Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about one of our greatest national security challenges, which is a nuclear-armed Iran. I have long thought of it as a bipartisan national security issue, not a partisan political issue. At the end of the day, it is a national security issue we must approach in the spirit of bipartisanship and unity, which has been the spirit for which we have worked together on this matter. I hope we will not find ourselves in a partisan process trying to force a vote on a national security matter before its appropriate time.

Let me say at the outset that I support the administration's diplomatic efforts. I have always supported a two-track policy of diplomacy and sanctions. At the same time, I am convinced that we should only relieve pressure on Iran in exchange for verifiable concessions that will dismantle Iran's nuclear program. Our success should be measured in years, not months, and that it be done in such a way that alarm bells will sound from Vienna to Washington should Iran restart its program anytime in the next 20 to 30 years.

I am here to unequivocally state my intention as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to make absolutely certain that any deal we may reach with Iran is verifiable, effective, and prevents them from ever developing even one nuclear weapon.

Let's remember that while we in the Senate are not at the negotiating table, we have a tremendous stake in the outcome and an obligation, as a separate coequal branch of government representing the American people, to provide oversight and an expression of what we expect as to what the end result would be. But it is the administration that is at the negotiating table with the Iranians, not us. The administration is ultimately responsible for negotiating a deal to conclusively end Iran's illicit nuclear program. It is the administration that will have to come back to Congress and tell us whether Iran will continue to be a nuclear threshold state.

My sincere desire is for the administration to succeed. No one has worked harder for a peaceful outcome or to get Iran to comply with sanctions than I have. But based on the parameters described in the Joint Plan of Action and Iranian comments in the days that have followed, I am very concerned. This is not a ``nothing ventured, nothing gained'' enterprise. We have placed our incredibly effective international sanctions regime on the line without clearly defining the parameters of what we expect in a final agreement.

Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's nuclear agency, spoke last month about the agreement on Iranian state television and said:

The iceberg of sanctions is melting while our centrifuges

are also still working. This is our greatest achievement.

Well, it is my greatest fear.

Any final deal must require Iran to dismantle large portions of its illicit nuclear program. Any final deal must require Iran to halt its advanced centrifuge and research and development activities, reduce the vast majority of its 20,000 centrifuges, close the Fordo facility, stop the heavy-water reactor at Arak from ever possibly coming online, and it should require Iran's full disclosure of its nuclear activities, including its weaponization activities. For the good of the region and the world, Iran cannot remain a nuclear weapon threshold state, period.

A final agreement should move back the timeline for a nuclear breakout capability to beyond a year and insist on a long-term, 20- year-plus monitoring and verification agreement. That is the only way to force Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons aspirations. Anything else will leave Iran on the cusp of becoming a nuclear state while it rebuilds its economy and improves its ability to break out at a future day.

David Albright, a respected former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector, said that for Iran to move from an interim to a final agreement, it would have to close the Fordo facility and remove between 15,000 and 16,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he had a long list of elements that he thinks are critical toward a final agreement.

However, even after such dramatic steps, we are looking at a breakout time of between 6 and 8 months--depending on whether Iran has access to just 3.5 percent enriched uranium or access to 20 percent enriched uranium. Dennis Ross, one of America's preeminent diplomats and foreign policy analysts who has served Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, has said Iran should retain no more than 10

percent of its centrifuges, which is, in essence, no more than 2,000.

These estimates are crucial because at the end of the day we in this body will have to decide whether this is enough to merit terminating sanctions. Is a 6-month delay in Iran's breakout ability enough, even when combined with a robust 20-year inspection and verification regime--understanding that in allowing Iran to retain its enrichment capabilities, there will always be a risk of breakout. It may be that this is the only deal we can get. The real question is whether it is a good enough deal to merit terminating sanctions.

My concern is that the Joint Plan of Action does not speak to these recommended centrifuge limitations Dennis Ross or Dr. Albright suggests. In fact, Iran has already made its views about the limitations of the agreement quite clear. What the Joint Plan of Action does concede is that Iran will not only retain its ability to enrich but will be allowed a mutually agreed upon enrichment program.

Here is what Iran's Foreign Minister Zarif said about the interim agreement:

The White House tries to portray it as basically a

dismantling of Iran's nuclear program . . . we are not

dismantling any centrifuges, we are not dismantling any

equipment, we're simply not producing, not enriching over 5

percent.

That is a quote from their Foreign Minister.

What does President Ruhani of Iran say? He was adamant in an interview on CNN in saying that Iran will not be dismantling its centrifuges. He said:

We are determined to provide for the nuclear fuel of such

plants inside the country, at the hands of local Iranian

scientists. We are going to follow on this path.

On that program, Fareed Zakaria asked him:

So there will be no destruction of centrifuges, of existing

centrifuges.

President Ruhani said:

No. No, not at all.

In fact, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran would comply with the interim agreement by removing the connections between networks of centrifuges that have been used to enrich uranium to 20 percent so they can enrich only to 5 percent. Then he said:

These interconnections can be removed in a day and

connected again in a day.

That is not the type of safeguard we need. Clearly, their intention-- at least in these negotiations--is to retain their capability notwithstanding the agreement. That is pretty clear to me.

In January President Ruhani tweeted:

Our relationship with the world is based on Iranian

nation's interest. In Geneva agreement world powers

surrendered to Iranian nation's will.

When this tweet was broadly reported on, President Rouhani took it down. In a speech when Rouhani was leaving his post as Iran's chief negotiator in 2005, he said:

While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were

installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan--

which is a uranium conversion facility--

which is a uranium conversion facility--

but we still had a long way to go to complete the project. In

fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to

complete the work on Isfahan.

In essence, they were able to complete the work of the uranium conversion.

Now, sometimes I think it is worthy to listen to the words of these individuals now in leadership positions to understand the mindset of the negotiations that are taking place. Basically, what President Rouhani was saying is that he was able to get the West to not pursue sanctions and ultimately to not take any other action, as Iran continued to march forward with its nuclear program. I find comments such as that deeply troubling. I find troubling the fact that even after an agreement was reached in November, the Iranians reportedly fired a rocket into space to improve their ability to develop a long- range ballistic missile system.

In an interview with Reuters, U.S. missile defense expert Rikki Ellison said of the report:

If it's true, they continue to expand and grow their long

range missile capabilities regardless of their overture to

the West with self-reduction of their nuclear capabilities .

. .

These realities--these statements, these actions--are just as much about the spirit of the interim deal as it is about the letter of the deal, and it places in question the political will of the Iranians and our ability to reach a verifiable agreement with those who have been willing to so deceive.

In terms of both Iran's political will and its ballistic missile capability, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, said the following:

Tehran has made technical progress in a number of areas--

including uranium enrichment, nuclear reactors, and ballistic

missiles--from which it could draw if it decided to build

missile-deliverable nuclear weapons. These technical

advancements strengthen our assessment that Iran has the

scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually

produce nuclear weapons. This makes the central issue its

political will to do so.

So what the analysis reveals is that years of obfuscation, delay, and endless negotiation has brought the Iranians to the point of having, according to the Director of National Intelligence, the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons. As to their will to do so, I would say that if they are--I would say that what they are hiding at the Parchin Military Industrial Complex, if revealed, would clearly show their will to build a nuclear bomb. The only thing that has thwarted that will is crippling sanctions. The Iranians have fought back every step of the way with the international community getting access to Parchin, and the world largely views Parchin as the place in which their militarization of nuclear energy--therefore nuclear weapons--was taking place. In my view, the Iranians are negotiating in bad faith, as we have seen them do in the past. They say one thing behind closed doors in Geneva and say another thing publicly. I know the administration will say this is what President Rouhani needs to do for his domestic audience.

But his deeds need to go beyond his words, and they need to be verifiable. In fact, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, David Albright, of the Institute of Science and International Security and an expert on the proliferation of atomic weapons, said that under the interim agreement:

The breakout times, if Iran used its currently installed

centrifuges, would lengthen from at least 1 to 1.6 months to

at least 1.9 to 2.2 months.

That effectively means that without dismantling currently installed centrifuges, Iran has a breakout time of 6 to 8 weeks, unless we demand real consequences in a final agreement--6 to 8 weeks. That figure is going to be very important, as I will get to later, because 6 to 8 weeks is a lot shorter than the time frame to invoke and make sanctions effective.

Another major concern is the Arak heavy water reactor--a facility that Dennis Ross has described as ``grossly inefficient for producing electricity, but not for generating plutonium for nuclear weapons.''

The Senate was told that this facility would be taken care of in the final agreement, which most of us understood to mean that it would be dismantled. Now, the Joint Plan of Action and the implementing agreement suggest something less than dismantlement. The implementing agreement says that Iran has to ``take steps to agree with the IAEA on the conclusion of a safeguards approach to Arak.'' Iran has not provided required design information for Arak, as we thought was going to happen, and in the final agreement it seems possible that either Iran will be allowed to complete the reactor and operate it under IAEA safeguards or the reactor will simply be mothballed--not dismantled but mothballed--or perhaps converted to a light-water facility that carries its own risks.

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister has said that the Arak reactor is the fastest way to get the material for a nuclear weapon. So while I understand the agreement also does not permit Iran to construct a related reprocessing facility at this time, the implication of the agreement's language is that the final agreement will not actually require the dismantling of the Arak reactor, meaning that Arak could, at a future date, give Iran a relatively quick path to a weapon, and I find that simply unacceptable.

In my view, Iran's strategy, consistent with their past approaches that

have brought them to a nuclear threshold state, is to use these negotiations to mothball its nuclear infrastructure program just long enough to undo the international sanctions regime.

Iran is insisting on keeping core elements of its programs-- enrichment, the Arak heavy-water reactor, the underground Fordow facility, and the Parchin military complex. While they may be subject to safeguards so they can satisfy the international community in the short run, if they are allowed to retain their core infrastructure, they could quickly revive their program sometime in the future. At the same time, Iran is seeking to reverse the harsh international sanctions regime against them.

The bottom line is this. If they get their way, if they dismantle nothing, we gut the sanctions, and troubling signs have already appeared.

Since the interim deal was signed, there was an immediate effort by many nations--including many European nations--to revive trade and resume business with Iran. There have been recent headlines that the Russians may be seeking a barter deal that could increase Iran's oil exports by 50 percent; that Iran and Russia are negotiating an oil-for- goods deal worth $1.5 billion a month--$18 billion a year--which would significantly boost Iran's oil exports by 500,000 barrels a day in exchange for Russian goods.

To the administration's credit, when we have raised this issue, they have said they are aware of those concerns and have told the Russians that, in fact, if they were to pursue that, it would be actionable, meaning it would be subject to sanctions. But I am not sure that Vladimir Putin really is going to be thwarted by such warnings.

A coalition of France's largest companies is already visiting Tehran. Iran welcomed more than 100 executives from France's biggest firms on Monday, the most senior French trade mission in years. Since November there have been 20-plus trade delegations from Turkey, Georgia, Ireland, Tunisia, Kazakhstan, China, Italy, India, Austria, and Sweden. What is the result? Iran's economy is recovering. The Iranian rial, which is in essence their dollar, had plummeted from an official rate of 10,440 rials to the dollar to a staggering 41,000 to a dollar in October of 2012. But it has begun to recover. As of January 29, that rate has gone from 41,000 to a single dollar to 25,000 rials to the dollar.

International Monetary Fund figures also show Iran's negative growth turning around, with Iran having a projected growth rate of 1.28 percent to almost 2 percent in 2014 and 2015.

As Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week, the $7 billion in actual relief Iran will definitively receive under the Joint Plan of Action is very significant--comprising approximately 35 percent of Iran's fully accessible cash reserves, which are estimated to be $20 billion.

So while the Iranian economy is described as being much larger, the assessment that this is a drop in the bucket is simply not accurate. Moreover, that relief fails to consider the $4 billion to $5 billion in revenue that Iran would have lost if we had not suspended sanctions on Iran's crude oil exports as required under existing law. Sanctions relief, combined with the ``open for business'' sign that Iran is posting, is paying returns. It seems to me the sanctions regime we have worked so hard to build is starting to unravel before we ever get a chance to conclude a final agreement with Iran.

The fact is that any final deal as inadequate as the one I have outlined will end any pressure on Iran for the foreseeable future. Put simply, we need a policy that guarantees Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons capability, period.

To understand how to proceed, we must also understand the facts. We need to put the negotiating into context. First, Iran has a history of duplicity with respect to its nuclear program, using past negotiations to cover up advances in its nuclear program, and, most startling, at the undeclared Fordow enrichment site, buried very deep in a mountain to prevent its discovery and protect against destruction. That begs the question: Why would they bury a facility so deep so that it could not be discovered if it was solely for the peaceful purposes they claim? It seems unlikely, as Iran's leaders have made clear in recent days, that Iran will make any concessions that fundamentally dismantle its nuclear program.

The fact is Iran is simply agreeing to lock the door on its nuclear weapons program, as is, and walk away. Should they later walk away from the deal as they have in the past, they can simply unlock the door and continue their nuclear weapons program from where they are today. It sounds a lot like North Korea.

Let's not forget that President Rouhani, as the former negotiator for Iran, boasted:

The day that we invited the three European ministers to the

talks, only 10 centrifuges were spinning at Natanz. We could

not produce one gram of U4 or U6. We did not have the heavy

water production. We could not produce yellow cake . . . Our

total production of centrifuges inside the country was 150 .

. . We wanted to complete all of these--we needed time. We

did not stop. We completed the program.

So 150 then; 20,000 today. The simple truth is he admitted to deceiving the West.

Given President Rouhani's own words on his country's nuclear weapons ambition, it seems to me a good deal is not one that equates dismantling with mothballing. A good deal would prevent Iran from being able to get back to work on its nuclear weapons program from where it left off.

Second, despite diplomatic entreaties to the Iranians in recent years where hands were extended and secret talks were pursued, Iran has grown its support and advocacy for terror.

The history of Iranian terror against U.S. citizens and interests is lengthy and robust, grounded in the view that the United States is the great Satan, and with its funding and support of Hezbollah that has carried out attacks against American interests. Colleagues will recall that 241 American servicemen died in the 1983 Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon and 19 in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In recent years, we have traced responsibility for lethal actions against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran, as well as the fortunately thwarted attack on the Saudi ambassador at a Washington restaurant in 2011.

Today Iran is actively sponsoring a proxy war in Syria, sending money, weapons, and fighters on a weekly basis.

Simultaneously, it is sponsoring attacks against Sunnis in Iraq and promoting regional sectarian violence that could easily result in a broader regional conflict. So while smiling at our negotiators across the table, they are simultaneously plotting in the backroom.

With all this in mind, I believe in the wisdom of the prospective sanctions I proposed. I believe in the lessons of history that tell us Iran cannot be trusted to live up to its word without external pressure, and I believe an insurance policy that guards against Iranian obfuscation and deception is the best way forward.

I know there is a difference of view, but I truly believe that what got Iran to the negotiating table is the only element of peaceful diplomacy that can keep it there and ultimately drive a successful negotiation.

My legislation, cosponsored by 59 Senators, would simply require that Iran act in good faith, adhering to the implementing agreement, not engaging in new acts of terror against American citizens or U.S. property, and not conducting new ballistic missile tests with a range beyond 500 kilometers.

The legislation is not the problem and Congress is not the problem. Iran is the problem. We need to worry more about Iran than we need to worry about the Congress. We need to focus on Iran's long history of deceptions surrounding its nuclear program and how this should inform our approach to reaching a comprehensive deal.

To those who believe if negotiations do not result in a deal or if Iran breaks the deal we can always impose new sanctions, then let me be clear: If negotiations fail or if Iran breaks the deal, we will not have time to pass new sanctions that would have a real consequence.

New sanctions are not a spigot that can be turned off and on, as has been suggested. Even if Congress were to take up and pass new sanctions at the

moment of Iran's first breach of the Joint Plan of Action or if they do not reach an ultimate agreement that is acceptable, there is a lag time of at least 6 months to bring those sanctions online and at least 1 year for real impact to be felt.

That has been our history here. I authored most of these, and they need a lead time. You need to give countries and companies the time to be noticed as to what is going to be sanctioned so they can rearrange their engagements. Then you have to have the regulations to go through and then you have to have the enforcement take place.

This would bring us beyond the very short time Iran would need to build a nuclear bomb, especially since the interim agreement does not require them either to dismantle anything and basically freezes their capability as it stands today. So let everyone understand, if there is no deal, I do not think we are going to have the time to impose new sanctions before Iran can produce a nuclear weapon.

Everyone agrees the comprehensive sanctions policy against Iran-- which was led by Congress and originally opposed by the administration--has been an unquestionable success. Iran's oil exports fell to 1.1 million barrels a day in the first 9 months of 2013, down from 1.5 million barrels in 2012. The fall in exports was costing Iran between $4 billion and $8 billion a month in 2013, and the loss of oil revenue had caused the rial to lose two-thirds of its value against the dollar and caused inflation to rise to more than 40 percent.

There is no dispute or disagreement that it was the economic impact of sanctions that has brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. But passing those sanctions and having them in place long enough to be effective took time--time that I am concerned we no longer have.

The question now is whether our goals align. Has the ideology of the regime altered so substantially in the last 6 months that they are ready to forswear a 20-year effort--a 20-year effort--to develop nuclear weapons or are they, as the Supreme Leader has stated, seeking to beat us at the game of diplomacy--``to negotiate with the Devil to eliminate its evil''--and retain their nuclear threshold and enriching abilities while degrading the sanctions regime?

Let's not forget it is the Ayatollah--I know we are placing a lot of faith in President Ruhani and the Iranian Foreign Minister--but it is the Ayatollah who holds the nuclear portfolio, and his main goal is what. Preservation of the regime. It is the Ayatollah who gave the green light to Ruhani to negotiate. Why? Because the sanctions were causing the Ayatollah to be concerned about regime change taking place within Iranian society due to the consequences of sanctions on the Iranian economy.

Interestingly enough, who benefits from the sanctions relief? The Ayatollah. In a Reuters story with the title ``Khamenei's business empire gains from Iran sanctions relief,'' it goes on to talk about that:

Khamenei controls a massive business empire known as Setad

that has invested in Iran's petrochemical industry, which is

now permitted to resume [its] exports.

It also states:

In an interview with Reuters this week, a Treasury

Department official estimated that Iran would generate at

most $1 billion in revenue--

Mr. President, $1 billion in revenue--

from petrochemical exports over the next six months.

Who is the one who has a great deal of interest in the petrochemical section? The Ayatollah, by his control of Setad.

I have worked on Iran's nuclear issues for 20 years, starting when I was a Member of the House, pressing for sanctions to prevent Iran from building the Bushehr nuclear powerplant and to halt IAEA support for their uranium mining and enrichment programs.

For a decade I was told my concerns had no legitimate basis; that Iran would never be able to bring the Bushehr plant online; and that Iran's activities were not the most major concern.

History has shown us that those assessments about Iran's abilities and intentions were simply wrong. The fact is Iran's nuclear aspirations did not materialize overnight. Iran has been slowly, methodically working up to this moment for decades, and now--if its capability is mothballed rather than dismantled--they will remain at the cusp of being a declared nuclear state should they choose to start again because nothing will have changed if nothing is significantly dismantled.

Make no mistake. Iran views developing a nuclear capability as fundamental to its existence. It sees the development of nuclear weapons as part of a regional hegemonic strategy to make Tehran the center of power throughout the region.

That is why our allies and partners in the region--and not just Israelis, but Emiratis and Saudis, among others--are so skeptical and so concerned. Quite simply, our allies and partners do not trust Iranian leaders, nor do they believe Iran has any intention of verifiably ending its nuclear weapons program.

So while I welcome the diplomatic efforts, and I share the hope that the administration can achieve a final comprehensive agreement that eliminates this threat to global peace and security, I am deeply-- deeply--skeptical based upon these 20 years--based upon these 20 years--of experience.

The simple and deeply troubling fact is Iran is literally weeks to months from a breakout, and the parameters of the final agreement laid out in the Joint Plan of Action do not appear to set Iran's development capacity back by more than a few weeks.

The Joint Plan of Action conceded, even before negotiations had begun, Iran's right to some level of enrichment, despite a U.N. resolution calling for Iran to suspend enrichment.

It provides no guarantees that we will resolve our concerns about Iranian weaponization activities, that Iran will cease advanced centrifuge research. Why is that important? Because we heard testimony that the more advanced the centrifuge, the less centrifuges you need, the quicker you can produce enriched uranium to be able to acquire that bomb and the increasingly less verifiable it is. So Iran should have to cease its advanced centrifuge research. It also provides no guarantees that we will resolve our concerns that the IAEA will gain access to the Parchin military base, that Iran will dismantle thousands of centrifuges or that the Iranians will disclose the scope of their activities.

It suggests that the resolution for the Arak heavy-water reactors, which can provide a quicker plutonium pathway to nuclear weapons, may be to put it under IAEA safeguards rather than require its dismantlement. It seems to me we do not have time, under the testimony taken before the committee, for Iran to hedge and obfuscate. They have done a pretty good job of that, and that is what has brought them to the cusp of being a nuclear state. There should be no chance for Iran to buy more time, which, in effect, leaves us exactly where we are-- just hitting a pause button--with the state of play unchanged and Iran weeks from breakout. To me that is a bad agreement, and in my view we should be negotiating from a position of strength.

Last Tuesday night in the State of the Union, the President said:

If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with

the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America

can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today.

I agree. But I would point out to my colleagues that they did so from a position of strength. President Kennedy sent U.S. warships to face down the Soviets in Cuba, and Ronald Reagan dramatically built up U.S. military might to an extent that what was the former Soviet Union could not keep up the pace. We need to negotiate with Iran from a position of strength, and then, yes--then we should have no fear about any such negotiation.

The concerns I have raised are legitimate. They are not, as the President's Press Secretary has said, ``warmongering.'' This is not saber rattling. It is not Congress wanting to ``march to war,'' as another White House spokesman said, but exactly the opposite.

I find it interesting--as someone who was then in the House of Representatives and was in a small minority voting against the war in Iraq, when an overwhelming number of my colleagues and many Members of this body were voting for the war--to somehow be portrayed as a warmonger. It is my mind that the use of sanctions--which is a limited part of an arsenal of peaceful

diplomacy tools--can get us to the successful negotiations we want.

At the end of the day, trying to keep the pressure on Iran to completely satisfy the United Nations' and the international community's demands for Iran to halt and reverse its illicit nuclear activities is the best way to avoid war in the first place--to avoid war in the first place.

Iran has proven in the past it will not negotiate in good faith except when it has no other choice--as the tough sanctions we passed have proven, by getting Iran to the table.

Iran says it will not negotiate with a gun to its head. I would suggest it is Iran that has put the potential of a nuclear gun to the world's head.

At the end of the day, name-calling is not an argument, nor is it a sound policy. It is a false choice to say a vote for sanctions is equivalent to warmongering. More pressure on Iran does not in any way suggest that Congress wants war or that the Iranians feel backed into a corner and will themselves choose war over reason.

So let's stop talking about warmongering. Let's instead fixate on the final deal which, in my view, cannot and should not rely simply on trust but on real, honest, verifiable dismantlement of Iran's capability to produce even one nuclear bomb.

The ball is in the administration's court, not in Congress's. In fact, the agreement specifically states--there has been a lot of talk about how we should not consider any new sanctions, even if they are prospective, which the legislation says nothing would happen until up to 1 year, unless Iran violates the interim agreement or fails to conclude an agreement in 1 year. But if we read the Joint Plan of Action, what does it say? It says:

The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the

respective roles of the President and the Congress, will

refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.

It does not say the United States of America. It does not say the Congress. It says the ``Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.''

That is because the agreement acknowledges that the administration, not Congress, will refrain from imposing new sanctions. The administration knew it could not bind Congress to refrain from imposing new sanctions because Congress is a separate coequal branch of government.

So let's focus on what was agreed to by those at the table rather than attributing blame to those who were not. We will not be the scapegoats for a bad deal if it does not take the nuclear weapons option off the table by insisting on dismantling existing capability, not simply mothballing it.

So let me say I want diplomacy to work. That is why we worked so hard to get to the opportunity. I wanted to produce the results we all hoped for and have worked for.

But at a minimum, we need to send a message to Iran that our patience is not unlimited and that we are skeptical of their intentions and a message to the international community that the sanctions regime has not weakened, that this is not an opportunity to reengage with Tehran. I would urge everyone to look at the legislation I have drafted with my colleague from Illinois and Members of both caucuses as a win for the administration. They succeeded in convincing us--the administration succeeded in convincing us to provide up to a 1-year window to negotiate.

That is not the way the legislation was originally intended. But they convinced us they needed an opportunity to negotiate and, hence, the legislation was worked in such a way to create that opportunity. I believe that is significant and generous, given Iran's history of treachery and deceit. If Iran steps away from the negotiations or does not live up to its agreement, it will be because they are not serious about reaching a comprehensive deal.

I have heard the concerns of the administration. I know we share the same goals. We have taken steps in the Foreign Relations Committee in pursuit of those goals. We have worked with the administration to pass legislation to help reform the Organization of American States. We have moved 129--more now with the last week of nominees--that the administration has put forward. We worked through Labor Day in a bipartisan effort to quickly pass a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Syria, which gave the President--there are those who are critical of that as well--but that authorization gave the President the ability to go to Russia and get a deal to end the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

We passed and the President signed PEPFAR into law, the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief. We have worked with the administration on embassy security after Benghazi. We have worked with countless administration officials and held two hearings on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In all of those actions and much more, I have worked closely with the administration. My intention now is to assist the administration again in its negotiations by keeping the pressure on Iran, which has always proven an unreliable negotiating partner at best.

In my view, it is time to put Iranian rhetoric to the test. If we are to take President Ruhani at his word, when he said in Davos last week that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons, if that is true, then the Iranian Government should not have any problems with the obvious followup to that claim, starting with the verifiable dismantling of its illicit nuclear infrastructure. That is all the sanctions legislation does. I do not think we should settle for anything less.

So let's be clear. I do not come to this floor in opposition, I come in comity and in the spirit of unity that has always dictated our foreign policy. But the Senate has an obligation to challenge assumptions in a free and open debate. That is what is most extraordinary about our government, and it echoes in the many debates we have held in this Chamber on war and peace, on justice and freedom and civil rights.

At the end of the day, we have an obligation to speak our minds on what we believe is in the best interests of this Nation. It is in that spirit that I come to the floor today. As GEN George Marshall said, ``Go right straight down the road, to do what is best, and do it frankly without evasion.'' Today I am advocating for what I believe is in our national interests and to do so as frankly and comprehensively as I can.

As John Kennedy said about having differences of opinion, ``Let us not be blind to [them], but let us also direct our attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved.'' The administration and the Senate have a common interest to prevent a nuclear weapons-capable Iran. We have differences as to how to achieve it. We have an obligation to debate those differences and concerns.

But I will not yield on a principled difference. It is our obligation to debate the issues, express our differences and outcomes, and come to the floor to work together to resolve them. At the end of the day, my hope, as someone who has been working on this for 20 years, can see the fruition of a successful negotiation by the President and the administration so Iran will never have a nuclear weapons capability.

But by the same token, I think we need to be poised to ensure that we use the last elements of peaceful diplomacy, which is to ensure there are sanctions that create consequences to the regime so they can put that in their equation as to it is better to strike a deal and end our illicit nuclear program than it is to pursue a course that creates nuclear weapons. Because, if not, I fear, if we continue down this path and our sanctions erode and all we do is limit and have safeguard notices, warning signs, we will get the warning signs, but the sanctions will be gone and the only options left to a future American President will be do you accept a nuclear-armed Iran or do you have a military option. Those are not desirable options.

It is our effort to avoid that being the ultimate question. That is what we embody in the sanctions legislation that has passed this Chamber and has been signed by the President and that we believe, prospectively, can increase the pressure on Iran to come to that peaceful conclusion, so that option of either accepting a nuclear-armed Iran or having to have a military option to prevent it from doing so is not the option for our country and for any future American President.

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

Mr. President, I want to commend my colleague from New Jersey for an eloquent and soaring speech that speaks to the collective aspirations we should have in this body on behalf of the collective Nation we represent. I am not at all surprised at Senator Booker's ability to relate to this body the lives of people from New Jersey and across the country who depend upon us to respond to them in their times of need and to remind us of the greater nature of what we should stand for as an institution and on behalf of this country. He did it with such aplomb and such passion and intensity, yet at the same time with such sincerity that I think it is an excellent beginning to what will be a very long series of remarks in the Senate on critical issues that will both inform us and at the same time remind us of the high calling for which we are all brought to the Senate.

I want to take one moment to add to what Senator Booker said, specifically on the topic he ultimately drove home, and that is this question of unemployment. I want to relate one story--I see the Senator from Utah is up, so I will relate only one story--but it speaks to the very heart of what Senator Booker was conveying here.

I get thousands of letters from people who depend on their meager unemployment benefits to avert economic disaster while they desperately look for work. As Senator Booker said, these people are not lazy; they are not looking for a handout. They just want a job, any job. I want to talk about one constituent in particular--Noelle from Atlantic County, who described herself as ``a middle-aged unemployed single mother trying to raise two sons to be successful contributing members of our society.'' She relates what happened after her marriage ended:

I didn't shrug my shoulders and give up, even though the

``system'' said I didn't qualify for assistance . . . I took

care of children in my home to pay the bills and avoid child

care costs. In 2000, when my children were school age, I

found a minimum wage seasonal job and worked hard to become a

permanent employee . . . I worked even harder to rise up in

the organization and become a respected manager. When that

company went bankrupt in 2009, I found another job within two

weeks taking a large pay cut and making far less than I would

have made on unemployment. I stayed with that company for 4

years until I was laid off in July of 2013. Once again, I

didn't shrug my shoulders and give up. For the following 26

weeks I sought employment. I have joined every employment

website I could find and I applied for any job remotely

within my limited job skills. Unfortunately, the responses I

have gotten have not been encouraging. Thirteen years of

retail experience, including nine years of management

experience, translates into few opportunities. No one will

consider me for any entry level positions based on my

previous experience.

She closes by saying:

No, I do not think unemployment should be a way of life.

No, I do not think you can be unemployed and disabled. No, I

do not think 3 million unemployed Americans are going to find

jobs in 26 weeks.

She is so right, and these are the type of Americans Senator Booker was talking about, and this is why the Senate should act.

I don't believe that is too much to ask, and I am pleased Senator Booker has come to this floor to lend his voice to the debate and to stand for people such as her. Again, I congratulate my colleague from New Jersey on an eloquent speech on such an important issue.

I am pleased that he chose to speak about unemployment insurance, an issue critical to so many families in New Jersey and across this Nation so they can make ends meet while they're looking for work.

Senator Booker has always been a voice for the voiceless, given hope to the vulnerable, and a helping hand to those who need it. It is why he chose public service. It is who he is and what he has always stood for.

He spoke eloquently and I commend him for his remarks. He rightfully pointed out that the issue of unemployment insurance isn't just about the poor. It is about all those people who need help while they continue to look for work.

We have seen the recession chip away at the middle class, pulling more and more families to the edge.

In this job market, they need more time to find work, and extending unemployment benefits will give them that time. It will allow them to step back from the edge.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is good to see my colleague from New Jersey presiding.

I rise in support of this legislation we are about to consider, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, which, again, is unique insofar as it is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation, to ensure families will be able to afford flood insurance so they can stay in their homes, so that businesses can stay open, and property values will not plummet.

Amendment No. 2707

I also rise in opposition to the Toomey substitute amendment, which would completely undermine our bill and perpetuate a failed policy. While we support putting the National Flood Insurance Program on a path to solvency, current law hikes rates so fast and so high that it will actually undermine the solvency of the program. These drastic increases will act as a de facto eviction notice for homeowners who have lived in their homes and played by the rules their entire lives. That is going to drive down property values, as the housing market is struggling to recover.

What is most alarming is the fact that FEMA does not even know the size or scope of this problem. They were supposed to complete a study on the affordability of rate increases mandated by Biggert-Waters by last April, but they failed to do so. That is simply unacceptable.

While there is no question we need to put the flood insurance program on a more solvent trajectory, we first need to understand the impact these dramatic changes in Biggert-Waters will have on the housing market and be sure the mapping process they use to set these rates is accurate.

That is why our bill would impose a moratorium on the phaseout of subsidies and grandfathers included in Biggert-Waters for most primary residences until FEMA completes the affordability study that was mandated in Biggert-Waters and proposes a regulatory framework to address the issues found in the study.

Whether FEMA does that in 6 months, 1 year--whatever periods of time--as soon as they do that and propose that regulatory framework, we are ready to go. So those who say this is somehow an inordinate amount of time, that is going to be determined by FEMA's promptness in getting the affordability study that was supposed to have been done under law by last April.

It would also require FEMA to certify in writing that it has implemented a flood mapping approach that utilizes sound scientific and engineering methodologies before certain rate reforms are implemented.

The reason that is important is because, for example, we saw in New Jersey where FEMA maps were put out, and we ultimately heard a hue and cry from communities and counties across the State that said: Look, that can't be right. We have had properties that have never flooded. Even in Sandy they did not have virtually any flooding, and now they are in the zone, and particularly in the most difficult zones, called V zones, where the consequence of being in a V zone may very well be whether you can keep your house. When we challenged and brought municipal and county engineers to bear, what did we find? In some counties we had an 80-percent reduction. Had we not challenged those maps, where would those families be today? So we want the basis of these maps to be scientific, using engineering methodologies that are sound.

Also, this new legislation would reimburse qualifying homeowners for successful appeals of erroneous flood map determinations. If we are going to say these maps are somehow sacrosanct, and you go and challenge them, and find out they were wrong, you should be able to not have to bear that burden.

It would give communities fair credit for locally funded flood protection systems. It would continue the fair treatment afforded to communities with floodproof basement exemptions. It would provide for a FEMA ombudsman to advocate for and provide information to policyholders. It would streamline the registration process for insurance brokers and agents so they can provide better timely services to policyholders during a disaster.

Just as important as what this bill does is what it will not do. The legislation would not stop the phaseout of taxpayer-funded subsidies for vacation homes and homes that have been substantially damaged. It would not stop the phaseout of taxpayer-funded subsidies for properties that have been repetitively flooded, including the 1 percent riskiest properties that account for over a third of all claims. It would not encourage new construction in environmentally sensitive or flood-prone areas. And it would not stop most of the important reforms included in Biggert-Waters.

This legislation reaches a delicate balance that recognizes the need to improve solvency and phase out certain subsidies but tries to do so without discouraging program participation.

Finally, Senator Toomey acknowledges that Biggert-Waters, I think, is totally flawed and must be changed, but basically his amendment falls far short of what all of us who have come together in support will do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is my understanding correct that Senator Toomey has used his minute as part of his presentation or is there a minute still pending for each side?

Mr. President, first of all, let me clear up some things. No. 1, the administration has not come and said it supports Senator Toomey's amendment. So let's be clear about that. As a matter of fact, my understanding is the administration has called him out and said they do not oppose our legislation.

I think we do transition ultimately to a place where we have an actuarially sound flood insurance program. There is a CBO score out there of over 10 years of zero. Look. The reality is, if you want the real estate markets to take a real hit, if you want families to be displaced from their homes, you adopt the Toomey amendment.

If you want to do what on a bipartisan basis has been the focus of this legislation, to keep an actuarially sound flood insurance program but at the same time make sure we do not drive people out of their homes and make sure that we get the study done before we get the actions done, then you will oppose the Toomey amendment and support the underlying bill.

I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2697

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, very briefly, I wish to thank the Senator from Oregon both for driving the issue and for working with us in the process to get to where he wants to be and where we can maximize our votes on this bill. I appreciate his courtesy and cooperation and look forward to working with him.

Amendment No. 2700

Madam President, I have to oppose the Heller amendment. This amendment would weaken consumer protections and completely remove minimum standards with respect to private flood insurance policies. In particular, the amendment strips the requirement that the private policy has to be comparable to a national flood insurance policy, meaning that companies would be able to offer inadequate policies to consumers across the country without any requirements as to what is in the policy. For all of those who have talked about solvency, if you have insurance that doesn't meet a minimum standard to ensure that the consequences of flooding can be paid for by the policy, you want to vote against this amendment.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Heller amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 1:50 p.m. today.

Madam President, I urge all of our colleagues to cast a ``yes'' vote on the final passage of the homeowner flood insurance act.

I think this has been an excellent week for the Senate. We were able to break through what sometimes is partisan gridlock and far too often pervades this auspicious Chamber. We have had an honest and open debate on this issue that is critical to the American people. We have had a respectable debate on good-faith amendments that were germane to the bill and lived up to the ideals of the Senate, and now we are poised to pass a critical piece of legislation which I believe enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support which will provide real relief to millions of American families.

I thank all of our cosponsors and their staffs, including a very large list of Republican colleagues who support the bill. I particularly thank my lead Republican cosponsor, Senator Isakson, for his efforts and the partnership on this issue and many others. I have had the pleasure to work with Senator Isakson on a number of issues and have come to respect his honesty and his desire to come together and get things done, regardless of the issue. I think he is one of the most well-respected Members of the Senate. Together, working with our colleagues, I think we are poised to give some real relief to families and to send a strong message to the House and hope they will follow suit.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The committee will hold a hearing entitled ``West Coast and Western Pacific Perspectives on Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, January 30, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to explore opportunities and challenges associated with lifting the ban on U.S. crude oil exports. For further information, please contact Todd Wooten at (202) 224-3907, Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905, or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224- 5488.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 30, at 9:30 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a joint hearing entitled ``Oversight Hearing: NRC's Implementation of the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendations and other Actions to Enhance and Maintain Nuclear Safety.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2014, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Section 123: Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreements.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 30, 2014, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Interfovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Shutdown: Examining Federal Government Closure Impacts on the District of Columbia.''

I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his input into the legislation, his work, and his advocacy. I agree with him on the other underlying statements that he made, particularly as it relates to the necessity for the legislation, as well as the opposition to the Toomey amendment.

I understand what Senator Toomey is trying to do, but I agree it doesn't meet the ultimate challenge. I agree as well on the budget point of order for the reason Senator Vitter says.

I thank the Senator for his support.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that takes place during any subsequent quorum calls--or the subsequent quorum call that I am going to ask

for--be equally divided on the Gillibrand amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that Act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending bill, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, briefly, I appreciate the longstanding views of my colleague from Oklahoma on a variety of fiscal issues, but on this one I must say I have a disagreement with him. This isn't about doing away with Biggert-Waters, because the reality is that of the 1 percent of properties that equal 33 percent of all claims, there is nothing set aside for that 1 percent that creates 33 percent of all the claims. It remains as it existed in Biggert-Waters.

As a matter of fact, overwhelmingly, we keep most of the Biggert- Waters reforms in the legislation. The one thing we are doing is creating a pause for those property owners who have obeyed the rules, followed their responsibilities, built in new standards and now find themselves, notwithstanding having done all those things, in the midst of a lot of hurt and rate shock.

In fact, some of us foresaw this, evidenced by the fact that I raised these issues as a member of the Senate banking committee, where this bill was heard, and when I couldn't achieve any affordability elements, I got an affordability study included, which study should be completed before we actually put into force skyrocketing premiums that are going to what, create greater stability for the fund? No.

What is insurance about? Insurance is about spreading risk over a wider pool. So what happens when people simply can't meet those skyrocketing premiums, as evidenced by the many stories our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come to talk about on the floor? What happens when they, in essence, have to say: I can't have insurance or I am going to turn my house over to the mortgage company because I can't sustain that policy or I will have to sell the property at a fire sale? What happens then? The pool grows smaller. What are the consequences of the risk pool growing smaller? Prices rise. And when prices rise even more for everybody else, what happens again? The risk pool grows smaller. And when the risk pool grows smaller, the prices rise again.

So this isn't about undoing Biggert-Waters. On the contrary, this is about getting it right. This is about fulfilling the element of the law that said there must be an affordability study so we can determine what type of affordability mechanism would exist in the law so that ultimately we make sure we have a solvent program and, at the same time, be able to keep the single most significant asset any family has in this country, which is their home.

That is what we are trying do here, and that is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the waiver of the budget point of order.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from North Dakota is going to speak, but if she would withhold for 1 moment, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:45 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 4:45 p.m. today the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following: Menendez motion to waive budget points of order against S. 1926, Reed amendment No. 2703, Whitehouse amendment No. 2706, and Gillibrand amendment No. 2708--I would expect those amendments would go by voice-- and, finally, there be 2 minutes of debate in between the votes, equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Yes, the Senator is correct. This bill will freeze the eligibility for some subsidized properties that are required, under current law, to move to risk-based rates. But freezing the eligibility for some properties will not prevent any property owner from obtaining an elevation certificate and having their rate lowered to account for a lower risk reflected in the elevation certificate.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 2706

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider and move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, which I have sponsored with Senator Isakson. It is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation to ensure that families will be able to afford flood insurance so they can stay in their homes, businesses can stay open, and property values will not plummet. This broadly bipartisan legislation will stop the most onerous and damaging rate increases while minimizing the impact on the National Flood Insurance Program's solvency.

I want to thank all of those who have supported the legislation, all of our cosponsors, as well as the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the American Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and Greater New Orleans, Incorporated, who have all endorsed our bill.

I specifically want to thank my lead Republican cosponsor Senator Isakson. I have had the pleasure to work with Senator Isakson on a number of issues. I have come to respect his honesty and desire to come together and get things done regardless of the issue.

I also want to thank Senator Landrieu who has been focused like a hawk on this issue for years now. She is without a doubt the Senate's preeminent expert on disaster recovery and flooding issues. The people of Louisiana are fortunate to have such a tireless champion. She has taken the time and effort to understand every aspect of flooding and disaster recovery.

I saw that expertise firsthand when Senator Landrieu came to New Jersey after Sandy struck and worked with us. I cannot thank her enough for the valuable insight she gave to us as we were dealing with Sandy recovery.

When Sandy struck New Jersey, over 2 million households were without power, 346,000 homes were damaged or lay in ruin, and, most tragically of all, 37 fellow New Jerseyans lost their lives. But true to our State's motto we were Jersey tough. People who lost their homes were knocked down but not out. They got up, dusted themselves off and started the long process of rebuilding.

But just as they were getting started, they got hit by another disaster, this time a manmade one that took the form of drastic flood insurance premium hikes that threaten to finish the job that Sandy started. I started receiving letters--first dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of people pleading to me for help. They wrote in desperation that their insurance premium was about to go from about $1,000 a year to an incredible $10,000. They told me after exhausting all of their savings on repairing and rebuilding their home, they simply had no more to spare--none left.

They were being hit by what I have come to call a triple whammy. First they got hit by the worst natural disaster in our State's history. Then they were faced with drastically elevated premiums mandated by Biggert-Waters. Finally, they had to contend with fatally flawed mapping processes that further exacerbated the drastic rate increases.

While Sandy made New Jersey especially vulnerable to the rate hikes required under Biggert-Waters, make no mistake about it, this is not a New Jersey or New York issue. It is not even a coastal issue. The reason this bill has such broad support across the ideological and geographical spectrum and the political spectrum is because flood insurance is not just a coastal or a northeast issue, it is an issue that affects the entire country.

The fact remains that 55 percent of Americans live within 50 miles of the coast. National Flood Insurance insures more than 5.5 million properties across all 50 States. Every State in the Nation will see premiums on some of their properties increase as a result of Biggert- Waters. As this map shows, FEMA is in the process of updating maps in every State. The different colors are simply what the status is of that effort.

People who played by the rules and built to code will suddenly find that they are no longer in compliance and will be faced with a difficult decision: Spend upwards of $100,000 to elevate their home 3, 4, 5 or more feet from its current level or see their annual insurance premium spike from $1,000 to $10,000 to $20,000 over the next 5 years.

Not all of these increases will be so drastic, but the many that are will act as a de facto eviction notice for homeowners who have lived in their homes and played by the rules their entire lives. If they try too sell their homes, prospective buyers will balk after learning of the high premium cost that comes with it, leaving the owner no choice but to sell at a fire sale.

This will drive down property values just as the housing market is still struggling to recover. We all know that declining property values have a domino effect, causing entire neighborhoods to decline in value, which in turn hurts the broader economy. What is most alarming is the fact that FEMA does not even know the size or scope of this problem.

They were supposed to complete a study into the affordability of rate increases under Biggert-Waters by last April, but they failed to do it. This was a mandated study that I was able to include in Biggert-Waters because I knew that this was going to be a problem. The main reason for the delay is they simply do not know what the new rates are going to look like. They do not know how many families will see rates double or triple--or many times more--so they cannot even guess on how these hikes will affect affordability.

Think about that for a second. We are making dramatic changes in policy that could impact more than 5.5 million policyholders--that is really families. These changes can have ripple effects throughout the housing market and our entire economy, before we even know the extent of the changes and their impact.

That is simply not acceptable. No one can argue to me that is sound public policy. In addition to the impacts

on families, the housing market, and the economy, drastic rate increases could actually have the perverse effect of undermining the solvency of the program. It could end up costing taxpayers more in disaster assistance payments by pricing homeowners out of insurance.

Recent reports suggest that only about 18 percent of properties in the flood zones participate in the program. One study has shown that for every 10-percent increase in premiums, program participation decreases by approximately 2.9 percent, almost 3 percent.

If rates are raised too high and too quickly, people will simply opt to drop their insurance, decreasing participation and the risk pool the National Flood Insurance Program draws on. The sharper the increases, the higher the proportion of dropouts. As with any insurance fund, this is about spreading risk. The smaller the risk pool, the greater the risk, and, therefore, the higher the costs. It perpetuates itself.

By pricing people out of the flood insurance program, increasing rates could have the unintended consequences of actually making the program less solvent. Reduced program participation would also increase the amount taxpayers are on the hook in disaster assistance payments.

Since FEMA grants, SBA loans, and other disaster assistance are reserved for unmet needs, more uninsured homeowners translate into more disaster assistance payouts.

Not only are we blind to the extent of these rate hikes and the effect they will have on program participation and the overall budget, we are also allowing what I believe to be a highly questionable mapping process to justify them. My experience with FEMA's map updates has led me to have serious doubts about the process and the accuracy of their results.

In December of 2012, FEMA released advisory base flood elevation maps, or ABFEs, for 10 counties in New Jersey. These showed a dramatic expansion of what are known as a V zone, which are high-risk flood zones that require houses to undergo special retrofitting that is often prohibitively expensive. For the thousands of families who were now in this dread V zone, the notification they received might as well have been an eviction notice, because they were never going to be able to afford the retrofitting, and without it they couldn't afford their premiums.

To be fair, FEMA did say that this first round of maps was conservative and subject to change in the next phase of the updates, but they maintained the changes would be minimal and the zones would remain largely intact.

After working with municipalities and counties, challenging the accuracy of these maps, and pushing FEMA to expedite their review process, they finally released a new iteration that showed as much as an 80-percent decline in the V-zone area in some of our counties. This was not a small mistake or a rounding error, it was a fatally flawed process that resulted in needless anxiety and frustration for thousands of homeowners only months out from Sandy.

While this is bad enough, imagine how much worse the consequences would have been if premium rates were increased to reflect these inaccurate ABFEs. Families would be forced out of their homes and homeowners would lose the most valuable asset they have--something they have worked their whole lives for--all because of inaccurate maps.

While there is no question we need to put the flood insurance program on a more solvent trajectory, we first need to understand the scope of these changes and be sure the mapping process used to set these rates is accurate. We need to understand the impact these dramatic changes in Biggert-Waters will have on the housing market before it is too late.

Unfortunately, Biggert-Waters forces changes that are far too large, far too fast, without having all the facts. It requires FEMA to increase rates dramatically even before FEMA knows the scope of these changes or how they will impact program participation. That is why our bill would impose a moratorium on the phaseout of subsidies in Biggert- Waters for most primary residences until FEMA completes the affordability study that was mandated in Biggert-Waters and proposes a regulatory framework to address the issues found in the study.

It would also require FEMA to certify in writing that it has implemented a flood mapping approach that utilizes sound scientific and engineering methodologies before certain rate reforms are implemented. For any property sales that occurred during this period, the homeowner would continue to receive the same treatment as the previous owner of the property, unless they trigger some other provision of Biggert- Waters not covered by this bill. For prospective home buyers, the certainty that they will not see their rate dramatically increase simply because they purchased a home is critically important to maintaining property values.

Also, this new legislation would give FEMA more flexibility to complete the affordability study. It would reimburse qualifying homeowners for successful appeals of erroneous flood map determinations. It would give communities fair credit for locally funded flood protection systems. It would continue the fair treatment afforded to communities with floodproof basement exemptions. It would provide for a FEMA ombudsman to advocate for and provide information to policyholders.

Just as important as what this bill would do, it is also important to know what this bill will not do. The legislation would not stop the phaseout of taxpayer subsidies for vacation homes and homes that have substantially been damaged. It would not stop the phaseout of taxpayer- funded subsidies for properties that have been repetitively flooded, including the 1 percent riskiest properties that account for over one- third of all claims. It would not encourage new construction in environmentally sensitive or flood-prone areas, and it would not stop most of the important reforms included in Biggert-Waters.

This legislation simply provides temporary relief to a targeted group of property owners who played by the rules and are now poised to see the most valuable asset in their life become worthless, all through no fault of their own.

This bill doesn't include everything I wanted--and I know there are many other ideas that other cosponsors wanted to include--but in order to reach a true consensus, this bill focuses on ideas that had broad bipartisan support. That is why we are here today, Democrats and Republicans, asking for the support of the Senate on this vital piece of legislation.

We tried to reach a delicate balance with this bill that recognizes the need to improve solvency and phase out certain subsidies, but tries to do so without discouraging program participation and thus undermining solvency and fiscal responsibility.

Finally, this isn't only about insurance rates, tables, and actuarial risk rates, it is about our fellow citizens. It is about people, people who played by the rules their whole lives and are now facing a life- altering event they never could have prepared or planned for.

If Biggert-Waters is allowed to be implemented as written, we will see property values drop, middle-class families forced from their homes, and our economy suffer.

The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act is a broadly bipartisan, carefully crafted, tightly targeted approach to restore the solvency of the program, while fulfilling the original intent of the program to make flood insurance affordable and accessible. That is why we hope our colleagues will vote yes on cloture so we can proceed to provide relief to families before it is too late.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I join my colleague from Hawaii in her remarks and her opposition to the Ayotte amendment. I wish to start off by simply saying that when we are talking about extending unemployment insurance benefits to Americans who have played by the rules, done everything right, and through no fault of their own find themselves unemployed, many long-term unemployed, and who are trying to get a job but still, despite an economy that is improving, have not seen the job market increase significantly so that they can attain that job--what they need at this time is not a kick in the pants, they need a helping hand so that they can sustain their families during this period of time and continue to be in a position to do that which the law requires of them: continue to look for a job and eventually find that job.

The reality is that this is not an ideological battle, I hope, in a greater political war. It is about real people and the lives of real people. I don't think we can lose sight of that simple fact. Political ideology doesn't trump faith and family values. It does not trump reason or compassion or the acceptance that we are all in this together.

Having said that, I am encouraged that there is bipartisan support for repealing the military pension cuts. I opposed those. I am committed to ensuring that our brave men and women and their families receive all the care and resources they deserve, both during their service and throughout their lives. They have fought for our freedom and security in the most difficult situations, and our Nation owes them the same level of commitment, and we remain indebted to them for their service.

But I have heard the Senator from New Hampshire declare her support for offsetting the cost to fix that by fixing ``an egregious problem in the Tax Code.'' As someone who sits on the Senate Finance Committee, I can tell you that after years of being stymied by Republican opposition to closing any tax loopholes, to shutting down any abusive tax practices, I would like to have them join us in looking for savings in the Tax Code to achieve a bipartisan goal. But, unfortunately, instead of shutting down the abuses in the code, like the huge amounts of money stripped out of the United States and piling up in tax havens abroad, or instead of ending the wasteful subsidies for very profitable companies, such as the oil industry, or perhaps the myriad tax shelters used by millionaires to avoid paying their fair share, my colleague decided instead to propose legislation that would have a devastating impact on 4 million children who are U.S. citizens and who deserve every right and every protection as any other child under the Constitution, all of whom are deserving of our support.

Instead of working with Democrats, many of whom have spent a great deal of time studying and pointing out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Tax Code to find a bipartisan solution, we are presented with a proposal that would go much further than she claims and hammer over 2 million working and tax-paying families.

What does the child tax credit do, which is the subject of her amendment? The child tax credit is for people who have a qualifying child. That is the fundamental essence of the child tax credit. You are not eligible for it if you do not have a qualifying child. What is a qualifying child under the law? It must be the son, daughter, stepchild, foster child, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, or a descendent of the filer. They must live with the filer for more than half of the year. No. 3, the child must be a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, or a U.S. resident alien. It is the child who is the determinative factor. It is the child for which these resources ultimately we have decided as a Congress and as a society to support.

We talk about being family-friendly. We talk about the poverty situation in this country. We talk about the consistently growing gap in terms of the haves and the have-nots. This amendment is only going to exacerbate that problem for U.S. children.

To eliminate the ability of a taxpayer to use a taxpayer ID number in order to claim the refundable portion of the child tax credit ignores the fact that the vast majority of these children are U.S. citizens and the child tax credit was enacted to help families financially care for their children. The refundable portion was introduced because children in working families deserve the same support provided by

benefits in the Tax Code as anyone else. That is why we made it refundable--because we wanted to reward work and we wanted to help with the growth of that child and to deal with their challenges.

I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire that the anecdotal stories she included in her remarks amount to fraud, and they should be stopped. Let's be clear: The stories she told of claiming credits for children not in the United States or of 1,000 tax returns linked to 8 addresses, those actions are already illegal by whomever would make such a false filing and commit those actions.

In fact, what the Senator does is cite reports of IRS investigators who did their job shutting down illegal activity. It seems to me the IRS doesn't need her amendment to go after this fraud. They need the resources and the investigators to ultimately make sure all elements of the code that have fraudulent activity being taken need to be dealt with. They need Republicans to stop cutting their funds so they can do their job better. But to use these instances of fraud that were successfully pursued to go after American children is not confronting fraud. It is disadvantaging children--4 million children to be exact.

If we had one computer science company prosecuted for tax evasion, we don't bar all computer science companies from ever taking the research and development tax credit again. If we find one entity, one person or one industry committing fraud, we don't eliminate all of the benefits of the provision in the Tax Code for which they committed fraud because we have decided that provision is of a societal benefit. What we do is make sure we go after the individuals who commit the fraud. It doesn't make any sense, just like hammering 4 million U.S. children because of fraud perpetrated by some other unscrupulous actor doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I believe this amendment creates a clear-cut case of priorities. Surely nobody here would argue that outside of this instance, there is no other part of the Tax Code that allows waste, fraud or abuse. We could sit down and find dozens of wasteful loopholes, fraudulent tax practices, and abusive tax shelters that could be shut down in order to pay for restoring the cuts to military pensions. If my Republican colleagues chose to support these efforts, I think this bill would sail through the Senate.

I say to my friends who are putting up obstacles--because I believe a lot of these false choices that are being put out there are not for the purposes of a legitimate policy goal but to undermine the efforts of achieving the extension of unemployment insurance--I say to them I think you need to stop and think. Think about the people who are hurting. Think about their lives, their hopes, and their struggles. Think about what their conversations are around the kitchen table at night. Every night in New Jersey and all over the country thousands of families who have played by the rules and are looking for work are sitting around the table asking heartwrenching questions: How will we afford the mortgage and keep our home if we cannot get the assistance during this period of time? Do I have to decide between putting food on the table and keeping a place for my family? What if I have a health emergency? These are real-life conversations that are being had by Americans across this country.

How are we not putting aside ideology and looking into our conscience for the obvious answer? This is a simple extension of unemployment benefits for those who need our help. It is a no-brainer at a time when so many need help now and don't care about politics, don't want or deserve to be pawns in a political battle over the role or size of government. They just want help from the very people who represent them.

It isn't a time for political games. It is a time for action. We can always argue deficits. We can argue about debt management, we can argue about politics, but for now it is about the American people, their lives, their hopes, and their dreams for a better life for themselves and their families. It is about the kind of Nation we are and the values we hold dear.

Extending unemployment benefits isn't just the right thing to do morally, it also makes good economic sense. Study after study has shown that unemployment benefits are one of the most effective ways to help our economy grow, so much so that every $1 spent produces a benefit of at least $1.50 in gross domestic product. That is because people receiving benefits spend the money and immediately stimulate the economy in the form of consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of our GDP. Leaving 1.3 million Americans in the cold without any assistance would end up costing our economy 240,000 jobs.

Some on the other side say helping people who have been out of work is a crutch. I have to be honest with you. I have never met a person in my State who said they wanted to be on unemployment, who found dignity in being on unemployment or realized their dreams by being on unemployment. They found their dignity by achieving a job that helped them realize their hopes and dreams and aspirations.

The American worker is not lazy, and they don't want handouts. With the job market still recovering, there simply are not enough jobs available for them. As we work to make sure there is an economy that has enough jobs for Americans to be able to realize their hopes and dreams and aspirations, it is incumbent on us to make sure we continue to assist them so those stark choices around the kitchen table aren't as horrible as they are today.

I hope my colleagues will oppose hurting 4 million American children, exacerbating the poverty in our country, and sending a message that goes counter to what the child tax credit is all about. We want to help an American child be able to fulfill their hopes and dreams and aspirations and their God-given potential. The adoption of the Ayotte amendment would go entirely counter to that belief.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for his comments and work on this legislation. The reforms being made by the Global Fund are important and we both share the view that the reporting requirements for the Global Fund on import duties and taxes ought to be understood to provide flexibility until the end of the 2015 fiscal year.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Krishna Patel, a detailee on Senator Johnson's banking committee staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I want to briefly discuss Section 304 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which contained an amendment to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. I was disappointed to see that the amended Section 32 requires submissions regarding future transboundary hydrocarbon agreements be made to the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, the chair of the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives, and the chair of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in the Senate. This language fails to mention the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, an omission I find curious in light of the Foreign Relations Committee's jurisdiction over international agreements. I would like to yield to my colleague from Washington in order to clarify that this language was not intended to negate the Foreign Relations Committee's jurisdiction of transboundary hydrocarbon agreements.

I thank the Senator from Washington for her response, and I appreciate the tremendous work she has done to arrive at a budget agreement. Due to the importance of this issue, I want to seek additional confirmation of this point. The February 20, 2012 Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States Concerning Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico went through the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with the approval of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because the implementing legislation was narrow and addressed the ability of the Department of the Interior to carry out the agreement. However, the Foreign Relations Committee engaged in robust oversight of this agreement in meetings with high-ranking officials at the Department of State and the Department of the Interior, including the submission of a detailed letter with several questions, which received a lengthy response. These actions reflect the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's intention to retain oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon agreements, and to reserve the right to draft and oversee implementing legislation for future transboundary hydrocarbon agreements.

I thank the chair of the Budget Committee for her responses.

Not-For-Profit Loan Servicing

Mr. President, in deference to my colleague, who I understand may object--and although I have a statement--let me first precede it by making this request. As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1610, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2013, and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that an amendment, which is at the desk, making technical changes to the bill, be agreed to; that no other amendments be in order to the bill; that there be up to 2 hours of debate equally divided between proponents and opponents of the bill; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; finally, the vote on passage be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold.

Mr. President, I have to say, I am disappointed to hear an objection because this is a bipartisan effort that is being pursued in the Senate and the majority leader has been very gracious to offer us time to debate and vote on an important proposal. I am sure we will be back here again to try to achieve that. This is not a Republican bill or a Democratic bill. It is not a Republican or Democratic priority. It is a commonsense measure that has broad bipartisan support--exactly the type of support and cooperation the American people are yearning to see from their elected officials. More importantly, this legislation is critical to the lives of hundreds of thousands homeowners, and we should not simply let Senate procedure get in the way of finding solutions.

Let me just briefly speak in support of S. 1610, which is the Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act that we just asked consent to bring to the floor. It is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that would help people afford flood insurance so they can stay in their homes and businesses can stay open--all the while preventing property values from plummeting.

At a time when there is far too little bipartisan cooperation, this bill stands as a notable exception. It currently is cosponsored by 23 of my colleagues, including 7 Republicans, representing States from all corners of the country.

It is supported by the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Homebuilders, the American Bankers Association, and the Independent Community Bankers Association.

You have heard from several of my colleagues who have spoken to this issue--and there are others, such as Senator Warren and my fellow colleague from New Jersey, Senator Booker, who I am proud to say has chosen this bill as the first piece of legislation to cosponsor in what I am sure will be a long and illustrious career in the Senate.

The reason for that broad support is because flood insurance is not just a coastal or Northeast issue, it is an issue that affects the entire country. Every State in the Nation has properties covered by the National Flood Insurance Program, and every State in the Nation will see premiums on some of these properties increase as a result of Biggert-Waters.

Some of these increases will be modest. Others are going to be prohibitively expensive and act as a de facto eviction notice for homeowners who have lived in their homes and played by the rules their entire lives. We certainly know this because we are already hearing from our constituents, and many more of our colleagues are hearing the same desperate cries from across the country, and many more will hear them as flood insurance maps get outlined by FEMA under the legislation, as renewals come up, and all of a sudden they are going to hear an outcry from their homeowners, who are going to say: This ultimately creates a set of circumstances for me where I am going to lose my home.

The value of their homes will be dramatically reduced. Their ability to sell it will be dramatically altered, and they will, in essence, have taken what they have worked a lifetime to achieve and have it become a human catastrophe--made by the Congress.

This is going to drive property values down. The housing market is still struggling to recover, and we all know that declining property values have a domino effect, causing neighborhood properties to decline in value, which, in turn, hurts the broader economy.

We need to understand the impact that these dramatic changes in Biggert-Waters will have on the housing market before it is too late. We need to understand the impact these rate reforms will have on program participation, which is already dismally low. In fact, recent reports suggest that only about 18 percent of properties in flood zones participate in the program. If rates are raised too high and too quickly, people will simply opt to drop their insurance, decreasing participation, and the risk pool in the National Flood Insurance Program will ultimately feel the consequences.

One study has shown that for every 10-percent increase in premiums, program participation decreases by approximately 2.6 percent; and the sharper the increases, the higher the proportion of dropouts.

As with any flood insurance fund, the smaller the risk pool, the greater the risk. So increasing rates could have the

unintended consequences of actually making the program less solvent.

Reduced program participation would also increase the amount taxpayers are on the hook for in disaster assistance payments. Since FEMA grants, SBA loans, and other disaster assistance are reserved for unmet needs, more uninsured homeowners mean more disaster assistance payouts.

We should be incentivizing people to purchase insurance so they have skin in the game and they will be motivated to take proactive mitigation measures--not pricing them out of insurance so they are forced to rely on taxpayer-funded disaster assistance.

There is no question that we need to reform the National Flood Insurance Program in order to put it on a long-term path towards solvency and sustainability. But, unfortunately, Biggert-Waters forces changes that are far too large and far too fast. It requires FEMA to increase rates dramatically, even before FEMA knows the scope of these changes or how they will impact program participation.

Think about that for a second. We are making dramatic changes in policy which could impact more than 5.5 million policyholders and have ripple effects throughout the housing market in our entire economy before we even know the extent of these changes or their impact.

I have heard from countless New Jerseyans, many who have come to me in tears, who are facing this predicament. These are hardworking middle-class families who played by the rules, purchased flood insurance responsibly, and are now being priced out of their home.

That is why we collectively introduced the Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act that would impose a moratorium on the phaseout of subsidies and grandfathers included in Biggert-Waters for most primary residences until FEMA completes the study--that I offered as an amendment that was included in the legislation--completes the affordability study that was mandated in the law and proposes a regulatory framework to address the issues found in the study.

So we are going ahead with all of these actions and all of these increases without--without--knowing the consequences of that study.

It would also require FEMA to certify in writing that it has implemented a flood mapping approach that utilizes sound scientific and engineering methodologies before certain rate reforms are implemented. We saw this in New Jersey where, in fact, large swaths of communities were put in what we call the V zone, which is the most consequential zone in the opening maps. But when we pressed FEMA and brought information to them, those universes were dramatically reduced.

The difference between being in that V zone and not can mean the difference between being able to continue to own your home or not. So we believe that this legislation is critical.

Why do we come and ask unanimous consent? Why do we ask unanimous consent? Why did we ask unanimous consent? Why will we continue to ask unanimous consent? Because there is an urgency of ``now.'' If we do not act, and we go out of session and we come back next year, unless we get to this early on and make it retroactive, we are going to see the consequences of this take place across the landscape of this country. That is why we have Members from coast to coast; that is why we have Members from the South; that is why we have Members from the Midwest who all understand the consequences of not acting. That is why we have taken the unusual step, on a bipartisan basis, to ask for that unanimous consent request.

For any property sales that occur during this period, the homebuyer would continue to receive the same treatment as the previous owner of the property unless they trigger another provision in Biggert-Waters not covered by my bill.

For prospective homebuyers, the certainty that they will not see their rate dramatically increase simply because they purchased a home is critically important to maintaining property values.

Also, this new legislation would give FEMA more flexibility to complete the affordability study.

It would reimburse qualifying homeowners for successful appeals of erroneous flood map determinations.

It would give communities fair credit for locally funded flood protection systems.

It would continue the fair treatment afforded to communities with floodproof basement exemptions.

It would provide for a FEMA ombudsman to advocate for and provide information to policyholders.

Just as important as what this bill would do, it is also important to note what this bill would not do.

This legislation would not stop the phase out of taxpayer funded subsidies for vacation homes and properties that have been repetitively flooded. It would not encourage new construction in environmentally sensitive or flood-prone areas. And it would not stop most of the important reforms included in Biggert-Waters.

This legislation simply provides temporary relief to a targeted group of property owners who played by the rules and are now poised to see their most valuable asset become worthless, all through no fault of their own.

This bill does not include everything I wanted and I know there were many other ideas that other cosponsors wanted to include. But in order to reach a true consensus, we limited the provisions in this bill to those that had broad, bipartisan support. That is why we are here today--Democrats and Republicans--calling for debate and a vote on this vital piece of legislation.

I must say I am very disappointed to hear objection from the other side of the aisle.

My friend the majority leader has been very gracious to offer us time to debate and vote on this important proposal and we will be back here day after day to try to do that.

Because as I said before, this is not a Republican bill or a Democrat bill--it is not a Republican priority or a Democrat priority. It is a commonsense measure that has broad bipartisan support, exactly the type of support and cooperation the American people are yearning to see from their elected officials.

More importantly, this legislation is critical to the lives of hundreds of thousands of homeowners. We should not let arguments about Senate procedure get in the way of finding solutions to their problems.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 11, 2013, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Rebuilding American Manufacturing.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 11, 2013, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Continued Oversight of U.S. Government Surveillance Authorities.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 11, 2013, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``A More Efficient and Effective Government: Streamlining Overseas Trade and Development Agencies.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 11, 2013, in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 3:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Seniors From Medication Labeling Mistakes.''