Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Five days, Senator Byrd. Cancer patients going through the dark winter of their illness are waiting on lifesaving treatments that only intensive scientific research can discover. Congress has a bill before it to fund that research, but President Bush vetoed the funding once, and his allies in Congress have whittled it down as much as they could. The cost of the funding increase for that cancer research, to turn the winter of their illness into the spring of possibility? It is $329 million, or less than 1 day in Iraq.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, as we celebrate this holiday season with our families, as we gather with those we love and give thanks for our tremendous blessings, we remember how incalculable the losses have been to the families of the 3,888 soldiers who have been killed in Iraq. Their losses cannot be tallied, not in the number of Christmas nights spent without the one they loved; not in the number of days since their wives, husbands, parents, and children left home forever. We cannot calculate the strain on the 28,661 wounded soldiers and their families, many of whom will be spending this precious time of the year in a military hospital, coping with their blindness, living with only one leg or arm, sleeping through nightmares of the battlefield instead of the beautiful dreams they used to know this time of year. As we hold them in our hearts--as well as all of the men and women in uniform across the globe who serve to protect the country and to promote its interests, for which we have eternal gratitude--as we hold them in our hearts and express that gratitude, we also watch our money slip away from us in Iraq. That is a casualty we can and must count. I have come to the floor over the last 2 months to talk about the cost of Iraq to us at home. The lives lost in Iraq cannot have a price put to them. Their sacrifice and that of their families have no price. The human suffering of those who have been wounded also has no price. But there is also a price that is calculable at home, and it is what the war is costing not just in dollars from our Treasury and debt cast upon on the next generation of Americans, but what it is costing in lost opportunities at home. There is a brutal holiday irony that is no cause for festive spirit in Washington. The irony is this: President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress held hostage some key investments we need to make right here in our country, in order to extract a promise of more money for the war in Iraq. They are asking for more than $150 billion more for Iraq next year, but at one point they threatened to starve the entire Government of funding over a difference in the Federal budget that amounts to less than one-tenth of what the President wants to spend on the war next year. He was ready to shut the whole Government down over the difference of what amounts to less than one-tenth of what the President wants to spend on the war next year.

Mr. MENENDEZ. This holiday season we wondered if President Bush wanted to be Scrooge to America and Santa Claus to Iraq. Over the last several months I have spoken many times about what the American presence in Iraq is costing at home. The true cost of the $455 billion we have spent on that war and the $10 billion per month we continue to spend might never be more clear than it is right now, at a time when Congress debated the budget for almost the entire Federal Government. While we have been here crunching numbers, American families are feeling the crunch of a few numbers themselves: the interest rate on their mortgage that is about to jump beyond what they can afford, the price on the gas pump when they fill their tank, the price of heating oil and natural gas, higher grocery bills, fare hikes or threats of hikes on public transportation, and the skyrocketing costs of providing medical care for themselves and their children. The President's consistent threats to veto funding for Federal Government operations forced across-the-board cuts to programs and services that so many Americans are counting on. This winter, as snow and ice fall on roads across America, people are waiting for better ways to travel. They are waiting for expanded, affordable public transportation, progress on efficiency, and new sources of fuel and power. They are waiting for our Nation to fill our energy portfolio with something other than the usual energy sources. The omnibus spending bill the Senate approved this week would inject another $1.7 billion in the development of renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind, and geothermal. It is an important step--but it could have been much greater. Republicans have consistently objected to bigger steps. They said weaning us off fossil fuels is too expensive. Meanwhile, they have insisted that oil companies need more multimillion-dollar tax cuts. Meanwhile, we spend enough money to pay for that entire renewable energy package in Iraq in just 5 days--in just 5 days.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Energy independence for our country, stopping giving foreign countries that wish us harm the ability to have the resources to make that harm happen, and that we could have funded for 5 days in Iraq. Those are the choices that we make.

Mr. MENENDEZ. This winter, while President Bush asked for billions more for security for the streets of Baghdad, he says we cannot afford to bring security to the streets of our own hometowns. The Senate proposed spending $55 million, in part to hire police officers specially trained to stop child sexual predators. We have seen the fantastic growth of the Internet--and that is great. It brings many good things with it. But it also brings challenges. The President did not just force funding to stop child sexual predators to be cut in half, he sliced it to less than a third of what it was. We could have made up the difference and fully funded the program to stop child sexual predators with what it costs to be in Iraq for just about 2\1/2\ hours. Being able to successfully have the law enforcement capability to pursue child sex predators versus 2\1/2\ hours in Iraq. Where are all the family values we hear talked about so often? What ever happened to recognizing the importance of our children, who are truly our greatest asset, but also our most vulnerable asset? What are our values? What are our priorities? There are too many provisions in this big funding bill that are absolutely essential, too many to name here. But the victims of the cuts that the President and his Republican allies have called for, the millions of Americans waiting for clean power that will not be produced, the cancer patients who are waiting for research that will not be allowed to happen, the communities trying to stop child sexual predators who are waiting for police officers who will not be hired: These people are also too many to name. In that sense, even beyond the lives lost overseas, the cost of the war in Iraq has been incalculable. If there is one thing we must all acknowledge right now, it is this: The war in Iraq is not free, it is not without consequences here at home, and no one should be pretending that this war is free. The Bush administration likes to parrot the line that we are fighting them over there so we do not have to fight them here. But Americans have figured out what they mean, and what they mean is: We are spending all our money over there so, by the way, we did not have it to spend here. Above all, this is a question of values. Do we value our children, and value protecting them? Do we value our schools and the education we want our children to have so they can continue to make America the global competitive leader? Do we value the men and women who wear the uniform, not just by marching in a parade on Memorial Day or going to a Veterans Day service, which we should, but by taking care of their health care and their disabilities and taking care of their survivors, for those who commit the ultimate sacrifice, as a grateful nation truly does? Or will we neglect those and other priorities such as the health care of our children and of our families? The Democratic budget bill set out for our values a clear and serious test. We cannot allow the budget to have a heart as cold as the ice on our front steps. We cannot let our financial stability melt away, and we cannot continue to let more of our money burn up in a war that has taken so much from so many for so long. At year's end, we speak of renewal, we return to our families and witness a rebirth of hope. This season is about the best in each and every one of us. This season, decisions we make are going to test how we operate as a government and test what we stand for as a nation. There is no better time than now to let the best in American values guide our way: generosity, equality of opportunity, cooperation with one another, turning to each other instead of against each other. We have the power to end unnecessary suffering and waste, and the chance to approach these tasks with a fresh sense of urgency that they require. As we rest and dream in the company of those we love, let us remember that December is the darkest time of the year, but it is also the turning point when the sun begins to shine more and more each day. Together we offer our wish, our hope, and our prayers that the dreams that have carried us so far of peace on Earth, good will toward all may yet still come true. Thanking Staff Before I yield the floor, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the individuals in my now second year here in the Senate whom I have seen work incredibly hard, but very rarely get acknowledged, all of those who help us as we preside: the clerks, who keep all of the documentation that comes before the Senate moving; the Parliamentarians, who try to keep us in some degree of order as we move along the way; the party secretaries and their staffs, who do such a great job on informing us as to what is happening and to try to keep somewhat of a schedule in terms of our lives here in the Senate; to those in the cloakroom who also produce that service; to the pages who have done a great job. It was a privilege to have the opportunity to talk to so many of them. I think they are going to carry their experiences here with them a lifetime, and I am sure that maybe we will see some of them in this Chamber in the future. To all of those who make this institution the greatest democratic institution in the world operate the way it successfully operates, my deepest thanks, my best for the holiday season. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following my time on the floor, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey, be the next Democratic speaker in line.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Full Faith & Credit in Our Communities Act of 2007. Strong communities form the bedrock of a successful economy and ultimately, a healthy society. For communities to be strong and families to prosper, there must be economic opportunity. Economic opportunity, in turn, depends on access to capital. Unfortunately, many communities across our Nation lack this fundamental tool for financial prosperity and self-sufficiency. We must provide economic opportunity not only today, but also lay the groundwork so that future generations can thrive and prosper, and we must do it in a way that fosters real and permanent change rather than short-term solutions. We cannot simply rely on short-term band aids that serve to only mask the vast inequalities in income and unacceptable levels of poverty that plague our Nation. We must invest in our Nation's future. We must close the wealth gaps that are growing wider each day in this country by investing in our citizens and closing the opportunity gap. We must invest in entrepreneurship, ownership, and economic growth--but we must do so in a fiscally responsible manner. Federal resources are scarce. We must focus our efforts and invest in successful programs that give us the biggest bang for our buck. CDFIs have a history of prudently using scarce public funds to leverage additional private funding to finance emerging domestic markets. They are able to lend successfully in these markets in part because CDFIs build their borrowers' capacity by combining their financing with technical assistance such as homeownership counseling, entrepreneurial training, and financial literacy education. CDFIs finance small businesses, homeownership, affordable rental housing, childcare facilities, charter schools, and other needed development resources. About 1,000 CDFIs operating in the U.S. manage more than $25 billion in assets, providing much-needed financial services to low-income communities across the U.S. Unfortunately, CDFIs have limited access to capital due to the relatively small size of, and lack of awareness about, their projects. This results in a hesitancy of Wall Street to invest in CDFIs, forcing them to rely largely on commercial banks which usually only offer short-term loans with high interest rates. Every dollar wasted on interest payments is another dollar lost to communities, making these additional costs a clear impediment to community development efforts. This legislation would increase the length and decrease the cost of capital available to CDFIs by providing them access to the enormous financial power of Wall Street. It would accomplish this by allowing the Treasury Department to guarantee up to $1 billion per year in bonds issued by qualified CDFIs. These bonds would be sold on Wall Street with the proceeds going to CDFIs to finance a myriad of community and economic development projects such as job-training centers and health care clinics. Unlike many legislative proposals that often result in winners and losers, this legislation is a win-win for everyone involved. CDFIs will have access to much-needed, low-cost capital. Communities will benefit from an infusion of investments in community and economic development projects. And investors will have an opportunity to make sound, long-term investments. Perhaps the best part of this legislation is that it should not end up costing the American taxpayer a single dollar. Since these bonds will be issued by CDFIs, they will be the ones responsible for honoring the bonds when they reach maturity. Considering the fact that CDFIs have very low loan default rates that are often below mainstream bank averages, the risk of insolvency is very low. To further mitigate this risk, CDFIs will be required to create a loan loss reserve fund, similar in nature, but much smaller in scope, to the FDIC. In addition to providing low-cost capital to underserved communities, this legislation would require CDFIs to pay a portion of their savings to a subaccount of the Treasury Department's CDFI Fund. These funds will be used to provide technical and financial assistance grants to non-profits for community and economic development purposes. CDFIs can apply for these grants through a competitive application process with the requirement to match, dollar for dollar, Federal funds with private investment. According to the Treasury Department, for every Federal dollar of investment, CDFIs leverage $19 in non-federal funds. CDFIs use the ``seed capital'' from the Federal Government to attract private-sector capital, ensuring continued community investment well beyond the initial Federal funding. A community isn't complete without places to shop and work, without affordable housing, without the prosperity that thriving businesses represent. My Full Faith & Credit in Our Communities Act will help CDFIs develop retail and commercial facilities, train and place neighborhood residents in jobs, and provide affordable housing across the country. This bill is essential for our people and communities most in need. Beyond the obvious tangible benefits, the Full Faith & Credit in Our Communities Act will provide our Nation's distressed communities with something all but lost in many: HOPE. Hope for a better future, a safe community, flourishing businesses, and a more prosperous future for generations to come. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the Full Faith & Credit in Our Communities Act to ensure that every American has access to the American Dream. With this bill, we can not only change lives and communities today, but for generations to come.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Full Faith & Credit in Our Communities Act of 2007. Strong communities form the bedrock of a successful economy and ultimately, a healthy society. For communities to be strong and families to prosper, there must be economic opportunity. Economic opportunity, in turn, depends on access to capital. Unfortunately, many communities across our Nation lack this fundamental tool for financial prosperity and self-sufficiency. We must provide economic opportunity not only today, but also lay the groundwork so that future generations can thrive and prosper, and we must do it in a way that fosters real and permanent change rather than short-term solutions. We cannot simply rely on short-term band aids that serve to only mask the vast inequalities in income and unacceptable levels of poverty that plague our Nation. We must invest in our Nation's future. We must close the wealth gaps that are growing wider each day in this country by investing in our citizens and closing the opportunity gap. We must invest in entrepreneurship, ownership, and economic growth--but we must do so in a fiscally responsible manner. Federal resources are scarce. We must focus our efforts and invest in successful programs that give us the biggest bang for our buck. CDFIs have a history of prudently using scarce public funds to leverage additional private funding to finance emerging domestic markets. They are able to lend successfully in these markets in part because CDFIs build their borrowers' capacity by combining their financing with technical assistance such as homeownership counseling, entrepreneurial training, and financial literacy education. CDFIs finance small businesses, homeownership, affordable rental housing, childcare facilities, charter schools, and other needed development resources. About 1,000 CDFIs operating in the U.S. manage more than $25 billion in assets, providing much-needed financial services to low-income communities across the U.S. Unfortunately, CDFIs have limited access to capital due to the relatively small size of, and lack of awareness about, their projects. This results in a hesitancy of Wall Street to invest in CDFIs, forcing them to rely largely on commercial banks which usually only offer short-term loans with high interest rates. Every dollar wasted on interest payments is another dollar lost to communities, making these additional costs a clear impediment to community development efforts. This legislation would increase the length and decrease the cost of capital available to CDFIs by providing them access to the enormous financial power of Wall Street. It would accomplish this by allowing the Treasury Department to guarantee up to $1 billion per year in bonds issued by qualified CDFIs. These bonds would be sold on Wall Street with the proceeds going to CDFIs to finance a myriad of community and economic development projects such as job-training centers and health care clinics. Unlike many legislative proposals that often result in winners and losers, this legislation is a win-win for everyone involved. CDFIs will have access to much-needed, low-cost capital. Communities will benefit from an infusion of investments in community and economic development projects. And investors will have an opportunity to make sound, long-term investments. Perhaps the best part of this legislation is that it should not end up costing the American taxpayer a single dollar. Since these bonds will be issued by CDFIs, they will be the ones responsible for honoring the bonds when they reach maturity. Considering the fact that CDFIs have very low loan default rates that are often below mainstream bank averages, the risk of insolvency is very low. To further mitigate this risk, CDFIs will be required to create a loan loss reserve fund, similar in nature, but much smaller in scope, to the FDIC. In addition to providing low-cost capital to underserved communities, this legislation would require CDFIs to pay a portion of their savings to a subaccount of the Treasury Department's CDFI Fund. These funds will be used to provide technical and financial assistance grants to non-profits for community and economic development purposes. CDFIs can apply for these grants through a competitive application process with the requirement to match, dollar for dollar, Federal funds with private investment. According to the Treasury Department, for every Federal dollar of investment, CDFIs leverage $19 in non-federal funds. CDFIs use the ``seed capital'' from the Federal Government to attract private-sector capital, ensuring continued community investment well beyond the initial Federal funding. A community isn't complete without places to shop and work, without affordable housing, without the prosperity that thriving businesses represent. My Full Faith & Credit in Our Communities Act will help CDFIs develop retail and commercial facilities, train and place neighborhood residents in jobs, and provide affordable housing across the country. This bill is essential for our people and communities most in need. Beyond the obvious tangible benefits, the Full Faith & Credit in Our Communities Act will provide our Nation's distressed communities with something all but lost in many: HOPE. Hope for a better future, a safe community, flourishing businesses, and a more prosperous future for generations to come. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the Full Faith & Credit in Our Communities Act to ensure that every American has access to the American Dream. With this bill, we can not only change lives and communities today, but for generations to come.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I came to the floor for a specific purpose, but I had the good benefit of listening to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia's holiday greeting. It was a very warm, loving greeting as well. I am glad I made it to the floor to listen. I thank him for his incredible service in this institution and for taking those moments to talk about our humanity collectively. This is a great time of the year in which that humanity gets to be recognized.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from New York for his leadership, along with the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member, on this issue of the FHA. It is something I have been advocating for quite some time. In March of this year, at some of the first hearings of the Banking Committee about what we were envisioning as it related to the subprime crisis, I said that we were going to be facing a tsunami of foreclosures. Some people said that was an overestimation. Unfortunately, we have not even seen the full effect of that tsunami as we have hundreds of thousands of mortgages reset every quarter for the next 2 years, and at the rate of default and foreclosures, the numbers will grow dramatically. Of course, that has a consequence to all of those American families for which the American dream becomes the American nightmare. It has a consequence to neighborhoods and communities where those properties, if they go into foreclosure, have a negative effect on the values of the adjoining properties and, obviously, on those communities as it relates to the consequence of property values that continue to take a nosedive. Therefore, it has an enormous impact on the lives of people across our country. It also has a very significant impact as it relates to the economy of our Nation. I am glad, working in the committee, that we are here today to pass this important bill, the FHA Modernization Act. We clearly need to pass FHA reform. I spoke then about the need to raise the FHA loan limits in order to give borrowers more options. In my State of New Jersey, which is not unique, 13 of the 21 counties are at or over the FHA ceiling of $362,000, and 75 percent of New Jerseyans live in these 13 counties. Unless this bill passes, the FHA means absolutely nothing for the overwhelming part of the 9 million people who live in New Jersey as a vehicle, an opportunity to achieve home ownership and to be good borrowers, people who work hard, obey the rules, follow the law, serve in their communities, worship, but ultimately would not have the wherewithal to pay but for the type of loans the FHA can guarantee. I believe, in the wake of the tsunami of foreclosures, these are critical options to new homeowners and maybe even to some who will ultimately refinance. The legislation before us today will bring more attractive FHA mortgages into the subprime marketplace so borrowers looking to refinance or first-time homeowners have a realistic opportunity to choose an FHA loan instead of a risky mortgage. I knew then what I know now. This legislation is long overdue. Homeowners need more options than just the subprime market. That is why I am pleased we will be finally passing this critical bill. I hope we give it a very strong sendoff from the Senate. I know this is something for which we are in agreement with the administration. It should receive broad bipartisan support. It is only one of many tools necessary to deal with the challenges the Nation faces on the subprime and the crisis of foreclosures, but it is an important one. I urge its passage and yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the 2007 farm bill. I want to thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss for putting together a bill that starts us down the road toward Federal policies that support small family farms, policies that protect our environment, and policies that provide adequate nourishment for our most needy families. It is, however, unfortunate that every serious effort on the floor to move this bill further down the road of reform was defeated. The FRESH Act, Dorgan-Grassley, Senator Brown's crop insurance reforms, and Senator Klobuchar's amendment all would have moved us away from outdated costly farm programs toward more funds for conservation, nutrition, and help for small farms. Then, after these defeats, the last reform amendment proposed by Senator Feingold and myself was denied floor time after we had been promised a slot. Yesterday was certainly a sad day in the Senate. First Big Oil stopped the Senate from taking oil subsidies to pay for renewable energy, and then Big Agriculture successfully blocked all efforts to make a more balanced and fair farm bill that helps small farmers instead of mega factory farms. In order for the Nation's farming economy to thrive, we need look no further than the successes of New Jersey. My home State has sensibly promoted healthy foods, local foods, environmentally friendly farming practices, and small family farms. As it turns out, these four things could not fit together more perfectly. The problem for small farmers is how to compete with the giant factory farms for food processing or grocery store contracts. Tragically, the answer is that far too often they cannot compete, and they are forced to sell the family farm. Over the last 5 years, the number of small farms has decreased nationwide by over 80,000. Over 80,000 families had to sell their land to factory farms or to developers and choose a different line of work. The decline of the small farm means depressed rural economies, more suburban sprawl, and a loss of a way of life. But in my home State of New Jersey the number of small farms has actually risen by 400 farms. So how is it that New Jersey has been able to increase the number of small farms while the rest of the country has seen such a steep decline? There are two answers. The first is that the State has a robust program to preserve farmland. With help from the Farmland Protection Program, the State purchases the right to develop a farmer's land, so farmers get the added income they need to keep the family farm and resist the temptation of developers or large factory farmers. Farmers want to stay farmers, and farming communities want to remain farming communities. Smart conservation programs allow this to happen and can help preserve a way of life. To date, New Jersey has preserved more than 1,500 farms covering approximately 157,000 acres. Unfortunately, this bill does not add any new money for this essential farmland protection program, and efforts to do so on the floor were thwarted. The second reason small family farms are flourishing in New Jersey is the expansion of farmers' markets. We have nearly 100 farm markets in my home State, and we add about five or six more every year. These markets give our farmers access directly to the consumers. This keeps more money in farmers' pockets by eliminating the need to do business through food distributors. And farm markets do not just benefit farmers, but they also greatly benefit urban communities that have limited access to healthy foods. Farm markets allow our city dwellers to enjoy the freshest blueberries, peppers, cranberries, and peaches straight from the field. So in this way New Jersey has created a system whereby small farmers flourish, open spaces are preserved, and citizens get better access to healthy foods. It is a win-win-win situation that must be continued and encouraged in New Jersey and across the Nation. That is why I regret we could not have done more in this bill but am pleased to see some small reforms that will help lead the country in this direction. I specifically want to applaud the Agriculture Committee for adopting a few policies that were in my Healthy Farms, Foods and Fuels Act of 2007. First, the farm bill of 2007 expands the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to every State in the country and targets benefits to low- income children. During a long school day, children often need a snack to keep them nourished and keep their minds focused on their schoolwork. Instead of filling up with candy or sodas, this innovative program provides children fresh fruits and vegetables. It is a healthier option that will lead to healthier habits in school and at home. Another program expanded in my bill and here in the 2007 farm bill is the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. After all, it is not just children who often lack access to healthy foods. The Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program awards grants to State governments to provide low-income seniors with coupons that can be exchanged for healthy foods at farm markets, roadside stands, and community-supported agriculture programs. One last point of agreement between my Healthy Farms bill and the 2007 farm bill that I want to point out is the restoration of the authority of schools to buy local foods in the School Lunch Program. By preferentially buying local foods, communities can support their local farms while giving their children fresher and more nutritious food options. These three programs are great starting points for the Nation to emulate the great successes I have seen in New Jersey. These reforms will lead to a healthier, more profitable, and greener American farm economy. Another thing I want to applaud the Agriculture Committee for is what they have done for specialty crop farmers. For the first time, specialty crops were given their own title in the bill. Specialty crops are the fruits, vegetables, and other crops that keep America healthy and constitute half of the Nation's agricultural cash receipts but have received little recognition in previous farm bills. This farm bill is different, with over $3 billion to fund specialty crops provisions. New Jersey is a national leader in growing specialty crops such as blueberries, cranberries, peppers, peaches, and spinach, and these provisions will be a huge help to farmers in my home State. While the bill that left committee was a great step in the right direction, there were several areas that needed improving. One was the definition of the term ``rural area.'' The original text changed the definition of ``rural area'' in a way that would have unfairly excluded many communities from rural development programs. But by working with my staff and the staffs of several of my colleagues in the Northeast, I think we have come to an agreement with Chairman Harkin that is much more equitable. A second issue Chairman Harkin was kind enough to work with us on, was to include a study that will advance our understanding of the benefits of local food production. This comprehensive study will chronicle the impact of localized food production on our environment, our economy, and nutrition. In addition, the study will document the barriers for small farmers to participate in a local food economy and suggest ways to overcome these barriers. I hope this study can provide a roadmap for our country to follow in the next farm bill. But I am sorry to say that it looks as if bold reform will have to wait until the next farm bill. The amendments that would have reformed the direct payment system and used those savings for national priorities on nutrition and conservation all failed to pass the Senate. Our country is ready to transition toward farm policies that concentrate on small farmers, on healthy specialty crops, and on conservation. I am hopeful that one day soon, small, sustainable farms will be the rule, rather than the exception. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today the Nation closed the book on a heinous story that brought the criminal act of dogfighting into the national spotlight. Michael Vick received 23 months in jail for his actions, but that is not the end of the story. Nor is it the end of the nation's attack on dogfighting. Dogfighting is reprehensible in its own right. There is no justification for the intentional mauling and destruction of a living animal. But it is a precursor of so much more. That is why we must continue to fight these crimes. Dogfighting isn't just about cruelty to animals. Dogfights are one becoming an increasingly profitable enterprise for violent gangs. These criminals can bring in as much as $25,000 by selling a champion dog on the black market, and they can take a cut from bets that can run in excess of $100,000 for a single fight. Stopping animal cruelty means cutting off the flow of money that these criminals use to intimidate and terrorize their communities. Studies show that animal cruelty is a steppingstone to violent crimes against humanity. When the FBI profiles serial killers, they try to find out if they have a history of animal abuse. If someone's been prosecuted for animal cruelty, they are four times more likely to commit a violent crime. The Chicago Police Department found that almost 6 out of every 10 people arrested for crimes against animals turned out to be members of gangs. Animal cruelty is one of the strongest indicators of participation in other acts of violence that criminologists have ever discovered. No on can argue that this barbaric practice should continue. But there is an unnecessary barrier to stopping it: gathering reliable data on animal fighting is more difficult than it should be. We don't have a good idea of how fast it is growing because of a simple problem with how the crime is categorized. That is why I introduced the Tracking Animal Cruelty Crimes Act, which would list cruelty to animals as a separate offense category in the three major crime reporting systems used by the federal government. It's time to begin tracking these crimes, so we can better understand it--and ultimately so we can shut down this vast, exploding and increasingly lucrative criminal enterprise. Currently in the world of criminal justice, there are ``Type I'' crimes, like homicide and arson, and ``Type II'' crimes, like drug abuse, gambling, and vagrancy. But then there are crimes that are thrown into a category called ``Other.'' Acts of animal cruelty, including dogfighting, are in the ``Other'' category. That means law enforcement can't separate out and analyze data about them. How are we supposed to come up with an effective policy to target animal cruelty if that data is lumped together with other totally unrelated crimes? But there is a simple fix to this problem. Once law enforcement officials can gather information on animal cruelty as a separate category, they can track criminal activity, monitor trends, allocate resources more efficiently, and ultimately stop these criminals before they commit even more heinous crimes. The repulsive blood-sport of dogfighting is a truly national problem, including in my home State of New Jersey, where last year officials found a dog ring in a bunker 11-feet underground. That was during a drug raid, showing how tied up that activity is with illegal gambling, drugs, and violence. If we are going to combat a culture of violence wherever it exists in this country, we need to do everything in our power to stop the gangs that terrorize our streets and cut off their flow of money--whether it is through setting tougher penalties for gang activities, expanding funding for community policing, or boosting prevention efforts such as after-school programs. For the sake of the safety of our communities, I urge my colleagues to take swift action to enact this important legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2416 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to the bill.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of more than 130,000 New Jersey homeowners who have a subprime mortgage. I rise on behalf of the 7 million American homeowners with a subprime mortgage, and I rise on behalf of the more than 2 million Americans who are or may be facing foreclosure in the coming year. This is a national crisis and certainly the time to respond is now. Families across this country are having their homes ripped from their grasp, and there is no end in sight. Some have been saying that the storm is over and others have been sitting silently as the black clouds roll by, but the reality is this storm is going to get worse. More families are going to be facing foreclosure, more homes are going to be lost, and more damage is going to be done to our economy unless we act. There is no point in letting an invisible hand guide this destruction. If we have any sense of human compassion, we will help these families. Many families are in trouble because they got a deal they didn't understand, a loan they couldn't afford, and now their adjustable rate mortgages are resetting. But these families are only the beginning. The storm is only going to get worse. Many of the adjustable rate mortgages that were made in 2006 will explode with higher interest rates sometime in 2008. Another type of adjustable rate mortgages, known as payment option, is set to explode after that. Already, foreclosure rates have doubled and tripled in many areas. Hundreds of thousands of families are already losing their homes. Over the next year, absent strong action, the wave will build into a mortgage tsunami. Not only will families lose their homes, often the largest asset they have, but the ripple effects will devastate neighborhoods and the broader economy. If we do not act now to help those families, the effects will be catastrophic. We can see the storm coming. We know the damage it will cause. So we had better reinforce our levies. In Congress, we should be working to help hundreds of thousands of homeowners modify their mortgages to avoid foreclosure. We should be working to pass a bill that will help homeowners modify their loan, for example, in a bankruptcy proceeding. We must pass, over Republican objections that we have had, legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration. But this is the beginning. Banks and lenders, without the prodding of Congress, should be reaching out to help those troubled homeowners renegotiate their loan terms. This is not a suggestion, this is an expectation. President Bush is announcing today his plan to address this crisis. He has reached an agreement with major mortgage firms to freeze interest rates for 5 years for financially troubled homeowners. While I applaud the President for taking a step in the right direction, the plan simply does not seem to go far enough. It seems to operate under the assumption we only have to do what is minimally necessary. Depending on the details of this plan, on how they determine who is eligible, many homeowners may be left out in the cold. A strictly narrow approach will keep relief out of reach for many who need it. I am concerned about the family next in line when they close the door on eligibility. I am concerned about the millions of Americans who cannot pay their bills, and I am concerned President Bush's plan will only help a fraction of the families at risk. Hard-working families are at a crisis in America, and in a time of crisis they expect strong and bold leadership to help them through. We need to provide that leadership. Congress, the administration, and the industry all have key roles to play to help those families. But what about the families who have yet to sign that stack of papers to get their future mortgage loan? What about when my son or daughter or yours buys their first home? What about the homeowner who needs to refinance out of an unsustainable mortgage? In order to protect those families, we need to make sure we stop predatory lending before it starts. As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I have repeatedly said that in order to prevent the mortgage crisis from happening again, we need to find the root of the problem and fix it. That requires all parties--all parties--to step to the plate and admit where they went wrong. A ``not me'' attitude will simply not work. Everybody who was responsible must be held accountable. I am proud to be working with Chairman Dodd on a bill that will hold all parties accountable. Now, when I considered what I hoped to see in a final bill, I looked at all of those responsible parties, from the regulators, to the lenders, to the brokers and beyond. But one particular piece concerned me; that is, the secondary market. In order to understand what I am talking about, I think it might help to step back for a moment and walk through the life of a subprime loan. A consumer decides to seek a loan to purchase a home or refinance an existing mortgage or, more likely, a broker or lender approaches a consumer about a new loan. As soon as the loan settles, the broker gets a commission from both the consumer and the lender. Now, here is where the secondary market comes in. Within 90 days after that consumer signs those settlement papers, the lender sells the loan to that secondary market, essentially selling the loan to Wall Street. That lender then washes its hands of the loan, but keeps the fees, regardless of what happens later on. Once in the secondary market, the loan is bundled with thousands of other loans into what we call a mortgage-backed security. This bundle of loans then passes through one or more corporate entities on its way to the trust where it will reside. The trust is usually a private company with an investing firm. The trust then slices those bundles of loans into different categories called tranches, and investors purchase security interests in the tranches. The trust is considered the owner of the loan, and the investors are represented by a trustee who acts on behalf of the trust. A servicer, possibly the original lender, possibly another company, services the loan on behalf of the trust, meaning they collect and remit payments, monitor the accounts, and provide monthly reports to the trustees. Because the servicer is the only one in direct contact with the homeowner, most homeowners think the servicer is actually the owner of their loan. If the home goes into foreclosure, it is the trust that forecloses. But for the homeowner, they may not know who is foreclosing on them. Even if a homeowner had a predatory loan and has a good argument against foreclosure, if that homeowner cannot identify the owner of the loan and hold them liable, they cannot save their home. That is the life of a loan. It is no wonder it is a process few understand. Essentially, the loan is a hot potato. It gets tossed from the broker to the lender to the trustee. Along the way each one wipes their hands of responsibility after they send the loan on down the chain. When a bad deal is made, each one points the finger at the previous owner. Well, it is time to stop passing the buck. For me, that buck must stop with Wall Street. We cannot allow Wall Street to purchase loans without scrutinizing the details of that loan. If the trustee had to make sure each loan was a good loan, that it meets specific standards and practices, and the lender had to make sure it was a good loan, the brokers would have to stop making bad loans because they would not be able to sell them if they did. That is why I support a strong liability standard. If a loan is made illegally or contains illegal terms, the homeowner should be able to sue the owner of their loan. Otherwise, whom do they hold accountable? Their broker and lender could both be long gone. Nearly 100 subprime lenders have gone out of business in the last year alone, and then where does the borrower go for protection? They have to be able to reach the holder of the loan. Without assignee liability, a subprime bill has no teeth. Yes, of course, we need stronger broker and lender standards, but we also need a standard for Wall Street. Let me be clear. I am not talking about holding specific investors accountable who act much like shareholders in a public company. They would see a reduction in the value of their stock if the company experienced financial losses but would not be personally responsible for those losses. I am talking about the trusts, the company who owns the loan. That is who must be liable. This is not a popular provision I am calling for, but I think it is the right thing to do. We are in a crisis in America. It is going to take bold decisions to get the system back on track. These are not kinks that are going to work themselves out. We have seen that the industry is not going to police itself. Voluntarily changes are needed, but the bottom line is, without accountability, we are not going to see responsible behavior. As I said at the opening of these remarks, I am standing today for the American homeowner. If we want to prevent a similar problem from happening again in 5 or 10 years' time, our final subprime bill must hold Wall Street accountable. There are steps we must take today in order to help tomorrow's homeowners. We cannot kick the can down the road. Let's make sure our homeowners get fair, sustainable mortgages and that future homeowners are not caught in a future subprime storm. Enough is enough. It is time for real changes. I have enjoyed working with Chairman Dodd on this issue over the past few months. I look forward, under his leadership, to passing a strong subprime lending bill to help millions of American families. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, for more than 4 years now, President Bush has been declaring victory or progress in Iraq. The thousands of soldiers who have lost their legs, gone blind or suffered horrible nightmares might be finding it hard to celebrate. The families of those men and women might not be cheering very loud about the President's view of success. Thousands more whose children, whose mothers and fathers are lost forever might be finding it hard to share in the latest cries of victory. Yes, the number killed last month dropped to 37, and we certainly rejoice in the fact that fewer soldiers are dying. That is still another 37 families who have no reason to rejoice. More American troops have died this year than any other year. No matter how much military progress has been made in Iraq, that kind of security can only go so far. No amount of troops will force Iraqi politicians to agree on a fair distribution of oil revenues. No Abrams tank can build trust between Shiites and Sunnis. The whole point of this surge was to create the conditions necessary for Iraqis to make political progress. But 2 weeks ago, the Washington Post ran a headline that said: ``Iraqis Wasting an Opportunity, U.S. Officers Say.'' Iraqi security forces are still unable to operate on their own. Any cease-fire between factions could evaporate in minutes. We started drawing down troops to pre-surge levels, but we have to wonder whether we are going to be told again we have to re-surge, do it all over again because the Iraqi Government and security forces are largely still at square one. Our generals in Iraq have been the first to admit that a solution to the country's conflict has to be more than a military solution; it has to be a political solution. A political solution is up to Iraqi leaders. Right now there has been practically zero progress on the core critical issues necessary to bring a lasting peace. The administration set 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi Government to meet. They have barely met three. So is it time to turn up the pressure or let them keep squabbling while Americans pay and Americans die? There is more corruption in Iraq than almost anywhere else on the face of the Earth. We simply don't know where our money is going. It is a pit of quicksand when it comes to money. Some estimates say that as much as a third of the money we spend on Iraqi contracts and grants winds up unaccounted for or stolen--a third of billions of dollars, with a lot of it going straight to Shiite or Sunni militias. Let me repeat that: $1 out of every $3 we pay gets either lost or stolen--lost or stolen. Even after billions and billions and billions of dollars in funding, Iraqi society is still dysfunctional. American money went toward improving, for example, municipal water systems in Iraq. The Iraqis now break open the pipes and steal the water. American money went toward books for schools. Iraqis steal them from the Ministry of Education and sell them on the street at three times the price. Government officials have sold the furniture right out of their offices. That is what the American taxpayers are funding. So is it time to change our strategy, or do we ignore the corruption while Americans pay and Americans die? Here is the message we send to Iraqi politicians by sending them a blank check with no expiration date: Continue your squabbles. We will continue to see the loss of American life and continue to empty our treasury for you for as long as you like. That message is: You can sit back while Americans pay and Americans die. I think it is time for a different message, Mr. President. After seeing a surge in the military that has lasted for months do nothing about a splurge of corruption that has lasted for years, the conclusion we have to draw from that is clear: The only way Iraqis will take charge of their own country and make the tough compromises necessary to form a functional society is when they believe we won't be there forever. That is the only way. It is long past time for the Iraqi Government to take charge, and the only way they are going to step up is if we begin to transition out. A reduction in fighting is not an excuse for a reduction in planning for our involvement to end. The fact is, the violence has not stopped and the costs of this war have only gone up. The war is costing us $10 billion or so per month. The debt our Government is taking on, and that taxpayers are going to be responsible for, is exploding at the rate of $1 million a minute. I heard our colleagues earlier today, when I was Presiding Officer, talk about fiscal responsibility and what we bequeath to the next generation. Well, we are bequeathing them $1 million a minute of debt, because none of the money the President asked for is paid for--none of it. Yet when we try to invest in America, we are told there is no money for it. But it is okay to continue to saddle the next generation of Americans with a huge debt, $1 million a minute. When the numbers are that high, every American taxpayer has to ask him or herself a basic question: How does the President plan to pay for the war? Well, last week, we got a small part of that answer. He wants to cut funding for counterterrorism at home. According to a leaked administration document, President Bush wants to cut counterterrorism funding for cities by more than half. When I saw that article, I had to do a double-take. When I read that, I thought the report had to be wrong. It had to be wrong. Coming from the State of New Jersey, which lost 700 people--700 of my fellow citizens on that fateful day, and coming from a nation that lost 3,000 fellow Americans--to hear that we are going to continue to pump money into this war, a blank check, unpaid for, but that we will not take care of our security here at home, that had to be wrong. His reported budget would slash funding for police, firefighters, and rescue workers. It could mean fewer security guards at ports, less reliable detection of explosives, and less training for security personnel. Basically, it would undermine the entire effort to prevent terrorism that our Nation realized that September day, one of the most urgent challenges we have ever faced. Cutting counterterrorism funding is simply outrageous. Now I certainly hope the Congress is not going to stand for it, and the people who live in those cities definitely will not stand for it. But is it necessary to remind the President how important it is to protect our homes and families from terrorist attacks? Do we have to say that we must do everything within the bounds of possibility and the law to prevent a terrorist attack from happening again? And this suggestion that we are ultimately spending our efforts and lives and national treasure there so we don't have to spend it here is a falsehood. That is a falsehood. Is anyone here in America going to feel safer at the end of the day when counterterrorism funding is cut for their hometown security, which as we found out on that fateful day on September 11 is how we responded--with local police, local firefighters, local emergency management? It was not the Federal Government but the local public safety entities. Is that a risk President Bush wants to take, to cut what amounts to .06 percent of the Federal budget, especially when the war in Iraq has eaten up $455 billion and counting; when the amount he wants to take away from police and firefighters, the people who respond, should, God forbid we have an attack, is an amount we spend in Iraq every 5 days? The money we are talking about for protecting us here at home in America is what we spend every 5 days in Iraq. What are our values? What are our priorities, Mr. President? The President has requested $1 billion for the Iraqi police, but he wants to cut funding for the community-oriented policing program that fights crime in America's communities. So he will spend anything on the streets of Baghdad, but he suddenly thinks we should be stingy when it comes to security on the streets of our hometowns. The President wants a blank check for Iraq, but nothing for America. That ties into what you have been seeing on the floor over the last several days. The reason we can't get appropriations bills out is because Republicans object to the type of domestic priorities the American people elected a new majority to achieve. He wants a blank check for Iraq, but nothing for America. From children's health to cancer research to crucial water resources, the President has vetoed what is most essential: our health, our safety, and in essence, our liberty. He has repeatedly said it is all too expensive. Meanwhile, he is requesting $200 billion more to fight a war in Iraq that has achieved nothing for any of us; that has ultimately seen the deaths of thousands of Americans and has left us more disliked around the world as a nation than at any other point in recent history. He wants a blank check for Iraq, but nothing for America. If he submits a budget that cuts funding for counterterrorism, I think he will truly be laying a final brick in the Department of Homeland Hypocrisy. In high school many of us read George Orwell's book ``1984,'' which was about a nightmare world where words mean the exact opposite of what they should mean. America is starting to understand what the word ``security'' means to the President. He apparently thinks funding firefighters, police officers, and emergency responders is excessive, but he wants to spy on Americans without warrants, he wants to tap people's phones without any oversight, he condones procedures even the U.S. Army itself considers torture, he wants to throw people in jail without trials, and he basically ignores the most basic tenets of the justice system of the United States since the Constitution came into effect in 1789. President Bush wants to cut funding to stop terrorism in order to fund a war that has created terrorists. We didn't have al-Qaida in Iraq before we invaded Iraq. We have al-Qaida in Iraq after we invaded Iraq. America isn't just ready to turn the page on this administration; we are ready for a whole new book. I hope, as we move forward, we can get some of these domestic priorities that the Nation wants to see. I cannot believe we would spend $200 billion for Iraq but not a fraction of that to be able to ensure that millions of American children can have health care. I cannot believe we would spend $200 billion more for Iraq but not enough to handle police, firefighters, and emergency management in our communities across the landscape of this country. I cannot imagine approving $200 billion for Iraq but not being able to deal with the alternative minimum tax relief, a measure Senator Reid has tried to bring to the floor. On issue after issue, the obstructionism, the roadblocks, the coordination between the White House and our colleagues here in the Senate to impede the progress the American people want to see is incredible, as it is equally incredible to continue this course by asking for a blank check for Iraq, but nothing for America.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, as a reminder, cloture was filed on the Harkin substitute to the farm bill. Therefore, if Members have amendments on the list of amendments in order to the bill, they should have germane first-degree amendments filed at the desk by 1 p.m. tomorrow. However, if amendments have already been filed, there is no need to refile at this time.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Thune for up to 15 minutes, the Senate then stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:30 a.m., Thursday, December 6; that on Thursday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there be an hour of debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3996, with the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that the 20 minutes immediately prior to the cloture vote be divided 10 minutes each for the leaders and the majority leader controlling the final 10 minutes; that upon the use or yielding back of time, without further intervening action, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2371, introduced earlier today. The clerk will report the bill by title.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, more than 3,860 men and women of the American military have died in the war in Iraq. At last count, 21 were killed in November alone, and we are only halfway through. In the Senate, we are worried about getting out of work in time for Thanksgiving. In Iraq, they are worried about making it to Thanksgiving. As I speak today, more than 28,450 American soldiers have come home from Iraq with their lives changed forever by wounds, with missing arms and legs, with traumatic brain injuries that will forever alter how they cope with everyday life, with more cases of post- traumatic stress disorder than ever seen before, with life-altering blindness that cuts light from their lives forever. As I speak, American taxpayers are footing a $455 billion bill for this war, with long-term estimates soaring well beyond $2 trillion. At the same time, children are going without health care. Students are being denied proper education. Our bridges are going without repair. Our borders are going without being completely secured, and we heard today of a case in which we still can't get our screening down pat to secure the possibility of someone bringing an explosive device into our airports. That is the legacy of the war in Iraq. In the context of this set of grim statistics, while watching images on television of horrific explosions and bloody bodies, Americans were asked at the beginning of the year to accept a so-called surge of our troops into that country, an additional force that was supposed to provide the breathing room for the feuding political factions to achieve reconciliation. Those factions, of course, are Iraqi factions. The Bush administration knew that peace could not be achieved solely militarily, that it had to be achieved politically. The administration unilaterally decided that more troops, more weapons, more military would make the political reconciliation happen. So we have to ask: What has been the result? Our men and women of the military have carried out their mission with unparalleled skill and bravery. They have sacrificed life and limb for their country. That is why we must ask these questions. Because they always respond, no questions asked. But it is our obligation to ask for them. Through their excellent work, they have achieved results. But has it brought Iraq closer to a lasting peace? Has the political reconciliation--the very purpose of the additional troops--been achieved? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. The front page of today's Washington Post paints a startling picture, a picture of the hard truth. Our generals--our generals on the ground-- tell us that a political settlement remains elusive. In fact, their concern over this failure is growing. Let me quote from this morning's article in the Washington Post: Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat-- ``As the key threat''-- facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias. Let me read that again. Senior military commanders here-- U.S. military commanders-- now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian- backed militias. So here we are, 6 months into the surge, with more troops in Iraq right now--175,000--than ever before, and the main purpose of adding these troops remains just an aspiration, well out of our reach. So I ask my colleagues who supported the surge of troops, is this the result you envisioned? A situation in which dozens of Americans are still dying every month despite a reduction in violence? A situation in which the sons and daughters of America are more than ever acting as the police force--as the police force--in a country that remains volatile and deadly? A situation in which the people we need most to achieve stability--the leaders of the various Iraqi political factions--look at a never-ending American military presence in their country and see little reason to reconcile? Are we going to remain in the middle of an internal struggle for power, as General Petraeus reported in September? I was shocked when General Petraeus had as part of his testimony that the main conflict in Iraq was a struggle for power and resources within the different factions of Iraqi society. Are we sending our sons and daughters to create the space for the Iraqi politicians to fight over power and resources? That is what we sent our sons and daughters for? That is why we keep them there? Is that what we bargained for? We cannot accept the status quo in Iraq. When our military commanders say that, in fact, the biggest challenge to us is the intransigence of Iraqi leaders to come together, more so than al-Qaida, more so than Sunni insurgents, more so than Iranian influences, that is one incredible statement. Things must change, and to change it will take strong action. It requires a choice: Do we stay the course when we know that peace and political stability cannot be achieved looking down the barrel of a gun? Military presence does not achieve political reconciliation. Remember, former General Pace of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said once: Well, we need the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors. That is a powerful truism, but that does not come at the point of a rifle. That comes about through reconciliation. It comes through power sharing. It comes through revenue sharing. It comes through all of those things that, notwithstanding the arguments that we are creating the space for the Iraqi leadership to do, the Iraqi leadership has failed to do, and there is no movement in sight toward that goal. Or do we choose a course that impresses upon the political leaders in Iraq that they must reconcile and bring peace to their country swiftly? We need to make them understand the true urgency of this task. We need to make them understand America will not always be there to play policeman. Instead of continuing to enable an endless and unchanging involvement in Iraq, we can set a timetable to begin bringing American troops back home. I believe that only then will we have the Iraqis understand that we are not there in an endless occupation, that they are going to have to make the hard choices for compromise, negotiations necessary to achieve a government of national unity on those issues of reconciliation, power sharing, revenue sharing, on the core issues that possibly can create the opportunity for a strong federal government in Iraq to survive. But as long as they believe we will stay there in an open-ended set of circumstances--shedding our blood and spending our national treasure--what is the urgency, the impetus for them to stop jostling over power, influence, and resources? Not only could we preserve the lives of countless American troops, not only could we save billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars, we also could make certain that the Iraqis know they will have to stand up to achieve the peace we all seek, the opportunities we would love to see for the Iraqi people, because until the Iraqi Government and military actually believe we will not be there forever, they will not actually take charge of their own country. Transitioning our troops out of Iraq, that is what I choose. It is what the American people have continuously said they have chosen. It is what I urge my colleagues to choose. We have that opportunity coming tomorrow on the vote on bridge funding. That creates an opportunity to begin such a transition. I hope we will avail ourselves of that opportunity because if we have to read more and more of our generals saying that the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated Government is the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq rather than al-Qaida terrorists, Sunni insurgents, or Iranian-backed militias, we are in deep trouble--we are in deep trouble. We have to have an opportunity to change the course, and pride-- pride--I hope is not the impediment for people recognizing that. We have lost too many lives already. We have spent an enormous amount of money. It is time for change. It is time for a change in course. It is time to make sure the Iraqis know they have to stand up for their own future, they have to make the hard decisions possible to have a government of national unity. That opportunity comes tomorrow for the Senate. I hope we will avail ourselves of it. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.