Floor Statements

Mr. President, Mari Carmen Aponte is an excellently qualified Latina who is being politically discriminated against despite a record of accomplishment for the United States in El Salvador, which is universally recognized as extraordinary, from getting Salvadoran troops to fight alongside us--the only Latin American country to do so--to creating a new monitoring center to fight transnational crime. To suggest that the FBI and diplomatic security would give her not one but two top secret clearances that were not merited is the ultimate insult to those agencies. It is simply wrong to use alleged nameless, faceless accusers to falsely impugn her reputation.

I urge my colleagues to allow an up-or-down vote on her nomination and to vote for cloture so we can get to that vote to let this qualified Latina continue to work on behalf of the United States and El Salvador as she has successfully done.

Mr. President, I understand I have 5 minutes.

Thank you very much.

Let me first thank Chairman Johnson for his leadership in this regard and in so many other major issues before the Banking Committee. He has really exercised a lot of our oversight obligations in making sure we implement Wall Street reform in a way that protects all of us as taxpayers in the country but creates a system that can still let us economically flourish, and this is one of those.

For too long too many in Washington protected Wall Street from commonsense regulations and let consumers fend for themselves. For too long Republican economic policy, when it should have protected the 99 percent of American consumers from the reckless financial games that led us to the brink of economic disaster in 2008, protected the 1 percent on Wall Street instead.

Banks played Russian roulette with the future and economic security of middle-class families, and no one--no one--was watching. Backed up by too-big-to-fail government guarantees, they wreaked havoc on our economy and on the jobs and retirement savings of families who played by the rules.

We have lived through the unfortunate results of lax oversight, and now it is time to work together to correct it. It is time to stop the political games and govern. It is time to act. It is time to work together to make sure middle-class families get the protection they deserve and the watchdog they need.

This is really about whose side a person is on. Cordray and consumer protection are being blocked simply because Republicans want to protect Wall Street. Wall Street already has a legion of lobbyists protecting its interests. We need someone who can protect Main Street's interests, and that is what Richard Cordray would do as the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Richard Cordray is an unquestionably well-qualified nominee, and no one is disputing that fact--no one. I have not heard anyone dispute his qualifications for the job. We know the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be off to a good start with Richard Cordray at the helm, despite efforts by special interests to derail the process. It will be a strong but fair agency under Richard Cordray--to protect financial consumers who are tired of being tricked by the fine print, the ``gotcha'' paragraphs that no one but a bank lawyer would understand.

Despite hysterical claims from Wall Street, the Bureau actually won widespread praise from both consumers and the industry for its first major initiative when it created a new and greatly simplified Know Before You Owe mortgage loan disclosure form so that consumers understand what kind of mortgage they are getting into before they take it. Had we had that type of language early on, maybe we wouldn't have had part of the crisis in which consumers were led to bad mortgage products--products that ultimately had skyrocketing interest rates-- when they qualified for a conventional mortgage. Maybe we wouldn't be in the great predicament we have been in since 2008.

Under Wall Street reform, Richard Cordray will be there to prevent those families from being ripped off again. Fixing our broken system was not easy, and it is still not over. We are still fighting to keep the ground we have gained against special interests.

The longer this nomination is delayed, the more consumers will suffer. Without a Director, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau cannot carry out some of its most vital functions, including regulating payday lenders, pawn shops, private student loan companies, those that make unscrupulous and predatory loans on our military families--we heard Senator Reed, who has great experience in this, talk about that-- giving them an unfair advantage at the same time as they do that over community banks and credit unions that are regulated, that are good and that play by the rules.

Now is a time to work together to make that happen. I ask that my colleagues stop playing games. Let us go to a final up-or-down vote on Mr. Cordray.

Republicans have continued to couple Mr. Cordray's nomination to weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is unprecedented. Never in Senate history has a nominee been opposed in the Senate because of opposition to the whole agency for which he or she has been nominated.

I say to my Republican colleagues, let's stop playing games with the protections American consumers need. Work with us to do the job we were elected to do and confirm this nominee. Work with us to protect consumers.

We have come a long way toward a middle ground in creating this agency with checks and balances to begin with. The time has come for Republicans to join us in governing.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to pass amendment No. 1414 that I have offered with my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Kirk, to strengthen sanctions against Iran that go to the heart of the regime's ability to finance its nuclear ambitions. This is a broad-based effort, a bipartisan effort, and one that needs the Senate's attention and passage.

In my view, we have to follow the money, and this amendment does exactly that. If we are serious about limiting Iran's ability to finance its nuclear ambitions, this amendment is essential to that effort. It is a serious attempt to sanction the Central Bank of Iran, which is known to be complicit in Iran's nuclear efforts.

If we fail to close loopholes and sanction funding mechanisms for Iran's nuclear development programs, we would be like a rancher who left the barn open and wonders why the horses are gone. To not pass this amendment is leaving the door open to Iran's runaway nuclear ambitions. We cannot and we must not let that happen.

I know the administration has expressed their concerns about this amendment--an amendment which, by the way, has come about as a result of the administration asking us to work with them, and a bipartisan effort has achieved a narrower, more defined, tailored effort to bring the maximum sanctions upon Iran with the minimum consequence to both the United States and our allies across the globe. But in the absence of congressional action over the last 15 years, starting with the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act and ending with CISADA, I have to wonder what we would be doing to stop Iran's drive to obtain nuclear weapons, if it were not for the Congress's intercession and actions.

I recognize this administration has done more than any prior administration in terms of using those tools the Congress has given them, but in my view, we have not done enough.

In a letter from Secretary Geithner today, the administration recognizes that ``Iran's greatest economic resource is its export of oil. Sales of crude oil line the regime's pockets, sustain its human rights abuses, and feed its nuclear ambitions like no other sector of the Iranian economy.'' That is what Secretary Geithner had to say in his letter. That is pretty compelling as to why this amendment needs to pass, that is why I have worked with Senator Kirk to pass this important amendment, and that is why we urge our colleagues to pass it.

To those who have raised concerns about the impact of the amendment on our allies and our multilateral diplomacy efforts, I would note that the European nations and the French in particular are already considering their own Iranian oil embargo. This is not, by the way, an oil embargo, but they are considering something far more significant-- their own Iranian oil embargo. They recognize that the Iranian nuclear program has a short fuse. Published reports say it may be as short as 1 year, and the time to act is now. They recognize that the Shahab missile would not only be capable of hitting the State of Israel but could easily hit a European nation--a European nation which obviously would be a NATO ally.

As for other countries, frankly, I am not concerned with how the Chinese feel about our amendment given that they are currently one of greatest violators of our current sanctions regime already. The evidence is clear.

I have been made aware that several major energy traders continue to make prohibited sales of refined petroleum to Iran. Yet our response has been to sanction the front companies rather than the major figures behind these sales.

China also continues to be a major Iranian trading partner and has agreements with Iran for nearly $40 billion in investments to develop Iranian oil fields. China has reportedly directed the China National Offshore Oil Corporation and National Petroleum Corporation to slow their work in Iran, presumably to allow them to make the argument to Washington to hold off on sanctions.

We must ask, why has the administration been reluctant to sanction Chinese companies when there is ample evidence that they are violating our own existing laws and there is precedent for us sanctioning Chinese companies for nuclear and weapons proliferation outcomes?

I would be happy to yield.

The Senator, in my view, is right, considering that they both have veto power at the Security Council. It seems to me that they are not likely allies in helping us pursue this course.

I believe the Senator is right.

The November 8 IAEA report underscores the need for this amendment. It undeniably confirms that there is a military component to Iran's nuclear program; that Iran has not suspended its Iranian enrichment and conversion activities at declared facilities and is seeking to develop as many as 10 new enrichment facilities; that there are undisclosed nuclear facilities in Iran; that Iran is seeking back channels to acquire dual-use technology and materials; that Iran is experimenting and testing detonators and initiation systems critical to creating a nuclear weapon; and that Iran may be working on an indigenous design for a nuclear weapon, including a nuclear payload small enough to fit on Iran's long-range Shahab missile, a missile capable of reaching Israel. These public revelations have led to an increase in multilateral sanctions on the Iranian regime, which I applaud, but given what appears to be a shortening timeline until Iran has a potential nuclear weapon, it would seem we are not doing enough fast enough.

Iran has adapted to CISADA and has negotiated workarounds to constraints on its financial transactions and its ability to acquire requisite materials to advance its clandestine program. This amendment will prevent those workarounds. It will impose sanctions on those international financial institutions that engage in business activities with the Central Bank of Iran--particularly in the pursuit of petroleum products--with the exception of transactions that include medicine and medical devices.

It is a timely amendment that follows the administration's decision last week designating the entire Iranian banking sector as a primary money laundering concern and a threat to government and financial institutions, noting Iran's illicit activities, including its pursuit of nuclear weapons, its support of terrorism, and its efforts to deceive responsible financial institutions and evade sanctions. In fact, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury wrote:

The Central Bank of Iran, which regulates Iranian banks,

has assisted designated Iranian banks by transferring

billions of dollars to those banks in 2011. In making these

transfers, the CBI attempted to evade sanctions by minimizing

the direct involvement of large international banks with

both CBI and designated Iranian banks.

The Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David Cohen, wrote:

Treasury is calling out the entire Iranian banking sector,

including the Central Bank of Iran, as posing terrorist

financing, proliferation financing, and money laundering

risks for the global financial system.

I don't know how much more compelling even the administration's own arguments are. As I have said on this floor, Iran's conduct threatens the national security of the United States and its allies. The complicit action of the Central Bank of Iran, based on its facilitation of the activities of the government, its evasion of multilateral sanctions directed against the Government of Iran, its engagement in deceptive financial practices and illicit transactions, and, most important, its provision of financial services in support of Iran's effort to acquire the knowledge, materials, and facilities to enrich uranium and to ultimately develop weapons of mass destruction, threatens regional peace and global security.

This amendment will starve the beast. It requires the President to prohibit transactions of Iranian financial institutions that touch U.S. financial institutions. To ensure that we don't spook the oil markets, transactions with Iran's Central Bank in petroleum and petroleum products would only be sanctioned if the President makes a determination that petroleum-producing countries other than Iran can provide sufficient alternative resources for the countries purchasing from Iran and that the country declines to make significant decreases in the purchases of Iranian oil.

This bipartisan amendment has been carefully crafted to ensure the maximum impact on Iran's financial infrastructure and ability to finance terrorist activities and to minimize the impact on global economy. It has the best chance of helping us achieve a peaceful solution to this threat. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I would be happy to do so. I know we have a vote in 5 minutes, and I want the distinguished Senator from Illinois to have an opportunity to speak.

The answer is, yes, there is a national security waiver, and, no, we do not believe the world's financial system will be destroyed. The fact is, as my distinguished colleague from Illinois has said, it is a choice between a $300 billion economy in Iran and a $14 trillion economy in the United States. I think that choice would be very clear for countries as they choose to do so, and the Europeans are already on a march on their own because they understand the risk to them.

I yield the floor, and I hope to hear from my colleague from Illinois.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1456

Mr. President, the Menendez-Kirk bipartisan amendment is sponsored by over half of the Members of the Senate. It makes it very clear that the Treasury Department's own determination under the PATRIOT Act that the Iranian Central Bank is the central source for money for Iran's nuclear march toward a nuclear weapon needs to be addressed. That is exactly what we do in this amendment. It creates the maximum effort against the Iranians, and it ensures that we do not have any oil disruption as a result of those sanctions by giving the President the opportunity to make a determination that there are sufficient oil supplies so as not to create a disruption, and it gives him in addition a national security waiver.

This is the maximum opportunity to have a peaceful diplomacy tool to stop Iran's march to nuclear weapons.

I urge my colleagues to give it a strong bipartisan vote.

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

Mr. President, I know we want to hear from our colleague shortly. I wish to join in recognizing over a quarter of a century of distinguished service from the senior Senator from New Jersey on this 9,000th vote, which is only emblematic of the type of work he has done, which is with a view toward not the next election but the next generation, whether it is saving lives by raising the drinking age; whether it is allowing workers to understand and have the right to know the toxic chemicals they were working with and the community in which those toxic chemicals were located; whether it is making sure all of us don't have to breathe secondhand smoke on an airplane; whether it is making sure that those who pilfer the land and contaminated it were held responsible to clean it up in the Superfund or to have cleaner air to breathe, Frank Lautenberg's legislation has touched millions of lives not only in New Jersey but across the Nation, and we salute him for his tremendous service.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak to a bipartisan amendment my colleague from Illinois, Senator Kirk, and I have offered. We believe it is one of the most critical issues facing our country in terms of national defense and global security. We have come together to the floor to speak about it.

One of the greatest threats--if not the greatest--to the security of our Nation and Israel is the concerted effort by the Government of Iran to acquire the technology and materials to create a nuclear weapon that will do two things:

First, we can be sure it will alter the balance of power in the Middle East.

Second, altering the balance of power with a nuclear Iran dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel would most certainly lead to hostilities--hostilities that could spill over to engulf the entire region and well beyond.

We cannot, we must not, and we will not let that happen. But the clock is ticking. Published reports suggest we may be just a year away from Iran having a nuclear weapon and the ability to deliver that nuclear weapon to a target. To forestall this scenario and, more importantly, to prevent it from happening in the first place, we must use all of the tools of peaceful diplomacy available to us. Simply put, we must do everything in our power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I do not believe there is anyone on either side of the aisle who disagrees with that proposition.

We come to the floor today to discuss a bipartisan amendment I have offered with my friend from Illinois, Senator Kirk, to limit Iran's ability to finance its nuclear ambitions by sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran, which has proven to be complicit in Iran's nuclear efforts. This amendment will impose sanctions on those international financial institutions that engage in business activities with the Central Bank of Iran.

This is a timely amendment that follows the administration's own decision last week designating Iran as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering. In fact, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury wrote:

The Central Bank of Iran, which regulates Iranian banks,

has assisted designated Iranian banks by transferring

billions of dollars to these banks in 2011. In making these

transfers, the Central Bank of Iran attempted to evade

sanctions by minimizing the direct involvement of large

international banks with both the Central Bank of Iran and

designated Iranian banks.

The Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David Cohen, has written this:

Treasury is calling out the entire Iranian banking sector,

including the Central Bank of Iran, as posing terrorist

financing, proliferation financing, and money laundering

risks for the global financial system.

The administration's own decisions clearly show that Iran's conduct threatens the national security of the United States and its allies, and the complicit action of the Central Bank of Iran, based on its facilitation of the activities of the government, its evasion of multilateral sanctions directed against the Government of Iran, its engagement in deceptive financial practices and illicit transactions, and, most importantly, its provision of financial services in support of Iran's effort to acquire the knowledge, materials, and facilities to enrich uranium and to ultimately develop weapons of mass destruction, threatens regional peace and global security.

We recently learned just how far down the nuclear road Iran has come. The International Atomic Energy Agency's report indicates what all of us already suspected--Iran continues to enrich uranium and is seeking to develop as many as 10 new enrichment facilities; that Iran has conducted high-explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, as well as computer modeling of the core of a nuclear warhead; that Iran has engaged in preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test; that an August IAEA inspection revealed that 43.5 pounds of a component used to arm nuclear warheads was unaccounted for in Iran; and that Iran is working on an indigenous design for a nuclear payload small enough to fit on Iran's long-range Shahab-3 missile, a missile capable of reaching the State of Israel.

What more do we need to know before we take the next diplomatic step to address the financial mechanism that is helping make Iran's nuclear ambitions a reality? These revelations, combined with Iran's provocative effort in October to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, demonstrate that Iran's aggression has taken a violent turn and that we have every reason to believe that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it may very well use it, and use it against our ally, the State of Israel.

This amendment will impose sanctions on any foreign financial institution that engages in significant transactions with the Central Bank of Iran, with the exception of transactions in food, medicine, and medical devices. It recognizes the administration's actions last week pursuant to section 311 of the PATRIOT Act designating the entire Iranian banking sector as a primary money laundering concern. It requires the President to prohibit transactions of Iranian financial institutions that touch U.S. financial institutions.

To ensure that we don't spook the oil market, transactions with Iran's Central Bank in petroleum and petroleum products would only be sanctioned if the President makes a determination that petroleum- producing countries other than Iran can provide sufficient alternative resources for the countries purchasing from Iran and if the country declines to make significant decreases in its purchases of Iranian oil.

This bipartisan amendment has been carefully drafted to ensure the maximum impact on Iran's financial infrastructure and its ability to finance terrorist activities and to minimize the impact on the global economy. Iran has a history of exploiting terrorism against coalition forces in Iraq, in Argentina, Lebanon, and even, in their attempt to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador, in Washington. While Iran's drive to advance its nuclear weapons program has been slowed by U.S. and international sanctions, it clearly remains undeterred.

Today, we take--hopefully today or tomorrow when we vote on this amendment--the next step in isolating Iran politically and financially. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the other side and with the administration to achieve this goal and to also advance the legislation I introduced earlier this year with many others on both sides of the aisle--the Iran, North Korea, and Syrian Sanctions Consolidation Act, which has 80 bipartisan cosponsors at this point. Our efforts to date have been transformative. But just as Iran has been prepared to adjust to the sanctions and unanticipated loopholes, just as it has been prepared to take advantage of every loophole to circumvent the sanctions and keep moving forward in its effort to achieve a robust nuclear program, we must be equally prepared to adjust and adapt by closing each loophole and stopping the regime's nuclear efforts. By identifying the Central Bank of Iran as the Iranian regime's partner and the financier of its terrorist agenda, we can begin to starve

the regime of the money it needs to achieve its nuclear goals.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment that will go a long way toward closing financial loopholes and helping prevent the Iranian regime from moving its nuclear ambitions to the weapons phase and closer to the warhead of a missile.

We cannot, we must not, and we will not allow Iran to threaten the stability of the region and the peace and security of the world. I appreciate the support of my distinguished colleague from Illinois who is on the floor, who has worked with us in this regard and come to a common view and effort to maximize the effect on Iran and minimize the effect to both us and the global economy, and certainly urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. President, on rollcall vote 210, I voted ``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, one of the greatest--if not the greatest threats to the security of our Nation and our ally Israel--is the concerted effort by the Government of Iran to acquire the technology and materials to create a nuclear weapon that will alter the balance of power in the Middle East, and which would most certainly lead to hostilities. To forestall or ideally prevent this scenario, we must use ALL of the tools of peaceful diplomacy available to us.

Simply put, we must do everything in our power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I am pleased to offer an amendment that will limit Iran's ability to finance its nuclear ambitions by sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran, which is complicit in Iran's efforts.

This amendment will require the President to make a determination about whether the Central Bank of Iran's conduct threatens the national security of the United States or its allies based on its facilitation of the activities of the Government of Iran that threaten global or regional peace and security, its evasion of multilateral sanctions directed against the Government of Iran; its engagement in deceptive financial practices and illicit transactions, and most importantly its provision of financial services in support of Iran's effort to acquire the knowledge, materials, and facilities to enrich uranium and to ultimately develop weapons of mass destruction.

Last week we learned just how far down the nuclear road Iran has come. The International Atomic Energy Agency's report indicates that Iran continues to enrich uranium and is seeking to develop as many as 10 new enrichment facilities; has conducted high explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, as well as computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead; and has engaged in preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test. We also learned that an August IAEA inspection revealed that 43.5 pounds of a component--used to arm nuclear warheads--was unaccounted for in Iran and that Iran is working on an indigenous design for a nuclear payload small enough to fit on Iran's long-range Shahab-3 missile, a missile capable to reaching Israel.

These revelations--combined with Iran's provocative effort in October to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States--demonstrate that Iran's aggression has taken a violent turn and that we can expect that if it gets a nuclear weapon that it will use that weapon.

This amendment will impose sanctions on any foreign financial institutions that engage in significant transactions with the Central Bank of Iran, with the exception of transactions in food, medicine, and medical devices. It sends the message that you have a choice--to do business with the United States or to do business with Iran.

Iran has a history of exporting terrorism--against coalition forces in Iraq, in Argentina, Lebanon, and even in Washington; and while Iran's drive to advance its nuclear weapons program has been slowed by U.S. and international sanctions, it remains undeterred. Today, we take the next step to isolate Iran politically and financially.

I also look forward to continuing to work with the administration and with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve our shared goals and to make this a bipartisan initiative.

Our efforts to date have been transformative, but Iran has adapted to the sanctions, unanticipated loopholes have allowed the regime to adjust and circumvent the sanctions and drive forward its effort to achieve a robust nuclear program.

We have to be just as prepared to adjust and adapt by closing each loophole that arises. By identifying the Central Bank of Iran as the Iranian regime's partner and financier of its terrorist agenda we can begin to starve the regime of the money it needs to achieve its nuclear goals.

Amendment No. 1114

I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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. 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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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. 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.

Yes.