally making decisions today, tomorrow, the next
day, over Christmas. They need to know. If we don't act, homeowners who
are offered relief from their lenders or are thinking about a short
sale won't know if they will be hit with a major tax bill as a result,
and that will affect decisions being made.
On average, underwater homeowners owe $53,000 more on their mortgage
than the market value of their homes. In some cases, of course, it is
much more. For a typical middle-class family, that could mean a tax
bill of more than $13,000. Merry Christmas. It is a $13,000 tax bill
you shouldn't be paying as you are trying to figure out how to protect
your home. Who would want to take that risk?
Brokers and housing counselors in Michigan have been asking me what
they should be telling homeowners, and we need to act right now so we
can tell them they don't have to worry about this.
This is not just about fairness for homeowners. This is about keeping
the housing recovery alive. The last thing we want to do is to tax
people into foreclosure, where they feel their only option is default
and walking away from their home.
As we have seen in so many communities, foreclosures and vacant
properties destabilize neighborhoods. I can walk from community to
community in Michigan and show where that has happened. They push home
values down. We can't let that happen at a time when the housing market
and the economy are finally recovering. We all have a stake in
extending this important tax protection for families.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the National Association of Realtors, and one from over 200 housing
consumer and community organizations urging us to act now.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Association
of Realtors,
Washington, DC, September 27, 2013.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the more than one million
members of the National Association of REALTORS'.
I urge you to cosponsor S. 1187.'' This bipartisan
legislation, introduced by Senators Stabenow and Heller,
would extend the current law provisions that allow tax relief
for homeowners when lenders forgive some portion of mortgage
debt they owe. First enacted in 2007, this critical provision
has helped millions of financially distressed American
families. Unfortunately, the provision is temporary and is
currently set to expire at the end of this year. Securing
this extension is among our highest priorities for 2013.
Today's housing market is finally beginning to recover from
a devastating multi-year decline. However, this recovery is
uneven, and there are still too many homeowners who find
themselves in foreclosure, contemplating a short sale, or
attempting to have an existing loan restructured. Our
estimates show about 9.6 million homeowners whose homes are
still worth less than what they owe on them. This means that
about 20 percent of all homeowners with mortgages in the U.S.
are ``under water.'' In addition, the Mortgage Bankers
Association estimates there are still 1.45 million homes in
the process of foreclosure. This is down from the peak of
just over 2 million, but way above the average of about
430,000 from the pre-housing crisis period of between 2000
and 2006. It is clear that timely enactment of this bill is
critical to the ongoing recovery of the housing market.
If S. 1187 is not enacted, hundreds of thousands of
American families starting next January will have to pay
income tax on ``phantom income.'' They will owe tax on money
they've already lost and will be required to pay that tax at
a time of dire hardship, when they are least likely to have
the means to pay it. Moreover, if the mortgage debt
forgiveness provision is allowed to expire, many distressed
homeowners may decide to take a pass on opportunities for
short sales, opting instead for continued default until
foreclosure or simply to walk away from the property. Either
way, this would destabilize the communities where such homes
are located, as foreclosed and vacant houses drive down
values in the surrounding neighborhood.
We hope you will join Senators Stabenow and Heller to
cosponsor S. 1187 . Please contact Seth Hanlon with Senator
Stabenow ([email protected] or 4-4822) or Scott
Riplinger with Senator Heller
([email protected] or 4-6244) to be added.
Sincerely,
Gary Thomas,
2013 President.
____
Americans for Financial Reform,
Washington, DC, December 6, 2013.
Dear Senator, We write to urge you to support S. 1187, the
Mortgage Forgiveness Tax Relief Act.
Extending the qualified principal residence indebtedness
exclusion (QPRI) is of critical importance as we work to
resolve the housing crisis. More than six years after the
mortgage market imploded, we have still not returned to pre-
2008 foreclosure levels. In the next year, many more
homeowners will receive loan modifications with principal
reduction under HAMP, the National Mortgage Settlement, or
through private, proprietary modifications. The recent
settlement with JP Morgan Chase, which requires a minimum of
$1.5 billion in principal reductions, further ups the ante.
Homeowners who need a principal reduction on their mortgage
in order to avoid foreclosure should not face a tax bill. The
imposition of tax in these circumstances undermines national
housing policy.
The extension of QPRI will allow many homeowners to remain
in their homes, paying on their mortgages, restoring some
small measure of financial stability to their lives and to
their communities. Extension of QPRI has received uncommonly
wide bipartisan support across the entire spectrum of
stakeholders.
We would ask that you go further, as well. QPRI has never
reached the majority of homeowners who need principal
reductions because QPRI is, as a practical matter, only
available to homeowners receiving reductions on their
purchase money mortgage. Homeowners who refinanced and
received cash-out, or who paid off medical bills or student
loans, or who took out a home equity loan to address deferred
maintenance on their homes, cannot use QPRI to avoid paying
income tax, even though they will have no additional income
with which to pay the increased taxes and even if they remain
deeply underwater after the loan modification. For example,
under the terms of a recent principal reduction modification
offered a Connecticut homeowner, the homeowner would, after
the modification, owe nearly $250,000 more than the house is
worth and face an increase in their annual taxes of over
$10,000 a year, for three years, on a total annual income of
only $71,000. In order to protect homeowners who need
principal reductions from adverse tax consequences and to
promote tax equity, QPRI should be expanded to include all
residential mortgage debt forgiven due to a decrease in the
value of the home or the homeowner's financial condition.
The Mortgage Debt Forgiveness Tax Relief Act expires on
December 31, 2013. Principal reduction modifications entered
into after this date, including those authorized by the
recent settlement with JP Morgan Chase, will result in
additional tax consequences for homeowners. Without an
extension, far fewer modifications will be done and the
modifications done will be less sustainable, with wide-
reaching consequences for homeowners, the communities they
live in, and our national economy. The settlements with some
of the large financial institutions which are finally
providing modifications with principal reductions for
qualified homeowners should not end up penalizing the
homeowners who have waited so long for assistance.
An extension of the Mortgage Debt Forgiveness Tax Relief
Act cannot wait for a more global tax reform bill; it should
be enacted swiftly.
Sincerely,
National Signatories.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan initiative which I
have introduced with Senator Heller and 18 other bipartisan cosponsors.
To my knowledge, it is not controversial.
[[Page 19367]]
There is no excuse not to act before we leave, and I urge colleagues to
do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for
her heartfelt words. I couldn't agree with her more. I thank the
majority leader and my colleagues from Ohio and New Jersey as well for
recognizing the importance of this package of tax relief.
The Tax Extenders Act of 2013 would extend tax relief which business
and middle-class families in my home State of New York and across the
country depend on. They are noncontroversial. They have received
bipartisan support in the past. And because of the great uncertainty
over our economy, doing this quickly and not saying we will do it 3
months after they expire makes a great deal of sense. I know my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have objected to all of
these. I hope they will reconsider, because for the good of the
economy--which is just beginning to pick up a little bit--we need to do
these extenders.
I am going to talk about four of them, but one is particularly
critical because it doesn't work very well retroactively. The others
do. That is why I urge my colleagues to reconsider and will ask for a
separate UC before we leave here on this particular one because it has
particular need right now, and that is the mass transit commuter tax
benefit.
There are about 700,000 commuters in the New York metropolitan area,
including from the Presiding Officer's home State, who take advantage
of this current incentive. The commuter benefit currently covers up to
$245 a month from a person's income to pay for their mass transit
commute to and from work. So whether you take the subway, bus, train,
or drive to work and park, the benefit provides significant savings.
The tradition, unfortunately, in this Senate and in this Congress was
to treat mass transit as a second-class citizen, because the benefit
traditionally had been significantly greater for those who drive and
park than for those who take mass transit, and we have had serious
problems.
First, until we changed it a few years back, the mass transit was
half the benefit of parking and driving. Second, it was not indexed for
inflation the way the parking benefit was. So if we let this provision
expire, the mass transit benefit will revert to $130 a month, while
those who drive and park will actually get an increase to $250 for 2014
because of inflation.
We cannot let these transit benefits for mass transit users get left
behind. To do them is a win-win. It is a win, of course, for those who
use mass transit--and we have so many in the New York area. It is also
a win for drivers, because every person who is encouraged to use mass
transit by this benefit will actually take a car off the road, remove
some degree of congestion, and allow drivers to move more quickly. And,
of course, it is a win for our environment, because mass transit is a
far more effective way environmentally of moving things along.
So when the leader a few minutes ago requested the Senate pass the
tax extenders act, I was disappointed it was blocked, and particularly
disappointed that this benefit was blocked, because while we can do it
retroactively, it is harder to implement than the others that are done
retroactively, because most of them take effect when you pay your taxes
in 2015, whereas this one takes effect month by month.
The proposal we are asking for is exactly the same as was included in
the bipartisan negotiated tax extenders package considered by the
Senate Finance Committee and passed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis
for one additional year, through 2014. I hope we will consider it now,
not retroactively later next year as we did last year. Employers need
to plan whether they will provide the benefit. Commuters need to elect
to take it. And as I said, it is done on a monthly basis. You can do it
retroactively, but it is much harder.
I know we have lots of problems here between the parties, but we
should not hold the mass transit commuters of America hostage. We
should not make them second-class citizens. Their deduction is every
bit as important, every bit as justifiable, as for those who drive and
park. I hope my colleagues, before we adjourn this year for the
Christmas holiday, would in the Christmas spirit extend this benefit.
Now I wish to talk about a few other credits which are also part of
the package being blocked right now. One is the new market tax credit.
Individuals and businesses across my State are counting on the new
market tax credit. The new market credit program was created to
stimulate private-sector investment in economically distressed
communities. It has done exactly that. I have seen it work in Buffalo,
Rochester, Syracuse, and the capital district in New York.
Over the first decade of the program, $20 billion in new market tax
credit investment leveraged an additional $25 billion in capital from
other sources to finance economic development in communities where
financing might be difficult to come by.
The program is a proven job creator. Between 2003 and 2010, new
market tax credit investments created over 500,000 jobs across the
country. Again, it has always had bipartisan support. It is sort of a
no-brainer. It should be continued.
I will now talk about the short line rail tax credit. It is a little
like the new market tax credit in that it is a tax credit which
encourages private investment and jobs.
We have short lines all across the country. They connect the main
trunk lines on rail to the more isolated regions. But in those somewhat
isolated regions are factories. We have opportunities for tourism, say,
in the Adirondacks, and the short line rail tax credit helps maintain
and renovate the short line rail system.
Rail is very prosperous these days. The big carriers can maintain the
trunk lines very well. But it is harder to maintain the short line, and
Congress in its wisdom decided to give a tax break for those. If you
are unfamiliar, the short line rails are a web of tracks all over the
country connecting local businesses and manufacturers to interstate
rail systems. The unheralded links that bring raw materials into our
businesses and connect them with other cities and supply chains must be
maintained. Over 50 percent of rail track in my home State is short
line rails. Approximately 550 short line railroads provide 50,000 miles
of track in the country, and the credit is extremely useful in my
State, financing hundreds of thousands of dollars of rail
infrastructure investment annually. It is used all across the country.
We have 42 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate for this legislation. So
I hope we will consider this one and pass it.
Finally, the IRA rollover. The IRA rollover provision is also set to
expire, affecting so many retirees. They need to know whether it will
be extended in order to plan their charitable giving in the coming
year. If it isn't extended, many taxpayers over 70\1/2\ years of age
will be surprised with a tax bill when they transfer funds from their
IRA to their favorite charity in 2014. So this is important and, again,
is one that truly is in the Christmas spirit.
In conclusion, businesses, families, retirees will pay the price if
all of these valuable tax relief provisions, and many of the others
mentioned by Senator Reid, are not extended by the end of the year. I
would hope, in the same spirit of comity that we passed the budget, we
could come together and pass these extenders. They have always had
bipartisan support. They are, after all, tax reductions. I know my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe in tax reductions. To
delay them and do them retroactively would be doing a disservice to our
economy and to the millions of Americans who are working or seeking
work in our country today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I commend my
colleague from New York for a very fine statement. He and I sit next to
each other on the Finance Committee, and we are going to be working
very closely together on these issues.
[[Page 19368]]
I have long felt that the best choice in terms of looking at these
tax issues is comprehensive tax reform. The reality is the Tax Code in
America is a dysfunctional mess. It is 100 years old at this point. I
think it is pretty fair to say it looks its age every year.
When it comes to energy--and clearly a lot of Senators on both sides
of the aisle have done a lot of work on this--my preference would be
Congress would simplify the various energy provisions, replace the
dozens of separate incentives for each energy technology with fewer
technology-neutral, performance-based incentives that bring us to a
more level playing field in the energy area--a more level playing
field, and one where there would be certainty for those who are going
to do the innovation--those in New Jersey, Oregon, and elsewhere, who
have those kinds of breakthrough innovative ideas and who are telling
us that they badly need to get off this roller coaster of extenders and
have some real predictability for the important innovative work that
needs to be done.
Those kinds of incentives should take into account important policy
goals of domestic energy security and reducing this country's carbon
footprint, while getting the Tax Code more out of the way and letting
the free market decide which technologies break through and ultimately
succeed. It is my view that what Chairman Baucus released yesterday--
and he consulted with us extensively--certainly has some promising
ideas in that regard.
With respect to where this debate is now, I think it is important to
be clear about the challenge. It looks more and more like the other
body has in effect decided to, if not slow walk tax reform, certainly
take its time. Last month the news in Washington was full of headlines
about various discussions among the House leaders. You got the sense--I
will let them speak for themselves--on tax reform issues they
apparently were going to take their foot off the gas. It does not seem
the other body is poised to move forward any time soon on comprehensive
tax reform. Because there is little indication the other body is going
to move on this, my view is letting the incentives for the renewable
energy resources--in particular solar and wind and other renewables and
energy efficiency--in effect get thrown overboard, in effect sacrificed
on this altar of inaction, would be a huge mistake. If we do that, we
are talking about putting at risk thousands and thousands of American
jobs in industries that are critical to our country's energy,
environmental and economic security.
My view is that having these employers and having these innovative,
cutting-edge technologies fall off the cliff would be a mistake. That
is why it is critical Congress address and extend these key energy tax
benefits as soon as possible.
Until the Congress takes the prudent step of broad-based reform of
our tax system, the American people should not be left hanging. We
ought to minimize the roller coaster of uncertainty that has been a
drag on growth in recent years. Passing the Tax Extenders Act of 2013
and extending these important expiring provisions delivers a measure of
confidence and continuity, and it builds a bridge between the current
tax system and where all Members of Congress ought to hope we end up;
that is, with a modern, progrowth Tax Code, worthy of the American
economy and ready for the 21st century.
I have been interested in the subject for a number of years. I can
briefly recount some of the history. Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of
Chicago, and I introduced the first comprehensive reform effort when he
was still in the other body. We were not even able to get a Republican
to join us in that effort.
Then Senator Judd Gregg, our former colleague from New Hampshire who
sat across from me on a sofa every week for 2 years--and I were able to
come together with a tax reform proposal, much of which I continue to
believe is valid. Then our current colleague Senator Dan Coats was
willing to work with myself and Senator Begich and others and he made
important contributions. We very much need to have a modern progrowth,
pro-entrepreneurial Tax Code that is up to the challenges of the 21st
century. That is my first choice.
That is not what is in front of us today. Clearly, when the House
made the decision to pull back for various reasons, we were faced with
the question of whether we were just going to sit by and, as a result
of inaction, see these important renewable energy industries and the
jobs they represent sacrificed. I hope the Congress, on a bipartisan
basis, will say that is not acceptable and pass the Tax Extenders Act
of 2013 on a bipartisan basis.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague from New
Hampshire Senator Shaheen to talk about the Energy Savings and
Industrial Competitiveness Act. This is one of those pieces of
legislation we ought to pass around here. It is bipartisan. It is good
for the country. It is part of an energy plan for America that can help
bring the jobs back, help fix our trade deficit, help make our
manufacturers more competitive, help save taxpayers money, and actually
help to clean the environment. That all sounds pretty good, doesn't it,
and it does so without a single mandate. It does so without any new
spending. It is fully offset, and, in fact, I would make the strong
argument it is going to save taxpayers a lot of money. Why? Because
putting energy efficiencies in place in the Federal Government, the
biggest energy user in the world, we are going to see a lot of savings
to U.S. taxpayers.
Over the last several months we have been working to clear a few last
few hurdles that stand in the way of passing this legislation. I am
pleased to say from what I am hearing from the other side of the
aisle--Senator Shaheen can talk more about this--it looks as though we
are going to have a good shot to move this early next year.
Before we leave for the holidays, I wanted to have a chance to talk
about it a little bit. I know Senator Shaheen did, I know Senator
Wyden, who is here with us, the chairman, and Senator Murkowski, the
ranking member on energy, are all highly supportive of this
legislation. After all, it got out of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee with a strong bipartisan vote, 19 to 3. This doesn't often
happen with regard to energy policy around this place. This is one of
those things where Republicans and Democrats alike can come together to
do something good for our country.
It is also important we do it now because it gives the economy a shot
in the arm at a time we need it. There is a lot of talk in this place
about an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. To me, this fits
perfectly with that. On this side of the aisle we talk a little more
about the production side. In other words, we ought to be using more of
the energy in the ground in America right now and I think we should. We
should be producing more energy. At the same time, the energy we
produce we should use more efficiently, and it has all those benefits
we talked about earlier if we do that.
We still import a lot of oil. In combination with China it
contributes to our trade deficit. In fact, the entire trade deficit one
could say is due to energy imports and trade with China alone. By doing
away with some of those energy imports, because we are using energy we
have more efficiently here, we are going to see lower trade deficits.
The bill creates jobs and that is why it is supported by over 260
trade associations and companies, including the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and others. But it is
also good for the environment, which is why the coalition also includes
the Alliance to Save Energy, the Sierra Club, and others--again, a big
reason this passed the Energy and
[[Page 19369]]
Natural Resources Committee with a bipartisan vote of 19 to 3.
Simply put, the legislation the senior Senator from New Hampshire and
I have worked on for 2\1/2\ years makes good environmental sense, makes
good energy sense, makes good economic sense. It makes sense to help
move this economy forward.
I visited with businesses and job creators all over my State of Ohio.
They tell me the same thing. Energy efficiency is critical to their
ability to compete. Think about it. We do live in a global economy. We
live in an economy where we are competing in Ohio not just with Indiana
but with India. As a result, we have to look at our cost of doing
business, and one cost of doing business of course is labor. We don't
want to compete with developing countries on labor rates. We want our
labor rates to be good. We want benefits to be good.
Another aspect we could look at, of course, is the quality of our
goods. We don't want to cut corners on the quality of the manufactured
product we produce in this country. In fact, we want to make sure we
produce the best in the world. But energy is an area where we can cut
costs. By making our manufacturers more competitive by reducing their
costs, we are going to be able to compete globally, add more jobs in
the country, and again be able to help on our trade deficit. That is
why this legislation is so important, because what the Federal
Government can do is help the private sector take advantage of the best
research that is out there, the best practices that are out there, so
our companies can reduce their costs putting those savings toward
expanding companies' plants and equipment, hiring more workers.
The proposals contained in this bill are very commonsense reforms
needed for a long time. Again, there are no mandates on the private
sector, none. In fact, many of our proposals come as a direct result of
conversations we had with people in the private sector as to what they
actually want and need. That is how we put this together.
It is also about how the Federal Government can become more energy
efficient. We talked earlier about the fact that the Federal Government
is the largest user of energy in the world. Think about that. Our bill
basically says to the Federal Government: Why don't you start
practicing what you preach. There is a lot of talk about green energy,
green technology, and so on at the Federal Government level. But
actually, it turns out the Federal Government itself is inefficient. We
have lots of studies that show that.
More importantly, we have ideas to make the Federal Government more
efficient and less wasteful. It directs the Department of Energy to
issue recommendations that employ energy efficiency on everything from
computer hardware to operational and maintenance processes, energy
efficiency software, and power management tools. It also takes the
commonsense step of allowing the General Services Administration to
update building designs to meet efficiency standards that have been
developed since those designs were finalized. They cannot do that now.
And that makes no sense.
The Federal Government has been looking for places to tighten its
belt. Energy efficiency is a very good place to start. It will save
taxpayer money and help the environment in the process.
All this adds up to a piece of legislation that Americans across the
political spectrum should be able to support, again fully offset, no
mandates, and requires the Federal Government to become more efficient.
All this makes sense.
What will the impact be? There is a recent study of our legislation
that says that by 2025, the Shaheen-Portman legislation is estimated to
aid in the creation of 136,000 new jobs while saving consumers $13.7
billion a year in reduced energy costs by the year 2030. It is the
equivalent of taking millions of homes off the grid. It is the
equivalent of the entire energy use of the State of Oklahoma, for
instance, if we just put some of these commonsense efficiency standards
in place.
This legislation is not everything everybody wanted. Some of the
environmental groups would like to have gone further, and some of the
business groups would probably like to see some other things to help
them. But this is legislation that is sensible. It will make a
difference. It is bipartisan. It can pass in the Senate significantly,
and it can also be legislation that will be mirrored in the House of
Representatives and passed.
There is a bicameral interest. A number of House Democrats and
Republicans are on board. They are interested in our moving this
legislation in part so they can then move legislation in the House and
we can get it to the President's desk for his signature.
The Secretary of Energy has made energy efficiency one of his new
priorities. So this is something we should and can do.
We all often lament the fact that there is not much bipartisanship
around this place and not much is getting done; and it is true. It is
true. The budget agreement was good this week. We had to do something.
It is far from perfect, as I have said, even though in the end I voted
for it because I think we need to move forward on this issue and have a
budget for the first time in 4 years. But this is an example of
bipartisan legislation that is positive and that can help move the
country forward.
Any true, all-of-the-above energy strategy has to include not just
producing more energy but using it more efficiently. Produce more, use
less. That is good for jobs, good for taxpayers, and good for the
environment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I hope we will hear from the
Senator from New Hampshire who has been my partner in this effort for
the past 2\1/2\ years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am really pleased to be here on the
floor today with, as the Senator from Ohio put it so well, my partner
Senator Portman in developing this energy efficiency legislation--the
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, also known as
Shaheen-Portman. It is a long name, but as the Senator from Ohio
pointed out, it really goes a long way to address some of the energy
challenges we face in this country. It is a win-win-win.
We heard a discussion earlier today about the importance of renewable
energy as a way to create jobs. This is one of the most important
things about our legislation. It does promote job creation. As the
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy said, 136,000 new jobs
will be created by 2025 if we pass this legislation. By 2030, it would
net an annual savings of almost $14 billion--$13.7 billion for
consumers--and it would lower CO2 emissions and other air
pollutants by the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road.
So as Senator Portman said so well, this is a win for job creation,
it is a win for the environment, it is a win for national security, and
it is a win for saving costs.
Senator Portman talked about the importance of continuing bipartisan
efforts as we saw this week with passing a budget. As did Senator
Portman, I supported that budget as well, despite some of the
misgivings I had about it, but I think it was important to work
together to move forward on addressing the issues we face in this
country. That is exactly what the Energy Savings and Industrial
Competitiveness Act would do. It is a bill that will create jobs, lower
pollution, and save taxpayer money.
We had a great opportunity to pass this legislation back in
September. Unfortunately, we saw some people come to the floor and
object because of nonrelevant amendments. But we have an opportunity to
come back to it in the new year to try to pass it again. I am hoping we
can do that.
One reason we are on the floor today is to talk about that second
opportunity we are going to have. Senator Portman and I have been
working on some of the bipartisan amendments offered for the bill, and
we are hopeful some of our colleagues who support those bipartisan
amendments, who have authored them, will come on
[[Page 19370]]
board with this legislation and help us get this passed in the new
year.
As Senator Portman said, to date, this legislation has more than 260
endorsements from groups that include business, the environment, think
tanks, and trade associations. Supporters include everybody from the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the International Union of
Painters and Allied Trades. I think any time we can get the Sierra Club
and the American Chemistry Council supporting a piece of legislation,
we know we have a good bill that can attract a lot of support. That is
where we are in this legislation.
As we know, passage of the bill was delayed by a small group of
Senators back in September. But I think there still remains a real
interest in debating energy efficiency policy on the floor of the
Senate. We have also heard from the House that both Representatives
Fred Upton, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Ed
Whitfield, chair of the relevant subcommittee with jurisdiction over
energy efficiency, have expressed interest in Shaheen-Portman and have
said they will move energy efficiency legislation if the Senate passes
a bill.
Since the bill was taken off the floor, Senator Portman and I have
continued to work with Chairman Wyden. He was here a few minutes ago
and plans to come back, hopefully, to speak to the legislation. We have
been working with Ranking Member Murkowski to incorporate some of those
relevant bipartisan amendments that have been cleared by the committee,
which I talked about a few minutes ago. If we can do that--if we can
include those amendments--it would make the legislation even better,
and it would secure additional support necessary to ensure passage. It
would allow us, I hope, assuming the leadership agrees, to bring this
bill back to the floor.
I am confident we can pass this legislation if we can get it back to
the floor. It has bipartisan, bicameral support. It is exactly the kind
of smart, affordable energy and jobs bill Congress needs to pass and
the President needs to sign in order to spur private sector growth, in
order to save on costs of energy, and in order to address some of the
environmental issues we are facing.
So I thank Senator Portman, as well as Chairman Wyden and Ranking
Member Murkowski, for all of their help in working with us to promote
this legislation and advance the bill. I really look forward to working
with those 260 groups, which also include the Alliance to Save Energy--
and it is important to recognize them for their support--to be able to
bring this bill back, to get it through, and for the first time since
2007 to get some energy policy done in the Senate.
So I thank the Chair. Thanks to my colleague, Senator Portman, we
will be back after January.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Davis Nomination
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I know we are awaiting the arrival of
Senator Johnson.
I wish to take a moment to express my appreciation to the majority
leader for including in the items we will be handling before we adjourn
for Christmas the confirmation of Judge Brian Davis to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Judge Davis has been waiting for 2 years. This is a good example of
how things have gone very slowly for a very deserving judge. He has
been waiting for 658 days. He has the support of Senator Rubio and
myself. The American Bar Association has found him to be unanimously
well qualified to serve on the Federal district court, and it is the
ABA's highest rating.
Judge Davis is a native Floridian who grew up African American in
segregated Jacksonville, FL, and despite those circumstances was
accepted to Princeton for his college education. He returned later to
the University of Florida Law School and then became a top prosecutor
in Jacksonville and 20 years ago went on the bench as a State circuit
judge. He has an impeccable record. He is, in a huge bipartisan way,
embraced by the lawyers who have practiced in front of him. Yet it has
taken 658 days.
I thank the majority leader and I thank the Senate. I thank Senator
Grassley, who initially had concerns, but when he looked at the record
he had an open mind, and then he saw the character, the quality, the
excellence of Judge Davis.
There are 37 judicial emergencies around the country, and two of them
are in the Middle District of Florida where Judge Davis is, and three
of them are in the Southern District of Florida. The courts are
overburdened, and we need to fill these vacancies.
So I thank the Senate in advance for giving this good man, this
excellent jurist, the opportunity to serve in a greater capacity, to
serve his country. I want my colleagues to know this is a great
Christmas present for me, but it is nothing compared to the Christmas
present it is going to be for Judge Brian Davis and his family.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Yellen Nomination
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I rise to speak in
support of Dr. Janet Yellen to be chair of the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System.
As we continue to recover from the worst economic crisis since the
Great Depression, we need a strong and thoughtful chairman of the
Federal Reserve. We need a chair who has learned from our economic
successes and mistakes over the past several decades. We need a chair
who understands how monetary policy affects the everyday lives of
Americans seeking employment or saving for retirement, and we need a
chair who understands the importance of implementing Wall Street reform
to promote financial stability. Dr. Yellen has all of these qualities,
and she is ideally suited to be the next Fed chair.
Dr. Yellen's experience is unmatched. She currently serves as a
member and vice chair of the Board of Governors. She previously served
as a member of the Board of Governors in the 1990s. She was chair of
President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, and she served 6
years as president of the San Francisco Fed.
Dr. Yellen also has an impressive academic record. She is a professor
at Berkeley's Haas School of Business and was previously a professor at
Harvard University, as well as a faculty member at the London School of
Economics. Dr. Yellen graduated summa cum laude from Brown University
and received her Ph.D. in economics from Yale.
Dr. Yellen has written numerous research papers on the labor market,
unemployment, monetary policy, and the economy. Her expertise in these
areas, including her understanding of the relationship between Fed
policy and the labor market, would be valuable as we chart the course
back to full employment.
But my colleagues do not have to take my word for it. Dr. Yellen's
economic expertise is borne out by the facts. The New York Times
recently noted that she was ``the first Fed official, in 2005, to
describe the rise in housing prices as a bubble that might damage the
economy.'' She was also the first, in 2008, to say that ``the economy
had fallen into a recession.''
The Wall Street Journal recently analyzed 700 predictions made
between 2009 and 2012 in speeches and congressional testimony by 14
Federal Reserve policymakers and found Dr. Yellen was the most
accurate.
At her confirmation hearing, Dr. Yellen displayed her impressive
understanding of our complex 21st-century economy. She showed that she
understands the complexities of Fed policymaking, and that--although
abstract to many--monetary policy has ripple effects that affect the
everyday lives of workers, savers, small businesses, and job seekers.
Dr. Yellen has proven through her extensive and impressive record in
public service and academia that she is most qualified to be the next
Chair of the Federal Reserve. We need her expertise at the helm of the
Fed as our Nation
[[Page 19371]]
continues to recover from the great recession, completes Wall Street
reform rulemakings, and continues to enhance the stability of our
financial sector. I am excited to cast my vote to confirm her as the
first woman to serve as Chair of the Federal Reserve, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. 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?
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, it is my understanding. But in the
newfound felicity and spirit of the season, wouldn't you think that
since the real estate market along the coast has dried up--why? Because
if you cannot get flood insurance because you cannot afford it, you
cannot get a mortgage. If you cannot get a mortgage, there are a lot of
folks who cannot buy a house. By the way, those who need to sell their
houses cannot get the buyers. So what happens to the real estate market
in places such as the Tampa Bay region of Florida, as chronicled by the
Tampa Bay Times--an example that a homeowner's present flood insurance
premium is $4,000; under the new bill, $44,000. That is unaffordable.
What we are merely asking for is that FEMA do an affordability study
while this is delayed for a few years to determine what is the
affordability.
If this is supposed to be actuarially sound, then that came as a
result of huge losses to the program because of
[[Page 19372]]
an unusual thing--not a hurricane called Katrina but because the waters
rose, it put pressure on the dikes and it breached the levees, and that
flooded the bowl called New Orleans, and that caused lots of economic
loss, and they are figuring all of that in the flood insurance
premiums. And oh, by the way, 40 percent of all those flood insurance
policies are in my State of Florida.
Before we hear from the Senator from New York, I want to say this:
Floods come from many sources. Obviously, floods come from hurricanes.
People used to think hurricanes were Florida's problem. Well, now we
know, because of the experience on the gulf coast, they can do an awful
lot of damage in many different ways.
But oh, by the way, people up in the Northeast suddenly realized
hurricanes are a problem. Why? Because the ocean temperature is rising,
and when the water gets warmer, the frequency of the storms is more and
the ferocity of the storms is greater. Thus, in a time when it is
normally cool water, cold air temperature, all of a sudden we have a
major storm that comes to a part of the country that is completely
unprepared, and now not only do you have all the damage from the water
and the wind--and think what happened all the way up into New England,
all the way up into Vermont. You heard about all those rivers that
suddenly completely overran and inundated that little town with a lot
of water, and they are calling this a thousand-year storm.
But the 1,000-year storm happened a year ago. I am not here to speak
about climate change, on which I certainly think we better get our
heads out of the sand. I am here to talk about an immediate problem for
the people all up and down the coasts of the United States; that is,
the affordability of flood insurance. Why would not our colleagues give
us a little Christmas present since we have over 60 votes in the
Senate, and let's give some hope to those homeowners back home who now
cannot afford flood insurance.
I want to hear from the Senator from New York who has been a leader,
and his State has suffered. Fortunately, it is going to take folks like
him and the great Senator from Louisiana to keep beating this drum to
bring some relief to our people who are desperate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to echo the outstanding words of
my colleagues from both Florida and Louisiana. They echo the views of
many. Everyone says the public is exasperated with the Congress. Our
approval ratings are low. They are. Why? It is simply because when huge
problems occur that affect ordinary people, we seem paralyzed. What is
happening with flood insurance embodies what I am talking about.
Average homeowners who purchased flood insurance through the years for
$800, $1,000, are now being hit with bills of $4,000, $5,000, $6,000.
If you are rich, that is nothing. But the vast majority of people who
have flood insurance, whether they live on the oceans in my State or
the State of the Senator from Florida or on the gulf of the State of
the Senator from Louisiana or on the bodies of water such as the
Mississippi or Missouri Rivers, are not wealthy people. You tell them
all of a sudden out of the clear blue they have to pay $4,000, $5,000,
$6,000 for flood insurance, they do not know what to do. It is a crisis
for them. They say to us: Congress, fix this.
This is what we are supposed to do. So in their wisdom, the Senator
from New Jersey, the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from Georgia,
the Senator from Florida, myself, many others have come up with a
proposal that says: We know flood insurance is broken, but we do not
want to see it broken on the backs of average homeowners. We have a
plan that will delay these increases until 2017, while FEMA studies
affordability, and while Congress reexamines this issue.
There was an affordability study in Biggert-Waters. Somehow FEMA
ignored it. We are not letting that happen. So that is why we have to
act here. There are three types of people who are in danger. The first
are those who know or are about to know they are going to be hit. They
have flood insurance already and their costs are going to go way up.
The vast majority are middle-class people.
The second are those who will be told: Your insurance will not go up,
but when you sell your home it is going to go way up. Any bureaucrat
who tells us, well, that does not affect the average person--it affects
the value of their home immediately. But it also says they cannot sell
their home. In my area, if flood insurance is going to be $8,000 or
$10,000 or even $20,000 a year, who is going to buy the home, except at
a greatly reduced value?
But, my colleagues, there is a third group. They do not know who they
are. FEMA is changing flood maps throughout the country. They will get
to your State, unless maybe Utah or a State such as that does not have
any flood insurance. I do not know. But the vast majority of our States
that either bound the Great Lakes, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic
Ocean, the gulf, the great rivers--the Mississippi, the Missouri, the
Ohio, the Platte--are all going to be affected.
A year from now your constituents are going to come to you and say:
Stop this. This will affect the overwhelming majority of States and
Senators, even if they do not know it now. So our solution is not an
ideological solution, it is not a solution that picks one side or the
other. It says: Put a moratorium on this until we can figure it out in
the right way that does not put the burden of flood insurance solely on
the backs of people who cannot afford it--average folks.
In my State--my good friend from Florida mentioned it--we have people
who have struggled to fix their homes from Sandy, spending tens, even
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then all of a sudden they are hit
with a huge flood insurance bill. They are already in debt.
That is not fair. Just when they move back finally into their homes,
FEMA comes in and tells them in a year or two they cannot afford to
live in those homes they fixed. That is intolerable.
The bottom line is simple. We have a good piece of legislation. We
would hope we could pass it by unanimous consent, as my colleagues from
Florida and Louisiana said, as a nice Christmas--not present, because
it is not a present. These are people who deserve to have this. But it
is a nice Christmas thought. But if not, we will come back in January.
That is my expectation. That is what the leader has told us. We are
willing to go through a cloture vote and bring this legislation to the
floor. We expect and hope that we will get the same kind of bipartisan
support that has helped us put this bill together with Senators from
every part of the country.
I would say to homeowners: It is my hope and prayer and indeed
expectation, although around here expectations sometimes are not met,
that we will have this bill on the floor and then passed so that
homeowners, millions of homeowners across America, can breathe a sigh
of relief; they can stay in their homes, and flood insurance will be
amended in the right way.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. I would be happy to yield for a question.
Ms. LANDRIEU. 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?
Mr. SCHUMER. My understanding is just that, that in the--even
possibly in the first week when we get back, that the leader, having
rule XIV'd it, which means he can bring it to the floor right away, can
put it on the floor and, of course, then people can demand--those
opposed--that we invoke cloture so we can proceed to the bill and then
vote on the bill. But if we have 60 votes, we will be able to meet that
cloture barrier. So it is my understanding the
[[Page 19373]]
plan is to actually do it as soon in January as the first week we get
back, which I believe is January 6. If we cannot do it then, we will be
pushing very hard to do it shortly thereafter.
Ms. LANDRIEU. 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?
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for that question. Exactly. This is
affecting so many people in so many parts of the country. It does not
affect just Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or moderates,
Independents or liberals. The support is building daily. Senators and
Congress Members are getting calls from their constituents pleading
with them to do something.
So it is my view, it is my understanding that the House is
undertaking a very similar piece of legislation. I would expect it
would pass the House, where they do not even need the 60-vote majority.
I know in my delegation it has bipartisan support. As I understand it,
in most delegations it has bipartisan support.
Ms. LANDRIEU. 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?
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, in response to the Senator, the Florida
delegation is clearly united in recognizing that if you cannot sell
your home because you cannot get a mortgage, because the bank requires
flood insurance, and you cannot afford the flood insurance, the real
estate market starts to dry up. In a State such as Florida, the real
estate market is one of the main economic engines that fuel the ability
of people to have work and to be able to support their families. As a
result, we are seeing in places along the coast with--taking examples:
That was a tenfold increase from 4,000 to 44,000, a flood insurance
premium, told by the Tampa Bay Times. It is not only ridiculous, it is
stunning to the point that people cannot believe something is facing
them in their personal lives with their homes that could be so easily
taken care of if we could get the approvals to get the legislation we
already have 60 votes or more for. They cannot believe people are
opposing bringing up this legislation to fix what is so obviously in
need of fixing.
Ms. LANDRIEU. 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
[[Page 19374]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Republican whip.
Mr. CORNYN. As we all learned in civics class in high school, the
purpose of the Senate was to ensure that every State in the Nation had
at least two votes on important matters that might affect not only the
country generally but also our States. Some of us represent small
States and some of us represent large States.
I am privileged to represent one that has 26 million people in it,
and we are growing by roughly 1,000 or more people a day. They are
moving to Texas because that is where the jobs are. Our economy is
prospering relative to the rest of the country because, as I like to
tell my friends in this Chamber from time to time, we still believe in
the free enterprise system in Texas and the private sector that creates
jobs, opportunities, and where people can move to pursue their American
dream.
Regardless of which party we come from or which part of the country
we come from or who controls this Chamber, the Senate has historically
recognized two fundamental rights; the right to debate legislation and
the right to offer amendments to legislation.
When those rights are denied, our constituents--particularly of those
of us who are serving in the minority--are essentially severed. They
lose their voice. They lose their opportunity to have their views
represented in the amendment process, the shaping of legislation that
could be improved or not.
We know that when the minority voice is quashed--as this majority
leader has done time and time again--and when minority rights are
trampled, the Senate becomes a very different place indeed. We have
become a place where mistakes get made, where purely partisan
legislation is passed. The most obvious current example is ObamaCare,
which was jammed through this body on a party-line vote in the House
and in the Senate.
People are finding out that if they like what they have, they can't
keep it. Families of four will not see their premiums go down by
$2,500. That is the kind of thing that happens when the majority
succumbs to the temptation to jam things through without giving the
back-and-forth opportunity, the deliberation that national
legislation--legislation that will affect all 300-plus million
Americans--should have.
When the majority leader denies those rights and those opportunities
or those sorts of checks, balances, and the natural correction that
comes from building consensus in the Senate and instead resorts to a
partisan power play, mistakes get made and people get hurt.
Since the majority leader has taken that role, Senator Reid, the
senior Senator from Nevada, has filled the amendment tree more than 70
times.
For those who get bored at the concept of Senate procedure and how
the Senate's rules actually work, I wish to say what that means is
effectively the majority leader has denied the opportunity to offer any
amendments to legislation by ``filling the amendment tree.'' That is
the way he actually accomplishes that.
By comparison to this majority leader who has done it more than 70
times since he has been majority leader, the previous majority leader,
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, did it 12 times in 4 years. Before
him, majority leader Tom Daschle only did it once in 1\1/2\ years.
Majority leader Trent Lott of Mississippi did it 10 times in his 5-year
tenure as majority leader of the Senate. Majority leader George
Mitchell did it only three times in 6 years and majority leader Robert
C. Byrd did it only three times in 2 years.
In other words, this used to be an extraordinarily rare use of the
tool that the majority leader has to block amendments to legislation.
Majority leader Bob Dole did it seven times in 3\1/2\ years, about once
every 6 months.
[[Page 19375]]
By contrast, Majority Leader Reid has done it 70 times. What recourse
does the minority have when they are blocked out of the legislative
process on the Senate floor? The only tool we have available to us is
to block cloture because it still takes 60 votes to get to a final
passage of legislation. But when the minority exercises its rights,
then we are called obstructionists. Because the majority leader has
blocked any amendments and denied us an opportunity to have a choice in
shaping legislation, the only recourse we have is to say that 41
Republicans will stick together and block the legislation, and,
hopefully, set up a negotiation. But what happens more often than not
is it is a politically posturing exercise and the majority leader will
pull the bill down and rail against the minority as obstructionists.
Well, this is a manufactured crisis.
This place did not always work the way it does now. Last month this
resulted in an unprecedented power grab by our friends across the aisle
when they violated the Senate rules in order to further weaken the
rights of the minority and to help President Obama turn the second most
important court in the Nation into a liberal rubberstamp. I am talking
about the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding the fact this
court has the lightest caseload of any of the circuit courts, the
intermediary appellate courts in the Nation, it literally doesn't have
enough work to do, while there are other judicial emergencies both at
the district court and at the appeals court level that need additional
judges--but because this court is the one that reviews many of the
administrative regulations issued by the Department of Labor, the
Environmental Protection Agency--in other words, they are the ones that
will do the review of ObamaCare regulations or Dodd-Frank regulations--
the President and his allies saw this as an essential way to stack the
court in a way that will rubberstamp his agenda.
So what happened is the majority leader decided to further erode or
basically deny the minority any right in the process for executive
nominations and judicial nominations and said: You know what. With 51
Democratic votes, we can do anything we want--anything--when it comes
to nominations.
By using the so-called nuclear option, as it has been called, the
majority leader and his allies went against the advice of some pretty
wise Members who have been in the Senate for a long time, and I am
thinking particularly about the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin,
who has served for six terms in the Senate and who is going to be
retiring at the end of this next term.
Prior to that vote, Senator Levin warned his fellow Democrats not to
take up the nuclear option, to leave it on the table and to walk away,
because he said pursuing the nuclear option in this manner removes an
important check on majority overreach, which is central to our system
of government. It is the checks and balances that are so important that
Senator Levin was talking about.
I know most people get bored when talking about the process by which
things happen here or don't happen or the Senate rules, but they happen
to be pretty important to our democracy and demonstrating respect for
minority rights. And when minority rights aren't respected, we make
some pretty bad mistakes, and I am thinking about two of them right
now.
We are currently debating the Defense authorization bill, which is a
very important piece of legislation, because this is the authorization
given to our national security agencies, particularly the Department of
Defense, to be able to function and to keep our country safe. Yet once
again, the majority leader is refusing any amendments to this
underlying piece of legislation, including an amendment which would
address the military pension cuts that were part of the recent budget
agreement that passed yesterday.
It was amazing to hear the mock horror of people in this Chamber when
they found out that our Active-Duty military were being discriminated
against and punished by the budget agreement that was passed yesterday
to the tune of roughly $6 billion over 10 years. In other words, among
everybody else in the Federal Government, they were singled out for
worse treatment and were not grandfathered in to the pension reforms
that were part of this deal for other Federal Government employees.
This is one of the things that happens when things get jammed
through: Mistakes are made and people get hurt. In this instance, the
people who happen to get hurt are those who wear the uniform of the
U.S. military and who have served with great hardship in places such as
Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of these people have suffered the wounds of
war--lost a leg, lost an arm, suffered traumatic brain injury or post-
traumatic stress syndrome. What is the majority leader's answer to our
attempt to fix that mistake in that legislation? You are out of luck.
And not just those of us who are trying to fix it, he is telling those
wounded warriors: You are out of luck.
So when power plays take place in the Senate, when minority rights
are denied and an opportunity to amend and improve and fix mistakes in
legislation because of this power play by the majority leader, and the
majority party that supports him, people get hurt. These pension cuts
will impact veterans across the country. As I said, they will even
impact combat wounded veterans who have been medically retired. This is
a provision my colleague from Washington State, the Senate Budget
Committee chair, called a technical error.
As I said, not surprisingly, Members of both parties have come to the
floor since this was highlighted and they have called either for
rescinding those cuts to the pension benefits of our Active-Duty
members or those who have been medically retired or they have proposed
to come up with alternative measures to reduce the deficit by a
commensurate amount. At the very least, the military retirees who have
already sacrificed so much for our country should have been exempted.
Well, they weren't.
I am encouraged there has been some talk across the aisle about
acknowledging the problem and the mistake. Yet instead of taking action
today or yesterday, when we passed the budget deal that discriminated
against other Active-Duty military, we were told: Just wait until next
month; we will take care of it then.
It sort of reminds me of why the most feared words in the English
language are sometimes said to be: Don't worry, we are from the
government. We are here to help.
These wounded warriors need more than our rhetoric. They need our
action. And they are the ones who are being punished by the strong-arm
tactics of the majority leader and the majority party. Why should they
have to wait? We know things don't always happen on schedule around
here. There is time as the world knows it, and then there is Senate
time, and those are very different things.
Shouldn't we do everything possible now, today, to make sure these
folks have peace of mind, particularly during this season of the year?
If it was a technical error to include military retirees in the pension
cuts, why are we not fixing the problem today? There is no good reason.
There is zero good reason.
These kinds of strong-arm tactics need to be called out. Because
while some people seem to think these are technical rules of the Senate
and they are bored by them--the press doesn't want to write any stories
about them--what I am here to say is that people get hurt by hyper
partisanship and strong-arm tactics in the Senate. People get hurt.
Let me tell you about some other folks who are being shown disrespect
as a result of the strong-arm tactics by the majority leader. I have
introduced legislation that would allow for medals to be awarded to
members of the armed services and civilian employees of the Department
of Defense who were killed or wounded in an attack perpetrated by a
home-grown violent extremist who was inspired or motivated by a foreign
terrorist organization.
Of course, what I am talking about is what happened about 4 years ago
at
[[Page 19376]]
Fort Hood, TX, when MAJ Nidal Hasan, who had been radicalized by a
Muslim cleric the President subsequently put on his kill list, and who
was killed in a drone attack in Yemen--Anwar al-Awlaqi. Nidal Hasan had
communicated with al-Awlaqi more than 20 different times by email, and
over the years he had shown increasing tendencies to blame the United
States for what was happening in the Middle East. He basically ended up
declaring war against his own country, even while wearing the uniform
of the U.S. Army. Hasan killed 12 people in Fort Hood, TX--Killeen,
TX--while standing up and yelling ``allahu Akbar,'' the cry often used
by suicide bombers and other terrorists in the Middle East and
elsewhere.
Clearly, this was not a case of workplace violence. That is what the
government called it: workplace violence. This was a terrorist attack,
pure and simple; no more, no less than what happened that killed 3,000
Americans on September 11, 2001. And we know what the U.S. Government
did in 2001, quite appropriately, in my view. The Secretary of Defense
exercised his discretion to award Purple Hearts and the appropriate and
commensurate benefits that go along with being casualties of war. That
was war being declared against the United States. And the U.S. Congress
issued an authorization for the use of military force, recognizing it
as an act of war.
But when I tried to offer this amendment to recognize the loss of
life in the line of duty of 11 military members and a Department of
Defense contractor being awarded the Medal for the Defense of Freedom,
which is sort of the civilian equivalent to a Purple Heart, when we
sought to make sure the 30 other people who were shot but who survived
would also be recognized and given the appropriate benefits, what was
the response of the majority leader of the Senate? Well, about the same
as it was for those military pensioners--the people who are wearing the
uniform today and are hoping to accrue a retirement they can live on
when they leave the military service. The majority leader's response to
both the victims at Fort Hood and to Active-Duty military with regard
to their pensions that are now being cut back as a result of the vote
yesterday, was exactly the same: Tough luck. Tough luck. I don't care.
As I said earlier, while people may not care about the Senate rules
and the traditions of the Senate, while they may not recognize this
power grab that resulted in an unprecedented trampling of minority
rights in the Senate, when these sorts of partisan power grabs happen,
people get hurt.
The ones most people feel today are the broken promises of ObamaCare,
which passed on a party-line vote in the Congress.
Mistakes get made. People get hurt. But today the people who are
getting hurt the worst are the people we ought to be most concerned
about--those who lost their lives in the line of duty in the war on
terror, those who have been injured and survived those wounds, and
those who keep us safe by fighting our Nation's wars. These are the
people being hurt today.
I will support the underlying Defense authorization bill, but I did
vote against closing off debate yesterday because I felt the denial of
the opportunity to offer amendments and the opportunity to vote on
important corrections to the bill, which I described a moment ago, was
a terrible mistake. But those cries for rationality and reason were
simply ignored.
I will vote for the underlying Defense authorization bill because it
does contain some good work, but I am absolutely outraged on behalf of
the people I represent in my State, some of whom I have described, by
the majority leader's refusal to allow consideration of any amendments
to the bill and his blatant disregard for the rights of my
constituents.
I close by reminding the majority leader what he himself said--words
out of his own mouth--7 years ago shortly before his party took control
of the Chamber. And it is amazing to me to see how people change around
here when they get in the majority. Sometimes they forget they will not
always be in the majority. I have been here in the majority, and I have
been here in the minority. I can tell you that I enjoy being in the
majority more. But we need to respect minority rights in the Senate
because eventually, if you serve here long enough, you will find
yourself in the minority, and what goes around comes around.
But here is what the majority leader said before his party took
control of this Chamber:
As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect
for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect.
. . . The Senate was established to make sure that minorities
are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but
minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about.
Back in 2006 I found those words inspiring. Today they are a bad
joke.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
recess from 12:45 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. and that the time in recess
count postcloture; further, that the time from 2:15 p.m. until 2:35
p.m. be controlled by the majority leader or his designee and the time
from 2:35 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. be controlled by the Republican leader
or his designee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Extended Benefits Program
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, my voice is a little weaker than usual
thanks to a winter cold, but I nevertheless come to the floor today
because there is an issue on which it is important not to remain
silent; that is, just a few days from today more than 1 million people
across America are going to lose their unemployment benefits. Those
benefits are a bridge to the next job. Those benefits are the
foundation for a family during a rough time while searching for that
next job. Those benefits ensure the stability of the family and provide
a solid foundation for the children during those weeks and months. But
instead of maintaining this important bridge for more than 1 million
American families, we are going to allow it to be dismantled on
December 28 of this year, 3 days after Christmas.
This chart gives a little bit of a feeling for how unemployment is
working. We have the total number of those searching for work in Oregon
who cannot find a job. We can see how it grew dramatically in 2008 when
the economy collapsed and how it has gradually improved. Yet
unemployment remains quite high in Oregon--not as high as it was but
still quite high--and it remains quite high across this Nation.
We have a structure in place where every State provides 26 weeks of
unemployment, and then, depending on the unemployment level in
different States, States take advantage of a Federal program for
emergency unemployment, which works a little bit like this: If the
State's unemployment rate is below 6 percent, the State is eligible for
14 additional weeks of unemployment for families, so the total goes
from 26 weeks to 40 weeks. If the State's unemployment rate is between
6 percent and 7 percent, the State is eligible for 28 weeks, for a
total of 54 weeks--still less than 1 year of unemployment insurance. If
it is between 7 percent and 9 percent, as it is in Oregon, the total
goes to 37 additional weeks, which means, with the 26 underlying weeks
with the State, 63 weeks. If the unemployment rate is over 9 percent,
then the amount is 10 weeks more, for a total of 73.
On December 28, just days from today, there will be about 17,000
Oregonians who will be completely cut off from their unemployment--not
tapered, not a few at a time; all of those who have more than 26 weeks
right now will instantly be cut off. So that is 17,000 families or, at
an average of 3 individuals per family, 50,000 Oregonians who are going
to get from the Republicans in this Chamber a big lump of coal in their
stocking.
Their argument is that we shouldn't keep this program in place
because those folks should just go out and get jobs. I would remind
them that this program was set up under a Republican administration,
and it was set up to balance the fact that in States where jobs are
more readily available, the
[[Page 19377]]
number of weeks of provided unemployment assistance is fewer, and in
States with higher levels of unemployment, where it is virtually
impossible to find a job because there are so many applicants for any
one job, then the number of unemployment weeks is greater.
This was a bipartisan plan, and this plan was implemented when the
national unemployment rate was 5.6 percent. The unemployment rate today
is 7.3 percent. The bipartisan emergency unemployment program that
provided more than 26 weeks was implemented when there were 137.3
million Americans working--more Americans who were working than today.
So what was good enough under a Republican administration, under
bipartisan support--that created a careful balance between
unemployment; that is, the challenge of getting a job, and the bridge
to the next job--if it worked then, why not now? Why throw 17,000
families in Oregon out in the cold? I hear silence in this Chamber. I
don't hear a reply. Why is it justified to terminate this program when
unemployment is still high?
Some of my colleagues want to keep all the special tax breaks for the
oil companies and all the special tax breaks for the coal companies.
But what do they want to give to the families who are looking for work
in high-unemployment areas, where it is virtually impossible to find a
job? They want to give them a lump of coal. It is wrong.
Moreover, not only does this program help those families directly,
but it helps the entire economy improve gradually because those
benefits are immediately spent by these families. These benefits help
families get through a hard time. They help them pay the mortgage,
which solidifies not just this family but by preventing foreclosures
solidifies the street and the community from the impacts of
foreclosure, of empty homes. It has guarded the family between getting
to the next job and ending up homeless.
I call upon my colleagues to come to this Chamber and pass
immediately the extension of this carefully balanced program which not
only directly benefits families who are doing the hard work of finding
the next job but provides a solid foundation for our economy. This is
no time to try to deflate our economy and throw more people out of
work, but that is what happens when we cut this program.
I encourage my colleagues to think carefully about the fact that this
program was neither a Democratic program nor a Republican program.
Think carefully about the fact that it was developed during a
Republican administration, that it was designed to carefully pull
itself back in as employment improved. But what isn't right is for it
to be cut off completely in this period of ongoing high unemployment.
While the average in Oregon is between 7 percent and 8 percent
unemployment, we have communities with far greater than 10 percent or
12 percent unemployment. So many families are wanting that next job.
There is nothing better than a job in terms of any type of social
program. It creates a sense of self-worth, it creates a sense of
structure, and it creates a sense of satisfaction. The families in
Oregon want jobs and they are applying, but there are not enough jobs
to go around.
That brings me to my next point. This Chamber should be considering
program after program to invest in infrastructure and invest in
manufacturing to create jobs. But there are those here who have sought
to paralyze this Chamber in every possible way, to prevent any
improvements, in terms of trying to sustain partisan campaign warfare
rather than problem solving. This is an abdication of responsibility as
a Senator. The responsibility is to be here working hard to solve the
problems for families across this Nation, not continuing the partisan
politics of the last campaign.
The American people see this partisan campaigning, and they do not
like it. They want to see problem solving. They want to see us coming
together to fix things.
A few moments ago the colleague from Texas was on this floor. He was
saying some things that were extraordinarily misleading. He said,
basically, that all of the paralyzing strategies that his party has
employed stem from a lack of amendments. We have seen those paralyzing
tactics in every possible responsibility that this body has. We have
seen them on executive nominees. There are no amendments on executive
nominees. You either approve them or you do not. We have seen this
paralyzing strategy on judicial nominees, but there is no tree--the
tree he referred to, the amendment tree--on judicial nominees. We have
seen this on conference committees, unparalleled blockade of letting
the House and Senate meet together to resolve differences in their
bills.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I know we are closing down this body,
according to the unanimous consent agreement. I am thankful for the
opportunity to address this important issue, about the fact that it is
wrong to put lumps of coal into stockings of working Americans rather
than extending the emergency unemployment insurance provisions.
I yield the floor.
____________________