Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to raise concerns about this amendment that would constitute a significant change to U.S. foreign and banking policies that should be carefully considered by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the Senate Banking Committee. These provisions have far-reaching foreign policy implications which make their inclusion in this bill unsupportable. According to the State Department, ``Cuba has one of the world's most secretive and non-transparent national banking systems. Cuba has no financial intelligence unit.'' Moreover, according to an October 28 statement by the Financial Action Task Force, FATF, ``Cuba has not committed to the anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism international standards. Cuba has also not constructively engaged with the Task Force, which has identified Cuba as having strategic deficiencies that pose a risk to the international financial system.'' This amendment would allow Cuba--the Banco Nacional de Cuba--to become the only country on the State Department's State-Sponsors of Terrorism list to have direct access to U.S.-based financial institutions. We do not have similar exceptions for Iran, Syria, and Sudan. It is important to understand that under Cuban law the Castro regime has a monopoly on all banking, commerce, and trade. Therefore, this amendment would allow Cuba's totalitarian regime to directly open corresponding accounts in U.S.-based financial institutions. It would allow a country that does not subscribe to basic principles of antimoney laundering and counterterrorism to make direct transfers to U.S. financial institutions! Currently, the Castro regime is required to use a third country European bank to settle its payment for U.S. agricultural products. If there are clearance problems, the U.S. settlement is entitled to protection under the terms of contract with Euroclear--the European clearance and settlement agency. If direct bank transfers are allowed, these transactions would be provided protections from operational risk by the Cuban originator of payment. Also consider the timing of these provisions, these concessions, these gifts to the regime. As American commercial interests buy their way into the Cuban market, an American--Alan Gross--remains a hostage in Cuban prison. His crime? Working with U.S. democracy programs to enhance the ability of the island's small Jewish community to communicate with the world. December 3 will mark 2 years of his unjust imprisonment--2 years that Alan Gross has been a hostage of the Cuban regime. Recent months have also seen a notable crackdown on peaceful democracy activists, like Las Damas de Blanca--the ladies in White who take to walking in the streets every Sunday to protest the political imprisonment of their husbands, brothers, and sons. Last month, the founder of Las Damas de Blanca, Laura Pollan Toledo died, not ever knowing a free Cuba. In March 2003 the he regime arrested her husband, Hector Maseda, an independent journalist, along with 74 others in a protest known as the Black Spring. After a 1-day trial, Hector Maseda was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Laura Pollan Toledo's life, rallying the wives of Cuban dissidents jailed under the iron fist of the repressive Castro regime, gave Cuba hope and she became one of Cuba's most public and most powerful dissidents. She continued her work, as do those who follow in her footsteps, despite intense harassment, beatings and detentions. In one case, in the city of Santiago de Cuba, these ladies were stripped to their waist and dragged through the streets. In another instance they were bitten. Just last week, on November 8, over a dozen Cuban prodemocracy activists were violently arrested for participating in a peaceful public sit-in demanding the release of all political prisoners and an end to the Castro regime's violence against the opposition. Among those arrested were Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez,'' Pastor Alexei Gomez, Rene Quiroga, Jose Angel Abreu, Oscar Veranes Martinez, Maria del Carmen Martinez, Donaida Perez Paseiro, Xiomara Martin Jimenez, Jorge Vazquez Chaviano, Orlando Alfonso Martinez, Enrique Martinez Marin Mayra Conlledo Garcia and Victor Castillo Ortega. The Cuban people, like those struggling for democratic reforms in the Middle East, yearn for the opportunity to control their destinies and provide a vibrant future for their children. The message we should send to such regimes--whether in Cuba or Syria, North Korea or Iran, is that they are pariahs--that their blood money has no place in our economy--that the currency of freedom prevails over the currency of repression. The United States will continue in its mission to support the Cuban people and to promote democracy until the Castro brothers relinquish power and restore the rights and liberties deserved by the Cuban people and by all people. But these provisions don't move us or the Cuban people closer to that goal--and must be rejected. Therefore, along with my colleagues, Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio of Florida, I raise a rule XVI point of order against the pending substitute amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to support the cross-State air pollution rule that protects downwind eastern States such as New Jersey from upwind power pollution plants' dirty air, and I rise in defense of the lives and the breathable air of the people of New Jersey, all 9 million plus. Last week I asked the Governor of my State to join this fight. After all, this rule is supported by the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and our largest utility, because it is good for business. They know it is only fair to level the playing field for New Jersey businesses, since we have already substantially cleaned up our electric generation facilities. We are meeting our obligations. The rule is supported by just about everyone in the public health community because it will save an estimated 1,200 lives per year in New Jersey beginning in 2014. Nationally, it will save up to 34,000 lives, prevent 400,000 asthma attacks, and avoid 1.8 million lost sick days per year starting in 2014. The economic benefits of this rule are estimated to reach anywhere from $120 billion to $280 billion each year. We are all focused like a laser beam on the economy, as we should be, on jobs and their creation, as we should be, on reducing deficits and looking at the bottom line. But this rule does not create or force a choice between trying to grow this economy, creating jobs, and reducing deficits. It is a good rule for the economy. It is a good rule for the health and well-being of Americans, particularly those downwind from the toxic emissions of powerplants. Let's be clear. Corporate coal powerplants enjoy an enormous subsidy that we are trying to repeal with this rule. Those polluters can prematurely end 34,000 lives per year and not have to pay anything for that loss, not have to pay anything for the health care costs of all of those who are afflicted at the end of the day by this dirty air. But yet that cost is borne by all of us at the end of the day. To put 34,000 lives in perspective, that is almost as many American lives as are claimed by breast cancer every year. So I ask my colleagues to join with me and others in voting against the Paul resolution. It is a vote for saving 34,000 lives per year. There are few times in this Chamber where you can actually cast a vote that will save a life. This is one of those moments. Vote for over $120 billion in economic benefits. Vote for cleaner air. Let us bequeath to future generations of Americans not air in our Nation that is dirty but air that is cleaner. Vote for keeping our children healthy. You know, the number of asthma attacks growing in this country is enormous. Certainly in my home State, respiratory ailments are on the rise. The last thing we need to do is to nullify the ability to create cleaner air at the end of the day. It is time for us to all see this as an opportunity to ultimately make a difference. It is a time for us all to see this disapproval resolution for what it is, a path for polluting industries that make us sick without paying for the cost it creates. To me, that is the ultimate corporate welfare. Let us join together in defeating this short-sighted resolution. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from California, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this Friday we will celebrate Veterans Day, and this year we will also be celebrating Military Families Month. It is time to recommit ourselves to helping every military family, as the First Lady and Dr. Biden are doing with a program called Joining Forces to address the unique needs of those who serve and the needs of their families. We as a Congress and as a nation need to do exactly that. We need to reach across the aisle. We need to put aside our differences and join forces. We need to help businesses help veterans and their spouses build careers. We need to make sure schools are doing all they can to help military children. We need to promote community involvement by asking all of us to do what we can to help military families in our local communities. But there is more we can and should do to honor our heroes. Honoring our heroes means providing jobs and job training and every job opportunity possible to unemployed veterans in my State of New Jersey, where we have over 450,000 veterans, 12 percent of them unemployed. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. Every year, 160,000 Active-Duty servicemembers and 110,000 National Guardsmen and reservists come home. When they transition to civilian life and are looking for options to get back to work at home, they need to know that someone will be there to help them, that businesses will help them to start new careers or continue where they left off. We should be giving businesses a tax credit for hiring a returning veteran and giving them more of a tax credit if they hire a wounded veteran. I would like to see American businesses pledge to hire 100,000 veterans or their spouses by the end of next year. I don't think that is asking too much. I hope my colleagues don't think that is too much either. I don't think it is too much to ask Congress-- both parties, without the politics, in a bipartisan effort--to honor our veterans by passing a veterans jobs bill the President can sign into law. As we approach Veterans Day, as our last troops come home from Iraq, as our military presence around the world enters a post-Iraq era, we need to commit ourselves as a nation to helping every one of our men and women in uniform, particularly in these hard economic times. This year, with the unemployment rate for veterans at almost 12 percent nationally, as it is in New Jersey, with nearly 1 million unemployed veterans nationwide, I would hope we can find bipartisan support for something we should all be able to agree on; that is, jobs for veterans. That is the VOW to Hire Veterans Act. Veterans cannot and should not have to wait for the help they deserve. No delays, no filibusters, no politics--just a bill for the President to sign and help for our Nation's veterans now. To me, that is about fairness and it is about keeping our promise to our veterans. I think we can always do better for our veterans and their families, and every veteran deserves better. Our duty to them is not just remembering their service. It is not just saying ``thank you'' once or twice a year on Veterans Day or Memorial Day--and we certainly should march in a Veterans Day parade or go to a Memorial Day observance. We should do those things. This is also about delivering on the promise of a grateful nation every day. It means providing the health care and services veterans need when they come home and helping them transition back into the workforce. Our brave men and women did not wait to sign up to serve their country, and they should not have to wait to get the benefits they earned defending it. They should not have to come home only to stand on the unemployment line after putting themselves on the line serving their Nation. That is why I am proud to have cosponsored a good, solid, bipartisan jobs package to help our military men and women transition from their work defending our Nation's freedoms to civilian work rebuilding our Nation's economy. It would ensure that disabled veterans who have exhausted their unemployment benefits get the training and rehabilitation they need, the counseling they need, the vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits they need, and job assistance tailored to a 21st-century job market. It establishes a competitive grant program for nonprofits that provide mentoring and training programs for veterans. It allows employers to be paid for providing on-the-job training to veterans. It would provide returning heroes and wounded warriors work opportunity tax credits for businesses that hire veterans and more for businesses that hire disabled veterans. The credit for unemployed veterans expired at the end of 2010. This provision is essentially a work opportunity tax credit for hiring vets, a credit up to $2,400 for short-term unemployed and up to $5,600 for long-term unemployed and an increased credit of up to $9,600 for hiring unemployed wounded veterans. I fully support and believe in this bill. We made a promise to veterans, and it is a promise we must keep. So while I believe reducing the deficit is a critical issue, we cannot and should not balance the budget on the backs of those who have served. Veterans are not bankrupting America, they are protecting it. It is not veterans programs, health care, or services that should be cut. I said it before, and I will say it again: A grateful nation not only honors its heroes once a year on Veterans Day or Memorial Day, but it better be able to look every veteran in the eye when he or she comes home from service and say: We meant what we said, and we will keep our promise. We must be prepared to deliver on that promise. I certainly am. I come to this Chamber on behalf of every New Jerseyan to say to every man and woman who has served in uniform and to the more than 450,000 veterans in my home State of New Jersey that we will keep working for fairness for every veteran and their family. There will always be political obstacles in our way, but we will fight the good fight to keep our promise to you, as you have served us. Be assured that you have the respect and thanks of a grateful nation for the sacrifices you and your families have made. To me, that thanks is ultimately demonstrated not by what we say but by how we act. May God bless our troops, and may this opportunity be an example of our willingness to come together on behalf of those who wear the uniform and serve the Nation and have the gratitude of a grateful country. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak about a different type of football. It seems to be a political football that some of our colleagues are playing on the question of getting America back to work again. I am amazed at the political posturing we have seen this year. I know for some of our colleagues on the other side, this election cycle has been driven by tea party economics that demand political purity over good governance. They have said no to just about everything. The problem with no to everything is that no doesn't create a job, no doesn't build an economy, no doesn't create prosperity, no doesn't get America moving again. They have said no to every different venture we have had to try to put America back to work. Certainly, back in my home State of New Jersey, what I hear from the average citizen is: Senator, help me get back to work. Because I have New Jerseyans who come up to me, sometimes with tears in their eyes, and say: This is the first time in my life I have been unemployed. While that has created a significant economic consequence to them and their family, it has shaken something even more profound, which is that social contract, that promise in America that if I prepare myself, work hard and sacrifice, I get ahead, and my children will do better than I did growing up. That has been shaken to the core by the economic challenges we inherited as a result of the crisis of 2008 and that we have been working out of. So I have a problem when, every time we come to the floor to offer an opportunity to get those New Jerseyans, to get those Americans back to work, all I hear is no. They say no, refusing to invest in rebuilding our infrastructure, to creating jobs, to keeping us competitive in a global economy. They know roads and highways and bridges in their States--in every State--are in critical need of improvement, and yet we have to come here time and time again, day after day, to fight back a politically charged, ideologically fueled opposition that says one thing but does another. The fact is, even those who oppose this legislation for political reasons know good governance means investing in our future. It means putting Americans back to work. In an economy in which 70 percent of GDP is consumer demand, if there is no job, there is no money, and if there is no money, there is no demand. So in addition to the lives of New Jerseyans and Americans which we could positively affect, this is about our global picture in terms of our economy. It means also keeping us competitive in this global economy. Let me talk about that global economy for a moment because we are in it. We see what happens in Europe, and we see how we are affected here at home with our markets and whatnot. But let's look at a different place. Let's look at China. Let's look at the competition. According to China's 5-year plan, they have a range of investment priorities for the future: clean energy technology; biotechnology, including pharmaceutical and vaccine production; high-tech equipment for manufacturing airplanes; a new space program and satellites. In fact, this week they launched a satellite, the first step toward a Chinese space station by the end of the decade. China is planning more high-speed rail, next generation powerplants and manufacturing facilities, new nuclear, solar, and wind energy technologies. The plan calls for building new energy-efficient cars and adding 9,000 kilometers to their highway system, expanding their national high-speed rail system to 45,000 kilometers, and building light rail systems in 21 urban metropolitan areas. They are planning 6 new heavy material ports, adding 440 new 10,000- ton shipping berths; a second Beijing airport; and 11 regional airports. This is some pretty stiff competition that will allow Chinese businesses to thrive. This is the challenge we have. Yes, we have a debt question in our country, and we must meet that challenge. There is no question we should and we can and we must. But by the same token, we need to grow this economy as part of meeting that challenge, an economy that was on the brink of ruin when this administration inherited it, an economy that--I will never forget that famous meeting or infamous meeting in September of 2008 that was called by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve that members of the Banking Committee and others were called to. I remember going to it and listening to him describe a series of financial institutions that were on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse and in doing so would have created systemic risk to the entire country's economy and being on the verge not of the great recession we talked about but a new depression. That is what we have been working out of. But even in this economy, we have to make investments and build for a competitive future. We invest just 2 percent of our gross domestic product on infrastructure projects. Europe and China invest between 5 and 9 percent, respectively. The President today called on Congress to up the ante. The American Jobs Act would invest $50 billion in our transportation infrastructure and $10 billion in a national infrastructure bank, putting hundreds of thousands of construction workers back on the job. But it is not just the construction workers. Certainly, we want to get them back to work. It is all the architectural firms, all the engineering firms, all the people who work at those firms who will help build this infrastructure. It is all the suppliers for all the materials that will be needed to do this and everybody who produces those supplies and everybody who transports it and everybody who installs it. So it is an enormous ripple effect in getting our people back to work--hundreds of thousands waiting to work, working for America's future. Clearly, opposition to the Rebuild America Jobs Act is not about good governance because we have ways and we have offered ways to pay for this fully. It is about politics. It is about playing political games. But it is playing political games with the lives and livelihoods of American families. While China is planning major investments in retooling for their new economy, we cannot even seem to agree to fix our own roads. It is akin to the story of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, except American families and businesses are the ones who are going to get burned in this story. The President today released a report that highlights the importance of rebuilding our roads and bridges and railways and airports and has cited important projects around the country. They include over 17,000 jobs in New Jersey that would put people to work making our future brighter. One of the projects the President's report highlights as an example of success is in New Jersey: the Route 52 causeway bridge replacement between Somers Point and Ocean City in Atlantic and Cape May Counties. This is a critical emergency evacuation route for Ocean City during floods and hurricanes. The new bridge eliminates the need to raise the drawbridge at the old section that is still being replaced. This is a critical $400 million project that is an investment in New Jersey, in our community, in our infrastructure that will upgrade an old bridge to meet today's needs, protect the community, and put people to work. We can make these investments and still find ways to responsibly reduce the deficit. An investment is not even just about new projects, of course. It is about maintaining the very infrastructure we have already spent money on in the past that we need to preserve for future use. Thirty-six percent of New Jersey's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Seventy-eight percent of New Jersey's major roads are listed in poor or mediocre condition. Sixty-four percent of New Jersey highways are chronically congested because of a 29-percent increase in vehicle travel on New Jersey's highways from 1990 to 2007. All of that, and we already have $13 billion worth of maintenance projects on hold because we do not have the money to pay for them. Those are just numbers in one respect, but those numbers are about lives. Because when we have infrastructure--major roads, major highways--that are in bad condition, it means we are sitting more time in traffic and less time being productive at work or having more quality time with our families. It means businesses that have a product they need to get to the marketplace are going over an infrastructure that means it takes more time. It takes longer to get that product to market. It has consequences. It adds to the costs. It creates an uncompetitive set of circumstances. It is about the quality of our lives and our economy at the same time. That $13 billion is not to add even any capacity to New Jersey's transportation system. It is just to keep the status quo. As I have said for quite some time, as we have attempted, with my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, to build a new Trans-Hudson Passenger Rail Tunnel, which is critically needed in that region--and we have learned since September 11 that multiple modes of transportation are incredibly important so that, God forbid, if we have a tragedy again--we learned on that day, when all the bridges were closed and all the tunnels were closed that ferries brought people out of downtown Manhattan to New Jersey, ultimately, to be taken to hospitals--multiple modes of transportation and options are critical for our economy. They are also critical for our security. Yet we cannot even keep up-to-date that which we have, much less create a new Trans-Hudson tunnel that would open the entire region with its economic opportunities. We cannot grow if we are stuck. In that region, as in many regions of the country, we are stuck. We can begin the long-overdue process of maintaining, rehabilitating, and replacing if we pass this legislation. We can do it if we act together as a nation, as we did in 1956. In 1956, it was a Republican administration that created the Interstate Highway System, and now we cannot seem to get one Republican to vote to maintain that system. In 2011, we cannot get one Republican to vote to help keep us competitive and put Americans back to work. We need our Republican colleagues in Congress to end the roadblock and fix the roads. They need to vote yes to providing every State with the resources they need to repair and rebuild aging roads and bridges and put people back to work. Think of the jobs we could create nationwide if we publicly committed to investing enough to keep up and stay competitive with the Chinas of the world. Even if China is able to meet only a fraction of its ambitious goals, it will be far beyond the course we are presently on. In 1956--I want to go back to that history--under a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, Congress passed the Federal Aid Highway Act. It took 35 years, but we committed this Nation to building 46,876 miles of highway--one of the largest public works projects at that time in the Nation's history. Why? Because a young Army officer, Dwight Eisenhower, saw the need. He drove across the country in an Army convoy that left Washington on July 7, 1919, went to Gettysburg, and took the old Lincoln Highway to San Francisco. On the journey, bridges cracked and had to be rebuilt, vehicles got stuck in the mud, equipment broke, and they did not arrive on the west coast--they left on July 7-- they did not arrive on the west coast until September 6--a 2-month journey that gave birth to the American Interstate Highway System. Let's not be so shortsighted that we will turn back the clock to the days of the old Lincoln Highway. I understand the need to reduce our deficit, and these provisions I have talked about that I support are paid for. But I do not understand the blind commitment to doing nothing, refusing to invest in our future and create American jobs in the process and calling it good governance. Good governance is what President Eisenhower did when he signed the Federal Highway Act into law. Now it is up to us to invest in maintaining it. Let's be honest with ourselves about the fact that good governance means investing in our Nation, in our people, in our progress, in our prosperity, in our future. Investing in our infrastructure is an investment in our country and in our future. Let's put today's ideologically driven politics aside and recall the practical Republican politics of President Eisenhower who saw a national need and had the will and the wisdom to put the Nation to work to build it. So I ask my colleagues: Where is the Grand Old Republican Party that united America behind an interstate highway system and put government and people to work to make it happen? If we put aside the ideological posturing, if we put aside the suggestion I have heard many times that the major goal is--by some of our Republican colleagues--to make Barack Obama a one-term President and then, ultimately, use both the filibuster to stop progress in the Senate and/or use a constant ``no'' vote to stop progress for the Nation under the guise that is the way President Obama will fail--the problem with that is, that is, at the end of the day, in my mind, not about President Obama failing, that is about the Nation failing at one of the most critical times in our country's history and one of the most critical times in our economy. If we can put aside the ideological posturing, if we can put aside the political strategy and gamesmanship, if we are honest with ourselves about what good governance means and what it means to American families to invest in creating jobs and keeping us globally competitive so that we can continue to grow that economy and create other jobs for individuals that will help them realize their hopes and dreams and aspirations, that will help them contribute to the Nation, that will create new revenues that will be part of meeting our debt challenge, we would pass this legislation and make it happen. That is the opportunity before the Senate. It is one I hope our colleagues will grasp. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise me when 30 seconds has passed by. The Menendez-Isakson amendment would temporarily restore conforming loan limits to the level that existed under the law as of September 30 but expired. The drop in loan limits has reduced consumer credit in 669 counties across 42 States. The amendment as we have drafted it will save taxpayers $11 million over 10 years, including $2 million in fiscal year 2012, according to the CBO, by creating a premium that borrowers have to pay as a result of getting the loan, therefore putting the risk on the borrower, not the taxpayer. If we want to get our economy moving, the housing market has to be part of it. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, just very briefly, I thank my colleague from Maryland and the bill manager. I hope we will get to a point where we can cast a vote on this. I appreciate Senator Isakson joining me and others in this effort, and particularly his expertise. If we listen to voices of reason as well as experience here, then Senator Isakson's arguments should be a winner. I look forward to hopefully having a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let me speak to this amendment. I offer this amendment along with my distinguished colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, to temporarily restore the conforming loan limits that expired--the loan limits we had under the law that created the opportunity to loan at these levels--on September 30 of this year. In past years, extending these loan limits has usually occurred on the THUD appropriations bills. As the chair of the Subcommittee on Housing, I can tell you that getting our housing market moving again is one of the most important tasks facing our country today because if we do not get that weak housing market moving again, we will not get the kind of robust economic recovery that the American people deserve. Historically, whenever we have been in the midst of an economic challenge or a recession, housing has been part of what has led us out of that recession. Congress could be doing a great deal to get the housing market moving again. But perhaps the first rule we should follow is: Do no harm. Do no harm. But at this point, Congress, in my view, is doing harm to the housing market and to our economic recovery by allowing the higher loan limits to expire. With this bipartisan amendment, we could easily correct this problem. The lower loan limits of the Federal Housing Administration, government-sponsored enterprises, and Veterans Administration have already resulted in a reduction of consumer credit in 669 counties across 42 States in our country. The expiration is making a weak housing market even weaker. It also makes it harder for middle-class home buyers to get mortgages when credit is already tight. And every day that passes is another day in which creditworthy borrowers are not getting loans or are having to pay much higher rates that could price them out of the market, and those loans are not going to come back. I recently chaired a Housing Subcommittee hearing on a different topic, where the witnesses were not chosen for their views on a particular issue. They represented an entire cross section of all of the interested stakeholders in the housing field, including those who were submitted to us by our Republican colleagues to consider as witnesses. And there were several. Eight of the nine bipartisan witnesses who testified in the hearing agreed that the conforming loan limits should be temporarily extended to boost the housing market, and that now is not the right time to let them expire. One of the witnesses, Dr. Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, urged that the limits be extended for ``at least'' another year. That is a reversal of Dr. Zandi's position from earlier this year, when he had supported the expiration. He said at the hearing that the markets remain too fragile and that allowing the limits to expire would be ``an error.'' A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that ``virtually no''--no--``jumbo mortgages are being securitized'' today. In other words, in an ideal world, the private sector would fill this gap in home mortgages, but the reality is that economic conditions right now are not allowing for that. It certainly has not taken place. And in terms of cost, our amendment will actually save $11 million over the next 10 years, and $2 million in fiscal year 2012 according to CBO. It is more than fully paid for in a fair way by creating a ``premium loan fee'' of 15 basis points per year that would apply only--only--to the affected loans. This makes sense because the people benefiting from the loans would be directly responsible for paying the costs of those loans so taxpayers are made whole and no other home buyers would pay. And, as I say, it saves $11 million over the next 10 years. Additionally, the amendment will likely help increase returns to taxpayers because FHA audits for the past decade have stated that the larger loans actually perform better and default at significantly lower rates than smaller loans, so allowing the larger loans could actually improve returns to taxpayers. Finally, I thank the cosponsors of a very similar bipartisan bill-- similar to the very essence of what we are trying to do in this amendment--that Senator Isakson and I have introduced, the Homeownership Affordability Act: Senators Akaka, Begich, Blumenthal, Boxer, Scott Brown, Cardin, Chambliss, Coons, Feinstein, Inouye, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Merkley, Mikulski, Bill Nelson, and Schumer. I wish to thank the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Homebuilders, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and all the other groups that have advocated support for this effort. This is an important tool that we can use to boost our housing market and economic recovery at no cost to the taxpayers. I see my distinguished colleague Senator Isakson on the floor, and I certainly would invite him, as a cosponsor of this amendment--someone who has a long history in the private sector, before he came to the Congress, on the whole question of real estate--I would be happy to yield to him at this time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I believe we have cleared with the two distinguished Senators who are managing the bill this unanimous consent request, which is to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 857.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise as the lead sponsor of the Teachers/First Responders Back to Work Act. I rise in favor of jobs, in favor of teachers, in favor of police officers and firefighters, keeping our communities safe, and the promise we made to first responders after September 11. We have a choice. I listened to the distinguished Republican leader, but it is interesting how history can be viewed through different lenses. What I failed to hear were the challenges this President and this country inherited from 8 years of policies that led us, in 2008, to the verge not of the great recession we had been referring to but on the verge of a new depression, where the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the former Secretary of the Treasury, under President Bush, came before Members of Congress and said: We have a series of financial institutions on the verge of collapse, and if they collapse, it will create systemic risk to the entire country's economy, and every American will feel the consequences of that. The result of that 8 years of largely unregulated process created excesses where large entities made decisions that ultimately became the collective responsibility of everybody in this country because a failure to have met those responsibilities would have meant a collapse of this country. Now, there are those in the Senate who are advocating we go back to those very policies. They talk about stopping each and every regulation. Those regulations ultimately--the lack of it and the lack of enforcement of it is what gave us the excesses we had. Additionally, we had the two wars abroad, which are totally unpaid for, and fiscal responsibility went out the window there. Tax cuts were totally unpaid for, and fiscal responsibility went out the window there. The culmination of all of that brought us to January of 2009, when the new President took office and had already inherited millions of jobs that had been lost prior to then. Around 7.5 percent unemployment was the starting point already. In the first quarter of 2009, before he could even do anything--he took the oath of office in late January, swore in a cabinet in February, and sent a plan up in March--another 2 million jobs were lost. I find it interesting how we forget all of that, at least as a starting point. We have had 19 months of private sector growth--a little over 2 million jobs. That is good news. But where we have been shedding many jobs is in the very essence of those in the public sector who teach our children, who prepare for the next generation and the competitive future of America, and who protect our communities--police officers, who protect us from crime, and firefighters, who respond when there is an emergency in our communities. With the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, we can fulfill our duty to educate our children and keep our communities safe or we can gamble our future on the political games we have seen here that disinvest in the future of our children and the safety of our communities. Almost 300,000 education jobs are on the chopping block this year in this country. At a time when other countries in the world are increasing their educational workforce, we are in the process of decreasing it. New Jersey, my home State, is facing a $10.5 billion shortfall in its 2012 budget. That means more cuts in State and local spending for education, and that hurts our children. The Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act creates 400,000 education jobs because an investment in our teachers is an investment in our children and in our collective future. We are talking about $30 billion to States and local communities to retain, to hire, to rehire the teachers who have already been separated, to educate tomorrow's entrepreneurs. In my State of New Jersey, this bill would provide an additional $831 million in funds to support an additional 9,300 education jobs that largely have been lost. New Jersey alone has lost over 6,000 teachers since 2008, slowing our economic recovery and creating a huge knowledge gap in our schools. What does that gap translate into in terms of lost knowledge? What does it mean to a promising young scientist who needs some guidance or a struggling student who needs a little extra help? I know about the power of a teacher. I know it through my own personal life. I have had several great teachers along the way, but one made a huge difference in my life. I remember her name--Gail Harper, my speech teacher in high school. You know, I know some of my colleagues won't believe this, but I was among the most introverted persons at that time in my life. I didn't even want to take the speech course, but I was told by my guidance counselors that it was a must. I was a good student, an honor student, but I didn't want to take the speech course because I didn't want to do extemporaneous speaking, read assignments, or get up in front of the class, any of that. I was forced to take it. I would prepare my work, but I would not deliver it. Finally, Gail Harper, the teacher, said to me--she kept me after class, and she said: Robert, I don't know why you prepare yourself-- your preparation is great, but if you don't deliver this year, you will fail. My mother, who had fled a country to come to freedom, was convinced that I would be the first in my family to go to college. She told me that failure is not an option. When I heard Gail Harper talk about failure, I knew that was not an option. She worked with me to nurture my abilities so that I could break out of that self-imposed shell and really transform my life. In some respects, that I am here today speaking on the Senate floor is because of Gail Harper. I fully understand how teachers can make a huge difference in the life of a young person. We need to reinvest in teachers and education, in New Jersey's kids and in America's future. We need to get those 6,000 New Jersey teachers back in the classrooms and hire thousands more in every school in every State in America. Then I turn to the police and firefighters, and I remember living in the New Jersey-New York region on September 11 a little over a decade ago. On that fateful day, it was not the Federal Government that responded to the tragedies and the horror of the World Trade Center; it was local police, local firefighters, local emergency management who were the first responders, who risked their lives and gave their lives on that fateful day. We made a promise to every community that we would keep communities safe in America in a post-September 11 world, that we would give cops and firefighters what they needed to do their jobs. Every Member of Congress wanted to take a picture with a police officer or a firefighter. We called them heroes. Now, Republicans want to zero out the COPS Program that puts police officers on the beat. They want to break our promises after September 11, and I think it is time to make good on it with the $5 billion our legislation provides so communities can hire and keep cops and firefighters on the job. They are our first line of defense. We learned that after September 11. I don't care where one is on the political spectrum or what one believes the role of government is, we can all agree public safety and the security of our communities is government's most fundamental responsibility. We don't need police and firefighters just in the big cities--although they face some of the major challenges--we need them in every town and community. Over 2,700 communities applied for help to fund 9,000 officers in the last round for a total of $2 billion. But because of the opposition of those on the Republican side to keeping our promise to first responders, only $243 million was available, enough for only 238 of 2,700 communities that applied. That is 9 percent, and it was capped at 25 officers, no matter how big the city or how great the need. In New Jersey, more than 150 communities applied for funding to keep cops on the job. Only 12 of those 150 were funded. Those 12 communities were only able to hire approximately 78 cops over the course of the next 3 years. Right now, in New Jersey, there are 705 police officers who lost their jobs and can't find law enforcement work, 705 fewer sworn officers on the street, and there are 4,000 fewer officers in New Jersey than there were on December 31, 2009. Public safety is government's No. 1 responsibility, and it is time to deliver on that promise, after September 11, to our communities and our first responders. This legislation includes $5 billion to help first responders stay on the job, close the public safety gap, and keep our communities safe. Let me conclude by saying, according to a CNN poll released just yesterday afternoon, 75 percent of Americans support providing funding to State and local governments to hire teachers and first responders, including 63 percent of Republicans. We have a choice. With this legislation, we can fulfill our duty to educate our kids and keep our communities safe or we can gamble our future on political games that don't invest in our children, our economy, and the safety of our communities. I think the choice is clear. I choose educating our kids. I choose protecting our communities. I choose investing in our future and we do this all and pay for it at the same time. This is the beginning of a fight, and we will be back again and again to force our friends on the other side to make the choice again and again about whose side they are on. I think the choices are pretty clear. The American people have spoken. It is time to get our teachers and our first responders back to work. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I know we will soon be voting on these trade agreements, but I have an issue that I think has immediacy in nature and needs to be brought up now. It is something I have been pursuing for some time. We have heard FBI evidence of an alleged plot by Iran and its elite Quds Force to assassinate a foreign diplomat on U.S. soil--an extraordinary act of international terrorism that demands, at a minimum, immediate enactment of the most robust sanctions against Iran possible. Were it not for the vigilance of the American intelligence community, the FBI, and all our law enforcement and intelligence agencies working together, this plot could have not only taken the life of Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United States but potentially hundreds of innocent Americans here in Washington. Think of the Machiavellianism of taking out the Saudi Ambassador at a downtown Washington restaurant and what that would mean in terms of lives lost and the inevitable response it would provoke from the Saudis and from the United States. In the coming weeks, we will hear the exact details of this incredible plot and the extent of the involvement of members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. We know the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is at the highest levels of the Iranian Government. That is why I specifically targeted the Revolutionary Guard in the Iran sanctions legislation that is now law. The new legislation I call on my colleagues to support and which now has 76 bipartisan cosponsors will consolidate our original sanctions law. Iran's actions demand that we move this legislation in the Congress as we simultaneously go to the United Nations, to the international community, and bring to bear whatever pressure we can to convince the Chinese and the Russians to agree to tighter sanctions against Iran. The fact is--clearly--we must do all we can to end Iran's exportation of terrorism, which has already taken lives around the globe from Lebanon to Argentina, is responsible for attacks on coalition forces in Iraq, our own soldiers in Iraq, and now threatens innocent Americans in our Nation's Capital. I, for one, am not shocked at the revelations we have heard in the last 24 hours. I have known what this regime is capable of, what it intends, and what it will do to achieve its goals. The time has come for this Congress to take the first step in responding to this egregious plot to conduct an assassination in a downtown Washington restaurant. Since I took Federal office in 1993, then in the House of Representatives, I have raised, for some time, this issue of Iran and its ambitions. I have vociferously and passionately advocated my concern on behalf of the Jewish people in the State of Israel to protect them from the threat of a radical Iranian regime. Now that threat has been directed here, toward American soil, where even American citizens could have died in a plot that defies the imagination in its brashness, boldness, and irrationality. What specifically do we do? Our first act must be to immediately respond with tougher sanctions that isolate Iran politically and economically--sanctions that will freeze the assets of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps members and allies and shut down the IRGC's sources of revenue, expedite the imposition of sanctions, force companies to decide whether they want to do business with the United States or Iran, and ensure that the United States is an Iranian oil- free zone by banning imports of refined petroleum made with Iranian crude. To that end, along with Senators Lieberman, Kyl, Gillibrand, Casey, Kirk, and Collins, we have introduced in the Senate the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidation Act of 2011. It is a bill which recognizes that if Iran's principal goal is to acquire weapons of mass destruction and apparently conduct brazen attacks on American soil against international officials, then it must be the policy of the United States to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring the capability to threaten its neighbors and to threaten nations around the world. The time has come to take that first step and move this legislation. This legislation closes the remaining loopholes in our sanctions policy. In essence, it is perfecting the sanctions policy we helped pass in the Senate. It insists on a comprehensive diplomatic initiative within the United Nations to qualitatively expand the U.N. Security Council sanctions regime against Iran so Iran cannot find a financial safe harbor or a willing partner anywhere in the world. It imposes immigration restrictions on senior officials from Iran, North Korea and Syria and their associates who seek to enter our country, and it complements those sanctions by reaching out to the Iranian people-- facilitating democracy assistance and developing a comprehensive strategy to promote Internet freedom and access to information inside Iran. These sanctions will help deter the threat Iran poses to U.S. national security because of its suspected nuclear weapons program and will have an impact on Iran's ability, through the Revolutionary Guard and its intelligence arm, to carry out another plot such as the one we have uncovered. What have we learned in the last 24 hours? We have learned that the Iranian regime is a growing threat not only to its neighbors, not only to the region, but to the world, and potentially to our own homeland. We have learned it is in the interest of the world to apply maximum pressure to the Iranian regime. We have learned we must tighten the screws on the Iranian regime to genuinely advance the cause of stability and peace in the Middle East and, clearly, around the world. These sanctions are an essential means to that end. We need the ban on trade with Iran to be strong, significant and, as humanly possible, airtight--a ban that does not have Americans subsidizing the very regime that seeks to harm us by purchasing gasoline and diesel that are made of Iranian crude. Iran's actions have made it a rogue nation that must be dealt with in the strongest terms. We cannot wait for another plot such as this to be uncovered. We cannot take the chance that the next one will not be uncovered. Passing the new sanctions I have proposed with, as I said, 76 of our colleagues here is a start, and we cannot, as a nation, falter. The time to act is now. I applaud the White House for its quick action this week in imposing new sanctions against the people responsible for the planned attack on the Saudi Ambassador and other targets in Washington. I appreciate the administration's effort to implement and multilateralize sanctions on Iran. This administration has done more to isolate Iran than any prior administration, Republican or Democratic, including their quick response this week designating individuals involved in the plot as well as today's sanction of Iran's Mahan Air. The news this week, however, has confirmed our worst fears that Iran will not hesitate to advance its interests regardless of the political cost. Iran, given its history of exporting terrorism against coalition forces in Iraq, in places such as Argentina, in Lebanon--and its continued drive to advance its nuclear weapons program, despite being slowed by U.S. and international sanctions--clearly, with the alleged plot uncovered this week, remains undeterred. It is time to take the next steps--to isolate Iran politically and financially. We must enact sanctions now, to exert the unyielding pressure of the U.S. Government against the Iranian regime, and bring to bear the condemnation of the international community so that the regime fully understands the world will not tolerate such actions if carried out. These sanctions will prevent us from having to face that situation in the future. They are in our national security interest. They are in the interest of Iran's neighbors, in the interest of the region, and they are in the interest of the security of every nation that wishes to be secure in its borders, safe from the terrorist acts of a rogue state. That is what is at stake. That is why I look forward to a hearing we will be having tomorrow in the Banking Committee on the effect of the sanctions legislation we already have. I believe that hearing will deduce testimony that clearly shows that because of the sanctions legislation we already passed in the Congress, signed by the President that, in fact, we have made a significant dent in Iran's commercial activities. But it has not ceased or desisted from its march to nuclear weaponry. And, obviously, by this latest plot, it has not ceased or desisted from its willingness, even on U.S. soil, to carry out such an assassination. Therefore, the time to act is now. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the lack of diversity in our Nation's radio and television media ownership is a far cry from the reality in which we live. Multilingual and multicultural stations are critical to the fabric of communities all across this country, yet their access to the airwaves increasingly has been disappearing. It is clearly in the best interest of our democracy that media ownership reflects the wealth of this Nation's diversity. That is why today I pause to applaud Clear Channel and Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, MMTC, for their efforts to expand the diversity in media ownership with their recent partnership. Clear Channel has donated six radio stations to MMTC to use for training purposes and ultimately for sale to minority and women broadcasters. I am pleased to say that one of these stations is in my home State of New Jersey. Through this program, ``Radio Vision Cristiana,'' a minority broadcast company, has purchased WTOC, based in Newton, NJ, and will use the station to broadcast Hispanic religious programming. Diversity in media ownership enhances diverse perspectives and better serves the community as a whole. It provides a window into communities, into languages, views, and values that might otherwise be totally suppressed without those outlets. So I am pleased to acknowledge the partnership between Clear Channel and MMTC to furthering this goal, and I only hope that this deal will encourage others to donate stations so that the American airwaves can one day reflect the diverse makeup of the country's people.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to announce the introduction of the Livable Communities Act of 2011. The Livable Communities Act presents an opportunity to save taxpayer dollars, reduce household expenditures, improve partnerships, and help local communities create places of lasting value, where businesses want to invest and families want to live. It will strengthen rural, suburban, and urban communities by supporting local planning efforts to establish a vision for a desired future and chart a realistic course for getting there. The bill promotes local leadership by encouraging communities to partner strategically to develop solutions that are innovative and reflect their unique character, assets, and needs. It also directs public agencies to use taxpayer dollars more efficiently by coordinating investments in infrastructure, facilities, and services to meet multiple economic, environmental, and community objectives. This bill is the next important step in transforming the Federal Government into a better partner in community efforts to achieve locally-defined goals, support families when they need it most, and keep the U.S. competitive in the global economy. Dealing with change can be a real challenge--in our professional and personal lives, with our families, and in our communities. But change is an opportunity to move forward, if only we are open to recognizing it. We can accept and manage change or we can be steam-rolled by it. I have heard horror stories from across the country about veterans hospitals being built in places that are not accessible by public transportation. I have heard of homebuyers who ``drive to qualify'' for mortgage financing only to rack up transportation costs that break their budgets when gas prices go up. Many of these families are paying 50 percent of their household income on housing and transportation costs alone. It may seem cheaper and easier in the short term to build on a corn field outside of town than it is to re-use land located close to existing transportation, power, and water infrastructure, but it often does not make sense in the long run. This is why I welcomed the opportunity to work with Chairman Dodd on the Livable Communities Act in 2009 and why I am honored to be the leading sponsor of the updated legislation today. It is the most comprehensive piece of planning legislation that has been proposed in decades. If passed, it will have a transformative impact on the way the federal government supports locally-driven planning processes. Unfortunately, when many on the other side of the aisle hear the word ``livable,'' they cringe. They think of top-down mandates from the Federal Government. What they fail to understand is that the beauty of what is ``livable'' is defined by the communities themselves to reflect the unique character, assets, and needs of that community. The fact is the private sector wants to be located in communities that have dependable transportation systems to get their goods to market and their workers to their jobs. Businesses want to attract and retain workers and ensure that their enterprise will be viable in the long run. Private enterprise has spearheaded some of the most notable past and current planning efforts and the Federal Government should be a supportive, versatile partner in this work. I invited bipartisan cooperation on the bill numerous times and although some offices quietly praise the good work going on in their communities, political pressure prevents them from doing so publicly. We remain optimistic that supporting community efforts to proactively plan for the future and save money by coordinating capital investment strategies are values we all support, regardless of the terminology we use to describe them. The Livable Communities Act of 2011 is a streamlined approach that would keep the good work at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development going. Its intent is to find better ways to coordinate interconnected but often silo-ed programs and policies that impact housing, transportation, and the environment and affect the way we live our daily lives. The bill would formally authorize the existing HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, to work with the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency, to provide technical assistance and capacity support to communities working on integrated planning for housing, transportation, water and sewer infrastructure needs. These tools help communities develop projects that support job creation, leverage significant private sector investment, and bolster long-term economic resilience by creating places where businesses want to invest. Increased coordination at the regional and Federal level will cut red tape and save communities money as they plan for their future needs. The bill also directs the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities to provide best practices and technical assistance to ensure that communities of all sizes learn from each other's success. The Livable Communities Act of 2011 also directs HUD to coordinate with DOT and EPA to identify and eliminate Federal barriers to sustainable development. The Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities will coordinate Federal sustainable development policies and research agendas to facilitate Federal collaboration by streamlining and reconciling program requirements and policies. It will also administer grant programs to support local planning for long-term housing and infrastructure needs. This will enable communities to foster economic development in an efficient and inclusive way. Selection criteria and eligible activities would be flexible to allow all sizes and types of communities to plan for a more sustainable future, including job creation; revitalizing existing small town Main Streets; reducing traffic congestion and pollution; protecting farmland, working landscapes, and green space; addressing vacant, abandoned, and foreclosed properties; and building more affordable and healthy housing. The bill would also spur private investment in transit-oriented development, TOD, by helping communities overcome initial financing hurdles that so often lock up private investment and prevent desired transit-oriented, mixed-use development. Locally directed TOD provides numerous economic benefits, including increased property values and business activity as well as congestion reduction. TOD also promotes economic competitiveness by efficiently connecting our work force to educational and employment opportunities. This creates avenues for business growth in communities across the country and keeps America competitive in the global economy. I know how important planning is to our communities. My home State of New Jersey is the most densely populated in the country, so we know the value of good community planning. Over the years we have learned some important lessons about how vital it is to make sure that our development projects are functional, serviceable, and livable at the human scale, places where people feel safe, where they want to spend time, relax as well as work--places where they can live, shop, and be connected to their surroundings. If this economic crisis is teaching us anything, it is to live within our means, think creatively about opportunities to leverage resources, and to invest now for future prosperity. Good planning means saving $122 billion on water, sewer, and roads over the next 25 years. It means protecting housing values by putting housing near transit. As President Obama remarked over two years ago, our days of building mindless sprawl are over. We simply cannot afford it. Now is the time to reinvest in our communities and infrastructure. The HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities is doing this in a very active way. There are many members of Congress who support this important work, but we need to convince more of them that we are right, and that--for the good of their communities--they should be on our side. The fact is, we all have a role to play. The environment is substantially different today than it was ten years ago--twenty years ago when I was trying to get people on board with the idea reactivating an existing right of way to serve as the Hudson Bergen Light Rail when I was Mayor of Union City. Today, communities are catching on. Innovation is happening. The Federal Government can be an important partner in helping communities achieve their goals. I can tell you that in Jersey City, ``livable'' means the transforming 111 acres of under-utilized industrial land into a mixed use, walkable community along the Hudson Bergen Light Rail. A quiet revolution is underway and communities like Jersey City are leading by example. It's time for the Federal Government to catch up. It is our job--together--all of us--to provide the information, tools, and encouragement these communities need, that Federal, State, and local agencies and elected officials need--to achieve the aspirations that they set for themselves. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a critical bill for our economic recovery. As communities across the country continue to recover from the economic downturn and devastating falling property values, commercial real estate properties throughout the nation are confronting a severe equity crisis. Just as the crash in the residential real estate market triggered the most severe economic recession in generations, the looming crisis in the commercial real estate market, if left unchecked, could prove to be devastating for our fragile economic recovery. Studies have shown that more than $1 trillion of commercial real estate loans will be maturing in just the next few years. In fact, by 2018 more than $2.4 trillion dollars of loans held by insurance companies, thrifts, banks, and in commercial mortgage-backed securities will mature. Just as we saw with home mortgages, if these borrowers can't secure other funding options when these payments come due, commercial properties across the country will go into foreclosure, leaving communities with even more vacant storefronts, less jobs, lower tax revenues, and a deeper economic hole to dig themselves out of. Simply put, the commercial real estate industry has an equity problem too large for domestic investment alone to solve. Unfortunately, certain tax rules--most of which were drafted 30 years ago, before the current crisis could be foreseen--impose significant penalties on foreign investments in domestic real estate that do not exist on other types of U.S. investments such as corporate stocks and bonds. As a result, overseas investors are discouraged from investing in U.S. real estate at a time when their capital is sorely needed. These rules, created by the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act, or FIRPTA as it is come to be known, freeze out foreign investment in our real estate markets by imposing an arbitrary withholding tax on the gains realized by overseas capital invested in domestic properties. Not only is this different treatment questionable as a policy, it is damaging to the economy. At no point have these rules been more damaging to the economy than today. They continue to keep capital out of the U.S. at a time when commercial real estate in all of our communities desperately needs the equity investment. If these rules are not reformed, it is a real possibility that hundreds of billions of dollars in debt would go into default, triggering massive foreclosures, significant decreases in property values and a severe constriction of capital available for U.S. consumers and businesses--absolutely the last thing this economy needs right now. That is why today, Senator Enzi and I are introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation that would implement efficient and meaningful reform of these tax rules to encourage more equity investment in U.S. real estate. These reforms would help save communities all across America from the drag of a wave of commercial real estate foreclosures, help to restart the credit markets, and free up capital to create jobs and economic opportunities for families in every region of the country. These provisions are modest but effective. We are not tackling the bigger question of whether or not the existing FIRPTA rules are effective in a 21st century economy. This legislation simply creates targeted opportunities for investment in American real estate while preserving the underlying foreign ownership limits imposed by these tax rules. We may not agree on a whole lot these days, but today we offer a bipartisan, bicameral solution to help the U.S. economy. I hope all of my colleagues can take the time to look at this bill, understand the positive effects it will have for every State, and we can get this done for the American people.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to announce the introduction of the Livable Communities Act of 2011. The Livable Communities Act presents an opportunity to save taxpayer dollars, reduce household expenditures, improve partnerships, and help local communities create places of lasting value, where businesses want to invest and families want to live. It will strengthen rural, suburban, and urban communities by supporting local planning efforts to establish a vision for a desired future and chart a realistic course for getting there. The bill promotes local leadership by encouraging communities to partner strategically to develop solutions that are innovative and reflect their unique character, assets, and needs. It also directs public agencies to use taxpayer dollars more efficiently by coordinating investments in infrastructure, facilities, and services to meet multiple economic, environmental, and community objectives. This bill is the next important step in transforming the Federal Government into a better partner in community efforts to achieve locally-defined goals, support families when they need it most, and keep the U.S. competitive in the global economy. Dealing with change can be a real challenge--in our professional and personal lives, with our families, and in our communities. But change is an opportunity to move forward, if only we are open to recognizing it. We can accept and manage change or we can be steam-rolled by it. I have heard horror stories from across the country about veterans hospitals being built in places that are not accessible by public transportation. I have heard of homebuyers who ``drive to qualify'' for mortgage financing only to rack up transportation costs that break their budgets when gas prices go up. Many of these families are paying 50 percent of their household income on housing and transportation costs alone. It may seem cheaper and easier in the short term to build on a corn field outside of town than it is to re-use land located close to existing transportation, power, and water infrastructure, but it often does not make sense in the long run. This is why I welcomed the opportunity to work with Chairman Dodd on the Livable Communities Act in 2009 and why I am honored to be the leading sponsor of the updated legislation today. It is the most comprehensive piece of planning legislation that has been proposed in decades. If passed, it will have a transformative impact on the way the federal government supports locally-driven planning processes. Unfortunately, when many on the other side of the aisle hear the word ``livable,'' they cringe. They think of top-down mandates from the Federal Government. What they fail to understand is that the beauty of what is ``livable'' is defined by the communities themselves to reflect the unique character, assets, and needs of that community. The fact is the private sector wants to be located in communities that have dependable transportation systems to get their goods to market and their workers to their jobs. Businesses want to attract and retain workers and ensure that their enterprise will be viable in the long run. Private enterprise has spearheaded some of the most notable past and current planning efforts and the Federal Government should be a supportive, versatile partner in this work. I invited bipartisan cooperation on the bill numerous times and although some offices quietly praise the good work going on in their communities, political pressure prevents them from doing so publicly. We remain optimistic that supporting community efforts to proactively plan for the future and save money by coordinating capital investment strategies are values we all support, regardless of the terminology we use to describe them. The Livable Communities Act of 2011 is a streamlined approach that would keep the good work at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development going. Its intent is to find better ways to coordinate interconnected but often silo-ed programs and policies that impact housing, transportation, and the environment and affect the way we live our daily lives. The bill would formally authorize the existing HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, to work with the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency, to provide technical assistance and capacity support to communities working on integrated planning for housing, transportation, water and sewer infrastructure needs. These tools help communities develop projects that support job creation, leverage significant private sector investment, and bolster long-term economic resilience by creating places where businesses want to invest. Increased coordination at the regional and Federal level will cut red tape and save communities money as they plan for their future needs. The bill also directs the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities to provide best practices and technical assistance to ensure that communities of all sizes learn from each other's success. The Livable Communities Act of 2011 also directs HUD to coordinate with DOT and EPA to identify and eliminate Federal barriers to sustainable development. The Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities will coordinate Federal sustainable development policies and research agendas to facilitate Federal collaboration by streamlining and reconciling program requirements and policies. It will also administer grant programs to support local planning for long-term housing and infrastructure needs. This will enable communities to foster economic development in an efficient and inclusive way. Selection criteria and eligible activities would be flexible to allow all sizes and types of communities to plan for a more sustainable future, including job creation; revitalizing existing small town Main Streets; reducing traffic congestion and pollution; protecting farmland, working landscapes, and green space; addressing vacant, abandoned, and foreclosed properties; and building more affordable and healthy housing. The bill would also spur private investment in transit-oriented development, TOD, by helping communities overcome initial financing hurdles that so often lock up private investment and prevent desired transit-oriented, mixed-use development. Locally directed TOD provides numerous economic benefits, including increased property values and business activity as well as congestion reduction. TOD also promotes economic competitiveness by efficiently connecting our work force to educational and employment opportunities. This creates avenues for business growth in communities across the country and keeps America competitive in the global economy. I know how important planning is to our communities. My home State of New Jersey is the most densely populated in the country, so we know the value of good community planning. Over the years we have learned some important lessons about how vital it is to make sure that our development projects are functional, serviceable, and livable at the human scale, places where people feel safe, where they want to spend time, relax as well as work--places where they can live, shop, and be connected to their surroundings. If this economic crisis is teaching us anything, it is to live within our means, think creatively about opportunities to leverage resources, and to invest now for future prosperity. Good planning means saving $122 billion on water, sewer, and roads over the next 25 years. It means protecting housing values by putting housing near transit. As President Obama remarked over two years ago, our days of building mindless sprawl are over. We simply cannot afford it. Now is the time to reinvest in our communities and infrastructure. The HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities is doing this in a very active way. There are many members of Congress who support this important work, but we need to convince more of them that we are right, and that--for the good of their communities--they should be on our side. The fact is, we all have a role to play. The environment is substantially different today than it was ten years ago--twenty years ago when I was trying to get people on board with the idea reactivating an existing right of way to serve as the Hudson Bergen Light Rail when I was Mayor of Union City. Today, communities are catching on. Innovation is happening. The Federal Government can be an important partner in helping communities achieve their goals. I can tell you that in Jersey City, ``livable'' means the transforming 111 acres of under-utilized industrial land into a mixed use, walkable community along the Hudson Bergen Light Rail. A quiet revolution is underway and communities like Jersey City are leading by example. It's time for the Federal Government to catch up. It is our job--together--all of us--to provide the information, tools, and encouragement these communities need, that Federal, State, and local agencies and elected officials need--to achieve the aspirations that they set for themselves. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a critical bill for our economic recovery. As communities across the country continue to recover from the economic downturn and devastating falling property values, commercial real estate properties throughout the nation are confronting a severe equity crisis. Just as the crash in the residential real estate market triggered the most severe economic recession in generations, the looming crisis in the commercial real estate market, if left unchecked, could prove to be devastating for our fragile economic recovery. Studies have shown that more than $1 trillion of commercial real estate loans will be maturing in just the next few years. In fact, by 2018 more than $2.4 trillion dollars of loans held by insurance companies, thrifts, banks, and in commercial mortgage-backed securities will mature. Just as we saw with home mortgages, if these borrowers can't secure other funding options when these payments come due, commercial properties across the country will go into foreclosure, leaving communities with even more vacant storefronts, less jobs, lower tax revenues, and a deeper economic hole to dig themselves out of. Simply put, the commercial real estate industry has an equity problem too large for domestic investment alone to solve. Unfortunately, certain tax rules--most of which were drafted 30 years ago, before the current crisis could be foreseen--impose significant penalties on foreign investments in domestic real estate that do not exist on other types of U.S. investments such as corporate stocks and bonds. As a result, overseas investors are discouraged from investing in U.S. real estate at a time when their capital is sorely needed. These rules, created by the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act, or FIRPTA as it is come to be known, freeze out foreign investment in our real estate markets by imposing an arbitrary withholding tax on the gains realized by overseas capital invested in domestic properties. Not only is this different treatment questionable as a policy, it is damaging to the economy. At no point have these rules been more damaging to the economy than today. They continue to keep capital out of the U.S. at a time when commercial real estate in all of our communities desperately needs the equity investment. If these rules are not reformed, it is a real possibility that hundreds of billions of dollars in debt would go into default, triggering massive foreclosures, significant decreases in property values and a severe constriction of capital available for U.S. consumers and businesses--absolutely the last thing this economy needs right now. That is why today, Senator Enzi and I are introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation that would implement efficient and meaningful reform of these tax rules to encourage more equity investment in U.S. real estate. These reforms would help save communities all across America from the drag of a wave of commercial real estate foreclosures, help to restart the credit markets, and free up capital to create jobs and economic opportunities for families in every region of the country. These provisions are modest but effective. We are not tackling the bigger question of whether or not the existing FIRPTA rules are effective in a 21st century economy. This legislation simply creates targeted opportunities for investment in American real estate while preserving the underlying foreign ownership limits imposed by these tax rules. We may not agree on a whole lot these days, but today we offer a bipartisan, bicameral solution to help the U.S. economy. I hope all of my colleagues can take the time to look at this bill, understand the positive effects it will have for every State, and we can get this done for the American people.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. First of all, I appreciate my colleague's offer and certainly we will take him up on it--to have a discussion to see if we can come to a common understanding because the issue is far more important than anyone's ideological views. I look forward to working with him and others who are concerned. Let me say, however, there are some inconsistencies. If you do not believe there should be a disease-specific reauthorization, then the CR does exactly that. It will be for a more limited time, but it will, in fact, reauthorize this bill but only to November 18. So whether that debate is about reauthorizing a disease-specific allocation, which is what I was trying to accomplish, or whether in the CR, I assume it will be the thinking of my colleagues to object to the CR on the basis it has a disease-specific reauthorization for a much smaller period of time, until November 18. I am not quite sure how that logic follows at the end of the day. Secondly, I think it is rather cruel to use an analogy that talks about loan guarantees to some energy entity and talking about autism and families. When I hear the word ``lobby,'' that, of course, creates a pejorative description. What is the lobby here? The lobby here is parents--American citizens, husbands and wives, taxpayers who advocate for their children before their representatives. I thought, in a representative democracy, citizens have the right to go to their elected representatives and advocate for a point of view--even if, admittedly, that point of view is on behalf of the welfare of their child. So I have a problem when I hear, in this context, the word ``lobby,'' as if it is a negative when a universe of parents in our country who pay taxes are simply trying to accomplish getting their government's attention on a disease that afflicts their children and their ability to function in this society to the maximum potential their God-given abilities give them. I don't care about listening to a lobby. The last time I checked, this is what democracy is all about. Finally, I would simply say there is no guarantee--I know my colleague suggested there is a guarantee--that research into autism will continue. There is no guarantee of that. There is no guarantee of that. The reason why I objected to the other unanimous consent by my colleague from Oklahoma is because, in fact, we have a set of circumstances, if we read that unanimous consent request, where there would be a diminution of funds at the end of the day. So we either believe in a disease-specific reauthorization, which to some degree would be allowed, but then we take away all the funds. The whole reason this legislation came to being was to coordinate the very efforts of the Federal Government together to, in essence, meet the challenge of autism. Even when we listen to debate on disease-specific legislation and the opposition to disease-specific legislation, I would emphasize that while the name would suggest this is only about autism, this improves services for children with many different developmental disorders and conditions--from autism, yes, but Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, intellectual disabilities, and epilepsy. So it is a program that involves a number of efforts, broadly based, to prevent and detect and improve the health infrastructure for all children who might face any of these developmental disabilities, not just autism. Every year this program trains thousands of professionals to better care for individuals with a broad range of developmental disabilities, including but not limited to autism spectrum disorders. Given the long waiting lists that families often endure to receive diagnostic and treatment services, these programs are essential in addressing an urgent national health need. So, Mr. President, I don't quite understand the opposition. It boggles my mind. They are against disease-specific legislation even though this has passed by voice vote in the past? Even though this passed unanimously out of the committee? Even though a disease-specific provision will be in the CR, which I assume they would oppose if they don't want legislation to move forward? Then they tell families they are lobbyists, and they have no right to lobby, that we shouldn't listen to their voices? Then they say there will be--don't worry, there will be money for research, when there is no guarantee? That is cruel, in my view, and there is no reason for it. I would only hope we can have a change of heart so we can have families who have an incredible challenge and who love their children and want to do everything they can to help them fulfill the maximum of their potential to be able to do so. That is what we have done for several years now under this legislation. My God, if we can't get things like this passed, I don't know where we are headed in the Senate. But I hope for a better day, and I am going to continue and insist until we achieve this. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote No. 139, a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consider H.R. 2832, a bill to extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted yea to the motion to invoke cloture.