Elizabeth Warren

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I understand that S. 1982, introduced earlier today by Senator Sanders, is at the desk and I ask for its first reading.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 340 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, there will be a rollcall vote at approximately 2:35 p.m. on adoption of the farm bill conference report.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar Number No. 222, S. 376.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered, the Pryor amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. WARREN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m on Tuesday, February 4, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2642, the farm bill, with the time until 12:30 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; and that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 341 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Truth in Settlements Act. This bipartisan legislation, which I introduced earlier today with my colleague from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, will help the public hold Federal agencies accountable for the settlements they make with corporate wrongdoers. I am honored to partner with Dr. Coburn on this bill. In his decade in the Senate, he has been a leader in the fight for greater government transparency. Dr. Coburn and I do not agree on every issue, but we strongly agree that sunlight is a critical component of good government. That is the motivation behind the Truth in Settlements Act, and I am proud to fight alongside Dr. Coburn to advance this legislation. When companies break the law, Federal enforcement agencies are responsible for holding them accountable. In nearly every instance, agencies choose to resolve cases through settlement rather than going to a public trial. The government agencies defend this practice by arguing that their eagerness to settle is in the best interests of the American people. But their actions paint a very different picture. If agencies were truly confident that these settlements were good deals for the public, they would be enthusiastic about publicly disclosing all of the key details of those agreements--hang it right out there so everyone can see what a great job they did on behalf of the American people. So is that what they do? No. Instead, time after time, agencies do the opposite, hiding critical details about their settlements in the fine print or, worse, hiding those details entirely out of public view. Copies of these agreements--or even the basic facts about the agreement--are not easily accessible online. Many agencies regularly deem agreements confidential without any public explanation. When agencies do make public statements about these agreements, they often trumpet large dollar amounts of money for the taxpayers. What they don't trumpet is that the companies often pay dramatically less than the ``sticker price''--through ``credits''--for engaging in routine activities or through potentially huge tax deductions. Add up all of these tricks and we end up with a predictable result: Too often the American people only see what the agencies want them to see about these agreements. These hidden details can make all the difference. When we dig below the surface, settlements that seem tough and fair can end up looking like sweetheart deals. For example, last year, Federal regulators entered into a settlement with 13 mortgage servicers accused of illegal foreclosure practices. The ``sticker price'' on the settlement was $8.5 billion--that is a really nice headline--but $5.2 billion of the settlement was in the form of credits, not in cash outlays. These credits were described in the government's press release as covering what they called ``loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments.'' So what does that mean? Well, it turns out the servicers could rack up those credits by forgiving mere fractions of large unpaid loans. So, for example, if a servicer wrote down $15,000 of a $500,000 unpaid loan balance, that servicer doesn't just get a $15,000 credit for the amount they wrote down, they get a credit for the whole $500,000--the full value of the loan. That method of calculating credits--buried in the fine print-- could end up cutting by more than half the overall value of the $8.5 billion settlement. Another way to hide the ball is to omit an upfront determination and disclosure of whether the settlement will be tax deductible. Several years ago, the Justice Department announced a $385 million settlement with Fresenius Medical Care for allegedly defrauding Medicare and other health programs for years. When the agreement was originally announced, the Justice Department touted the sticker price as the agency's largest civil recovery to date in a health care fraud case. But the DOJ didn't say a word about the tax treatment. The agency's failure to even consider that issue was a very costly mistake. By the time the company finished claiming all of its tax deductions from the settlement, it ended up paying $100 million less than originally advertised. In other words, the taxpayers picked up more than a quarter of the tab. It takes a lot of digging around to uncover these unflattering details, but at least it was possible to do so in these cases because of public information about these two agreements. For settlements that are kept confidential, the public is completely in the dark. Just last year, Wells Fargo agreed to pay the Federal Housing Finance Agency $335 million for allegedly fraudulent sales of mortgage-backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is about 6 percent of what JPMorgan paid in a public settlement with FHFA to address very similar claims. So in what ways did the actions of Wells Fargo differ from those of JPMorgan? We will never know, because the JPMorgan settlement is public, but the much smaller Wells Fargo settlement is confidential. The American people deserve better. Government enforcement agencies work for us, not for the companies they regulate. Agencies should not be able to cut bad deals and then hide behind their embarrassing details. The public deserves to know what is going on. The Truth in Settlements Act requires transparency. It requires agencies making public statements about their settlements to include explanations of how companies get credits and whether the wrongdoers will be eligible for tax breaks for their settlement payments. The bill also requires agencies to post text and basic information about their settlements online. And while the legislation permits confidential settlements, it requires agencies to disclose how frequently they are invoking confidentiality and to explain their reasons for doing so. If we expect government agencies to hold companies accountable for breaking the law, then we, the public, must be able to hold agencies accountable for enforcing the law. We can't do that if we are kept in the dark. The Truth in Settlements Act shines a light on these agency decisions, and it gives the American people a chance to hold agencies accountable for fairly and effectively enforcing our laws. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. I am here today with some good news. This week the government will fix something that was broken. I know that some people wish to deny that is possible, but hear me out. Five years ago, during the 2008 financial crisis, we witnessed firsthand that the market for home mortgages was badly broken. The fundamental problem was that many lenders issued mortgages without any concern about whether the borrower would be able to repay those mortgages in the long run. Why would they do that? They did it because they could immediately sell the mortgage to another financial institution. If the borrower couldn't pay, that would turn out to be somebody else's problem. We all know what happened next. Millions of these dangerous mortgages were bundled together, sliced, diced, slapped with AAA ratings, and then sold to retirement funds, local governments, and investors all over the country. When borrowers couldn't make their monthly payments, those bundles of mortgages began collapsing, and the effects were felt in every corner of the economy. This Friday, that basic business model will change, thanks to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new mortgage rules. When these rules go into effect, lenders will be able to issue a mortgage only after they determine that the borrower has the ability to repay it. Lenders will no longer be able to make loans they know will blow up and then feed those dangerous loans into the financial system. Because of the consumer agency's new rules, families will be safer. Pension funds and other investors will be safer. Our whole economy will be safer--not completely safe, but with a new cop on the beat, it will be safer. The new rules will fix other problems as well. Before the crisis, some mortgage brokers who were supposed to be helping consumers find the best mortgage were actually taking money from lenders to steer those consumers into higher-cost loans. The CFPB's new rules will prohibit this sort of under-the-table dealing and protect consumers from being tricked by people they think they can trust. The rules will also address many of the mortgage servicing problems that emerged during the crisis. After mortgages were sold off, bundled, and cut up into pieces for various investors, too many borrowers were unable to track down clear information about their accounts. Some of the companies responsible for servicing their loans took days or even weeks to give them credit for their payments. When borrowers fell behind, these servicers often began foreclosure proceedings without giving people full information about the options they had to modify their loans. The consumer agency's new rules will help clean up the mortgage servicing industry so more families can keep up with their payments and stay in their homes. CFPB Director Rich Cordray and his hardworking and incredibly talented staff have worked for a long time to put these new rules together, and its rules will reshape the mortgage market for the better. They will give people a better chance to buy homes and a better chance to keep those homes. They will force mortgage lenders and servicers to compete by offering better rates and customer service, not by tricking and trapping people. These rules will help markets work better, and they will reduce the risk that the economy will crash again. Our work is not done. The march toward financial reform has been too slow, and the chances of another crisis, while dialed back in some areas, remain unacceptably high in others. Even today, the too-big-to- fail banks that nearly crashed the global economy in 2008 are nearly 40 percent bigger than they were back then. Yes, we have more work to do on dangerous banking practices, but this week marks an important milestone. Six years ago, I noted that it was impossible to buy a toaster with a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning your house down, but it was possible to take out a mortgage that had the same one-in-five chance of putting a family out on the street. The point was that consumers had the Consumer Products Safety Commission to keep people safe from dangerous toasters, and they needed the same kind of agency to keep people safe from dangerous and deceptive financial products. In the years since, we have built that agency. It has already returned nearly $1 billion to consumers who were cheated, and it has helped tens of thousands of consumers resolve complaints against financial institutions. Now, this Friday, that agency will put in place some commonsense rules that will make a real difference for millions of families who own--or someday hope to own--their own home. The consumer bureau's new mortgage rules show, once again, that government can fix problems. Sure, we have to work hard. We have to fight against those who benefit from the broken system, and we have to stick with it even when the odds are against us. But when we do those things, real change is possible in this country. We are seeing that up close this week. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I was on the same flight with Senator Shaheen. I was looking forward to having the opportunity to vote for Janet Yellen to be Chair of the Federal Reserve. I am very disappointed I didn't get to formally vote for her, but I want to make sure that the Record reflects my strong support. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I come to the floor in support of the Equal Employment for All Act, a bill I introduced today with Senators Blumenthal, Brown, Leahy, Markey, Shaheen, and Whitehouse. This legislation would prohibit employers from requiring prospective employees to disclose their credit history as part of the job application process. It makes sure that hiring decisions are based on an individual's skill and experience--not on past financial problems. This is also about basic fairness. Let people compete for jobs on the merits, not on whether they have enough money to pay all their bills. Many people have bad credit because they hit hard times. They got sick, their husband left or their wife died or they lost their jobs. These are tough events under any circumstances, and they often put a real financial strain on a person. That strain sometimes results in late payments or an increase in the amount of money they must borrow. The problems of bad credit were compounded following the 2008 financial crisis. Millions of people stumbled financially when shrinking home prices left them unable to refinance or to sell a home. Depreciated savings left people with a smaller financial cushion to survive fluctuations in their income. People lost their small businesses and found themselves mired in debt. For too many people, the fallout from the 2008 crisis also damaged their credit. Much of America, hard-working, bill-paying America, has a damaged credit rating, and the impact of that bad credit rating lasts a long time. Negative information generally remains on a credit report for 7 years and, in some cases, it lasts even longer. Most people recognize that one consequence of bad credit is that they are going to have trouble borrowing money or they are going to pay more when they borrow. But for many people, a damaged credit rating can block access to a job. After a terrible blow--a job loss, a death in the family, a divorce, a serious medical problem--many people are scrambling to get back to work or to pick up a second job or to change jobs so they can get back on their feet financially, but they are knocked back by damaged credit. Today, highly qualified applicants with bad credit can be shut out of the job market. This is wrong. It was once thought a credit history would provide insight into a person's character and, today, many companies routinely require credit reports from job applicants. But research has shown that an individual's credit rating has little to no correlation with his or her ability to succeed in the workplace. A bad credit rating is far more often the result of an unexpected personal crisis or economic downturn than a reflection of someone's character or abilities. The Equal Employment for All Act would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to put an end to these unfair and harmful practices. This would benefit millions of American families down on their luck, giving them a chance to rebuild their financial security. It will particularly help women, minorities, students, and seniors because these groups are disproportionately likely to be hit hard by bad credit ratings. For example, the economic fallout from a divorce often hits women's finances particularly hard. It only gets more difficult for women when they apply for good jobs for which they are fully qualified, but they are barred because employers insist on examining their credit history. Another challenge with using credit reports during the job application process is that they are not always accurate. According to a February 2013 FTC report, 20 percent of consumers could identify at least one error in their credit reports. Unfortunately, someone whose credit report has a significant error may have trouble learning about the mistake and, even if the mistake is identified, have trouble getting it corrected in a reasonable time. According to the same FTC report, correcting credit report errors can be difficult to manage and the reporting agencies can be unresponsive. This means innocent job applicants are paying the price for a credit rating company's mistake. This is only one more way the game is rigged. A rich person who loses a job, gets divorced or faces a family illness is unlikely to suffer from a drop in his credit or her credit rating. But for millions of working families, a hard personal blow translates into a hard financial blow that will show up for years in a credit report. No one should be denied the chance to compete for a job because of a credit report that bears no relationship to job performance and that can be riddled with inaccuracies. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis--a crisis that hammered middle-class families and from which millions of families are still struggling to recover--these practices should be stopped. It is time to give more families a chance to get back in the workforce and to get back on their feet.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I come to the floor in support of the Equal Employment for All Act, a bill I introduced today with Senators Blumenthal, Brown, Leahy, Markey, Shaheen, and Whitehouse. This legislation would prohibit employers from requiring prospective employees to disclose their credit history as part of the job application process. It makes sure that hiring decisions are based on an individual's skill and experience--not on past financial problems. This is also about basic fairness. Let people compete for jobs on the merits, not on whether they have enough money to pay all their bills. Many people have bad credit because they hit hard times. They got sick, their husband left or their wife died or they lost their jobs. These are tough events under any circumstances, and they often put a real financial strain on a person. That strain sometimes results in late payments or an increase in the amount of money they must borrow. The problems of bad credit were compounded following the 2008 financial crisis. Millions of people stumbled financially when shrinking home prices left them unable to refinance or to sell a home. Depreciated savings left people with a smaller financial cushion to survive fluctuations in their income. People lost their small businesses and found themselves mired in debt. For too many people, the fallout from the 2008 crisis also damaged their credit. Much of America, hard-working, bill-paying America, has a damaged credit rating, and the impact of that bad credit rating lasts a long time. Negative information generally remains on a credit report for 7 years and, in some cases, it lasts even longer. Most people recognize that one consequence of bad credit is that they are going to have trouble borrowing money or they are going to pay more when they borrow. But for many people, a damaged credit rating can block access to a job. After a terrible blow--a job loss, a death in the family, a divorce, a serious medical problem--many people are scrambling to get back to work or to pick up a second job or to change jobs so they can get back on their feet financially, but they are knocked back by damaged credit. Today, highly qualified applicants with bad credit can be shut out of the job market. This is wrong. It was once thought a credit history would provide insight into a person's character and, today, many companies routinely require credit reports from job applicants. But research has shown that an individual's credit rating has little to no correlation with his or her ability to succeed in the workplace. A bad credit rating is far more often the result of an unexpected personal crisis or economic downturn than a reflection of someone's character or abilities. The Equal Employment for All Act would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to put an end to these unfair and harmful practices. This would benefit millions of American families down on their luck, giving them a chance to rebuild their financial security. It will particularly help women, minorities, students, and seniors because these groups are disproportionately likely to be hit hard by bad credit ratings. For example, the economic fallout from a divorce often hits women's finances particularly hard. It only gets more difficult for women when they apply for good jobs for which they are fully qualified, but they are barred because employers insist on examining their credit history. Another challenge with using credit reports during the job application process is that they are not always accurate. According to a February 2013 FTC report, 20 percent of consumers could identify at least one error in their credit reports. Unfortunately, someone whose credit report has a significant error may have trouble learning about the mistake and, even if the mistake is identified, have trouble getting it corrected in a reasonable time. According to the same FTC report, correcting credit report errors can be difficult to manage and the reporting agencies can be unresponsive. This means innocent job applicants are paying the price for a credit rating company's mistake. This is only one more way the game is rigged. A rich person who loses a job, gets divorced or faces a family illness is unlikely to suffer from a drop in his credit or her credit rating. But for millions of working families, a hard personal blow translates into a hard financial blow that will show up for years in a credit report. No one should be denied the chance to compete for a job because of a credit report that bears no relationship to job performance and that can be riddled with inaccuracies. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis--a crisis that hammered middle-class families and from which millions of families are still struggling to recover--these practices should be stopped. It is time to give more families a chance to get back in the workforce and to get back on their feet.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of the great leaders in the history of Boston. It might seem odd to describe a man who is still with us today, alive and well, as a figure in history, but in the almost 400 years since Boston was founded, a history that is filled with names known across this country--Winthrop, Adams, Lowell, Lodge--in this 400-year history, few have done more for Boston than our mayor Tom Menino. Looking back at his 20 years in office, it is clear how much Tom Menino has done for our city. Mayor Menino revitalized Boston. From the waterfront and Innovation District to Dudley Square and Roxbury, Mayor Menino led the resurgence of our neighborhoods, expanded parks and livable spaces, and created a city whose innovative potential is unbounded. Mayor Menino worked for Boston. With firm convictions, he cautioned against predatory lenders, starting the ``Don't Borrow Trouble'' campaign long before the great recession. With political will and courage, he improved education for all our kids, creating full-day kindergarten and making Boston schools some of the best in the country. With foresight of the next frontiers, he fought for hospitals and scientific research, giving Boston the world's leading health care institutions. With fierce moral clarity, he stood firmly for equality-- equal opportunity for immigrants, equal rights and equal marriage for the LGBT community, equal pay for women. Perhaps most importantly, Mayor Menino has been there for Boston. It is often said that more than 50 percent of Boston residents have met Mayor Menino personally. I do not believe this is true. I believe the number must be much greater. It seems as if the mayor attends every community event, every potluck dinner, every school play, and every soccer game. From Grove Hall to the North End, Bowdoin to West Roxbury, we know Mayor Menino will be there for us in our moments of greatest triumph--ribbon cuttings for new buildings and parks, World Series victories, a new Bostonian's citizenship, a child's graduation--and we know he will be there for us in our moments of great tragedy--the death of a loved one, terror in Copley Square. Of course, Mayor Menino could not have done it alone. By his side for all these years he has had Angela Menino. Angela is a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother. To all of us in Boston, she was not just a first lady but a first friend. Angela championed causes that often went unheralded in the press, supporting women and children, employment and education, and fighting to end homelessness. Today we thank Angela as well for helping make our city into a warm and thriving community. Almost 400 years ago, on a ship sailing from England to the New World, John Winthrop declared that the new city they would found, Boston, would be a ``city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.'' And if that experiment, our city, was to succeed, he said ``we must be knit together . . . we must entertain each other in brotherly affection . . . we must rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body.'' For 20 years Mayor Menino has made Boston into a city that all eyes can see is a model for the country and for the world. He has succeeded because he knew all along that our fortunes depend on our work together--as one people, as one community, as one Boston. On behalf of a grateful people, Tom Menino, we thank you for your hard work, for your service, and most of all for your dedication to making Boston a better place. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in urging support for S. 1610, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2013. This is a bipartisan bill that will help homeowners across our country who are getting hit with the newly revised flood maps and increased flood insurance premiums. I am very pleased to join colleagues on both sides of the aisle to call for this commonsense delay which gives FEMA time to get this right. I thank Senator Menendez who has been a tremendous leader, Senator Isakson, Senator Landrieu, who has gotten in there and gotten us all mobilized, Senator Cochran, many others of the cosponsors of this bill for their leadership and their commitment to work on this important issue. I also thank my partner in all things, Senator Markey, for the work he has done on this bill and for giving me the chance to speak first here so we could get going. Families purchase flood insurance to prevent the loss of their homes. But now many families fear that the price of flood insurance could be just as devastating as any storm. You cannot protect someone's home by pricing them out of it. Yet that is exactly what is taking place around the country. Congress changed the National Flood Insurance Program to move toward a more market-based system that more accurately reflected the true cost and risks of flood damage. This is a well-intentioned bill, but, unfortunately, homeowners are being blindsided by high rate increases and new flood zone maps. Many families are learning for the first time from news reports and letters that their mortgage companies are sending that they must purchase flood insurance. This is simply not an acceptable way of informing the public that flood insurance bills are skyrocketing. When FEMA released these flood maps this year and last, they knew they were placing hundreds of thousands of homeowners into a flood zone for the very first time. It is critical that these maps be spot on and correct. But many people do not trust many of the new changes, and their concerns are growing by the day. In fact, a recent independent review conducted by coastal scientists at the behest of my colleague, Congressman Bill Keating, concluded that FEMA used outdated wave methodology better suited for the Pacific coast when they drafted new flood maps for Massachusetts. They believe this resulted in FEMA overpredicting the flooding that could occur from once-in-a-century storms for much of our State. We need to pass this bill to give the government the time it needs to make sure that the maps are accurate, reliable, and reflect the best available scientific data. We also need to make sure that hard-working families who play by the rules can afford these policies. The Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act that I have proudly cosponsored will provide relief to homeowners who built to code and were later remapped into a higher risk area. Furthermore, this critical bill will delay rate increases until FEMA completes the affordability study that was mandated by the Biggert- Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, and until subsequent affordability guidelines are enacted. Homeowners are facing flood insurance premium increases that can cost $500, $1,000, even more per month. Most hard-working families and seniors do not have that kind of extra money on hand to spend on flood insurance premiums they never knew they were going to need. FEMA has a lot of work to do. In the meantime, these families should not be hit with high costs when they challenge the flood map and win their appeal. Our bill will help address this injustice and will allow FEMA to utilize the National Flood Insurance Fund to reimburse people who successfully appeal a map determination. It also gives FEMA the added financial incentive to get those maps right the first time. I am pleased to join colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this call for a commonsense delay which will give FEMA time to get this right. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this much needed relief for homeowners. I thank Senator Markey for his leadership. I thank Senator Landrieu for her amazing leadership, and I thank all of my colleagues who are ready to move on something that is common sense and very much needed by families across this country. I yield for my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Markey.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Then I will just say I am pleased to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in calling for this commonsense delay which will give FEMA time to get this right. I thank Senator Landrieu for her leadership, and I thank Senators Menendez, Isakson, Cochran, and all the cosponsors of this bill. Time is running out. We need to get this done. I yield back.

Ms. WARREN. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for the question, but most of all I thank her for her energetic leadership on this issue; she will help us find the right way forward. I am here today because of what I am hearing from families in Massachusetts. I also thank the Senator from Mississippi. This is something that is hitting us all around the country--this change in the flood maps. So I am here today to support my colleagues' bipartisan efforts to help homeowners across the country who are getting hit with newly revised flood maps and increased flood insurance premiums. Families purchase flood insurance to prevent the loss of their homes during a natural disaster, but now many of these same families fear that the price of flood insurance could be just as devastating and could actually cost them their homes. I understand why Congress changed the national flood program to more accurately reflect the true costs and risks of flood damage, and I agree that over time we need to move to a more market-based system for setting flood insurance rates, providing we adequately take into account the affordability concerns for working families. But that is not what is happening right now. These new maps and rate increases are having as big an impact as a big storm. When FEMA released these flood maps earlier this year and last, they knew they were placing hundreds of thousands of homeowners into a flood zone for the very first time. Yet there was inadequate warning to homeowners. Many have started receiving letters from their mortgage companies and are learning for the first time that they must now purchase flood insurance. We have heard about the costs--$500, $1,000 a month, even more. Most hard-working families and most seniors don't have that kind of extra money on hand to spend on flood insurance premiums they never knew they needed. One Massachusetts resident wrote to me and said: I have owned my property for over 33 years. Twelve years ago I built a house according to the codes at the time. Recently, flood maps were redrawn, putting my home in a new flood zone and out of compliance. The implementation of the Biggert-Waters act is going to raise our flood insurance to $10,000 or more per year. I follow the rules, and now the rules are changing, leaving me few options to comply. The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act that I have cosponsored along with Senator Landrieu and so many others will provide relief to this homeowner and to others who built to code and were later remapped into a higher risk area. This critical bill will delay rate increases until FEMA completes affordability studies mandated by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act and until subsequent affordability guidelines are enacted. There is a second problem with FEMA's actions. The reclassifications have taken place in some areas without a careful and complete analysis, but for those who believe they haven't been correctly classified, it is a tough challenge to get their flood zone status changed. I received another letter from a Massachusetts constituent who lives in Brockton. She was informed that her only way out of this mess was to pay more than $1,000 for an engineer to come and conduct an elevation study of a nearby brook. Now, let's be clear. She had to spend this money even though the city of Brockton and the nearby Army Corps of Engineers have no record of the brook ever flooding. If her appeal is successful, she is still out $1,000 due to FEMA's mistake.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for efforts to stamp out sexual assault in our military, and I wish to begin by thanking the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Maine for their extraordinary leadership in bringing us here to speak on this issue. For over 20 years our military has said it has a zero tolerance policy toward sexual violence. Government agencies have put out 20 reports examining the problem and suggesting potential solutions. Yet, shamefully, incidents of sexual assault involving our military personnel continue at staggering rates. Data from the Department of Defense indicates that thousands of men and women serving in the military are subject to these horrific experiences every year. More than 20 percent of women serving in the military have reported unwanted sexual contact at some point during the course of their military service. Perhaps most shameful, about half of all female victims in a 2012 DOD survey indicated they did not report these crimes because they believed such reports would simply be ignored. This is an outrageous situation. We have called on the military over and over to solve this problem, and they have failed. Simply once again calling on the military to reform will be an exercise in futility. Worse, it will be a breach of trust with the men and women who are future victims of sexual predators lurking in the military. These are important steps forward that we take today. There are a number of extremely strong provisions to address sexual assault included in this year's National Defense Authorization Act which will move us in the right direction. These provisions are designed to crack down on sexual assaults, to better protect and advocate for victims, and to change the climate within our military to one that ends this despicable conduct. The bill includes provisions to promote the prosecution of these cases by eliminating the statute of limitations on certain sexual offense cases and by limiting the ability of commanding officers to modify court-martial findings in sexual offense cases. The bill requires the provision of a special victims' counsel to provide legal support for servicemembers who are victims of sexual violence at the hands of other members of the military and take steps to limit the potential for victims to be mistreated by defense counsel. There are other important steps forward in this bill. As the Senate debates the Defense bill, we will consider additional provisions to prosecute and eliminate sexual assault. I support those efforts as well. The issue of sexual violence within our Armed Forces is very personal to me. All three of my brothers served in the military. My oldest brother was career military and flew 288 combat missions in Vietnam. I know the unbelievable sacrifices our military men and women make for this country and the sacrifices their families make to support them. Yet, in spite of those sacrifices, we as a nation have consistently refused to take sufficient steps to ensure that our military men and women are protected from sexual violence on the job. Tolerance for sexual assaults demeans the sacrifices that millions of brave men and women have stepped forward to make on our behalf. We owe it to our servicemembers, and to their families, to change the culture in our military that remains far too tolerant of this abuse. We owe it to our servicemembers, and to their families, to do everything in our power to stamp out these incidents. No matter the outcome of this week's amendment votes, this year's Defense Authorization Act will make significant strides toward finally making the military's zero tolerance policy a reality. I am proud to support these efforts, and I promise that so long as these crimes continue to occur, so long as victims are fearful to come forward, so long as justice is denied to victims, we will be right back here next year and the year after that and the year after that, doing everything we can to end sexual assault in the military. The brave men and women serving in our Armed Forces have no intention of giving up on us, and we have no intention of giving up on them. I yield my time.