Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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.

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to call attention to a critical provision in the Tax Extenders Act, which I wish had received consent because it is important for creating prosperity and economic opportunity in our country and giving certainty to businesses in order to achieve that goal. That Tax Extenders Act provides our Nation's most innovative businesses with some certainty as they plan their investments for next year. Every year the Congress extends a very popular law that provides a tax credit to businesses for certain research expenses. This credit is important for a number of reasons. It creates jobs, it encourages more research, and it bolsters U.S. competitiveness. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of a number of us here in the Congress--notably, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee--this credit is temporary and has been extended on what has been an annual basis. That is unfortunate because the lack of long-term certainty prevents businesses from fully relying on the credit when making their global investment decisions. I know the Presiding Officer understands this very well, as the State of New Jersey has some of the leading innovative companies in the world that very often rely on the research and development tax credit to make those millions and sometimes billions of dollars' worth of investment in order to produce the next lifesaving or life-enhancing drugs or the next technology breakthrough. In the meantime, at the very least, we can ensure the credit is extended. If we can't make it permanent, it should be extended in a timely fashion to give businesses confidence in putting more investment in research in the United States in 2014. This bill would extend the research and development tax credit for another year, and I sincerely hope we will be able to get this done very soon in order to maximize the credit's effectiveness and unlock that investment which creates economic opportunity and jobs and growth in our economy. I yield for my colleague the senior Senator from Ohio to discuss another important provision in this bill.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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.

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the chair of the Budget Committee for her responses. Not-For-Profit Loan Servicing

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. 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.''