mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 141 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 141, recognizing the efforts and accomplishments of the god's child project and congratulating the god's child project on its 20th anniversary. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be considered, the conrad amendment to the preamble which is at the desk be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, the resolution be considered, conrad amendment which is at the desk be agreed to and the resolution as amended be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without object

mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 25 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, to the millions of americans who are struggling to find jobs or make ends meet, this is simply stating the obvious, but i rise today a decade after we were told that the bush tax cuts for the wealthy would stimulate the economy and create jobs to say that they have done neither. a decade of the bush tax cuts have proven what we knew from the beginning: that they disproportionately benefited the wealthy, shifted wealth, did nothing for the middle class, and nothing trickle the down. -- trickled down. the tax cuts exploded the debt and continued to be an economic burden that be with twisted into a republican man infrastructure, an ironic rallying cry for what clearly is a failed economic policy. and yet addherence to the tax cuts for the wealth economy is a republican political litmus test no matter how clear the evidence is that they hav

mr. menendez. >> know by proxy. >> mr. harding. mr. casey. >> no. >> mr. web. mr. durbin. mr. udall. >> no by proxy. >> mr. lugar appeared >. >> aye. >> mr. demint. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. rosbarasso. >> no. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> five ayes and 13 nos. >> senator you goal is in new mexico or they have had -- senator udall is a new mexico where they're having severe fires. he was unable to return last night. we now turn to senator menendez -- excuse me, senator lugar. >> the purpose of this amendment is for congress to conduct oversight of any continued u.s. military operations in libya. it would report on the cost of the operations and how they're paid for. it would also require periodic reporting on the impact of the ongoing operations in libya on other u.s. and nato military operations, including operations against the taliban and al qaeda and afghanistan. reporting on these issues is not provided for in the carry-mccain resolution. given that the resolution would authorize military operations that could go on as much as a year and could expand in scope from current u.s.

mr. menendez? >> no by proxy? >> [inaudible] >> mr. casey? >> no. >> mr. web? >> no. >> mr. durbin? >> no. >> mr. utal? >> no by proxy? . >> mr. rubio? >> no. >> [inaudible] >> no. >> mr. demint? >> aye by proxy. >> mr. isaacson? >> [inaudible] >> mr. lee? >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> 5 ayes, 14 nays. >> may i be recorded at the lis a live no? >> yes, you will be recorded. >> mr. udah is doing his business in mexico and appropriately. we now turn to senator menendez. excuse me, senator lugar. the purpose of this amendment is to enhance congress's ability to conduct responsible oversight of any continued united states military operations in libya. it would require periodic reporting on the cost of operation and how these costs are being paid for. would also require periodic reporting on the impact of the ongoing operations in libya on other u.s. and nato military operations, including operations taliban and al qaeda. given that the resolution would authorize military operations that could go on for as much as a year, and could expand in scope from current operations, i believe i

mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise to urge my colleagues to vote for the confirmation of two of new jersey's most outstanding judicial professionals to fill two vacancies for the united states district court judges for the district of new jersey. and i understand that vote will be taking place around noon. both of these very qualified women are now united states magistrate judges. judge claire cecchi and judge esther salas are among the most respected leaders in new jersey's district community. both have demonstrated skill and professionalism on the bench and an impressive ability to manage the heavy and complex dockets before them. judge cecchi has a broad range of litigation experience having worked in the private sector for over 14 years. after serving in the office of corporation counsel for the city of new york, she practiced with robinson, st. john and wayne and later with robinson lapidus and level liu, both large and respected firms. she is no stranger as working for both defendants and plaint

mr. menendez: mr. president, first of all, i didn't come to the floor for this purpose, but i would be remiss if i didn't thank the distinguished senator from illinois, the democratic whip, for his incredible commitment and passion to this issue. i've seen him just about every session take out time every day to both dramatize and put a human face on this opportunity to turn some of america's greatest prospects into opportunity prosperity for this entire country. and i am thrilled that he has adopted various of my lines, and i'm honored by it. but it is true, these young people came to this country through no choice of their oefpblt the only -- their own. the only country they have known is the united states of america. they put their hand on their heart and pledge allegiance to the united states, the only national anthem they have ever learned to sing or believe in is ""the star-spangled banner"." and we have a tremendous opportunity. i want to thank the distinguished senator for his incredible commitm

mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise to speak in favor of the feinstein amendment, and i am a proud cosponsor of this proposal because it will save us money, it will reduce food prices, annandale doing so do it in a responsible manner. mr. president, ethanol enjoys truly unprecedented support from the federal government. first, there is the renewable fuels mandate, mandate that requires, requires ethanol to be blended into gasoline. second, there is a 45% -- 45-cent-per-gallon subsidy to blend ethanol into gasoline that is costing the treasury nearly nearly $6 billion per year. third, there is a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, protecting the domestic industry from any serious competition. and to top it all off, the federal government spends billions every year to subsidize the growth of corn for ethanol. so in a time of fiscal constraint, we simply cannot afford to prop up an industry with such enormous supports, and these supports are not just costing taxpayers money but they are also ca

mr. menendez: mr.president, i -- i regret that our colleagues have objected to consent to go to some of the most critical issues the country are facing, to have the finance committee meet on trade agreements that could expand markets and ultimately create jobs here in america, and that's what we need in america is creating jobs. that on the question of whether there should be a limited use of force that the country and particularly the senate should speak and not being able to do that is pretty amazing to me. and so i hear a lot about wanting to get the people's work done but then i hear objections to trying to move on get the people's work done. it's a pretty -- pretty outrageous. mr. president, i want to -- i came originally to the floor after this vote to thank president obama for yesterday calling and echoing my call to end subsidies for big oil. it's a call that received a bipartisan vote here in the senate, a bipartisan majority vote here in the senate, but, of course, did not pass. did not as if

menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ambassador, thank you for your service passed a new willingness to serve in the future. we had a good discussion when you came to my office. i want to pursue some of things we talked about at that time. i know you don't determine or strategy -- war strategy but i wonder what your role will be as the ambassador in terms of information to the congress about where we are at. i am one of those who believe that we would be more successful in afghanistan by reducing our troop presence in the south and continuing support for institution-building in the north. it seems to me that a counter- terrorism strategy reverses a counter-insurgency strategy which is where we are, fighting in search is to give the government time to have the wherewithal to stand up for itself and defend itself and govern itself would maybe be a considerate policy if we had a partner, which in my view, we do not have a solid partner in this regard. so, that present policy has had an enormous toll on american lives, on am

mr. chair. >> senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what happens when this program ceases to exist? what will happen to the real- estate market? >> you would have but the federal government and any hope of getting the private sector back into underwriting mortgages walk away from all properties because of flood risk. this happened in the 1960's when they determined it would no longer cover flood as a risk. it could the taxpayer in an uncovered risk -- it puts the tax payer in the u.n. career risk. what happens there is this is a hazard that currently the federal government is the primary provider of that coverage. without that, those people in the high-risk areas may not be able to receive financing for their homes. the original tenants of the program to protect the mortgages would come back and, i think, it is a great housing market even more than we have seen. >> with that as a promise, it seems like we needed to act. so the question is what do we do? in my state of new jersey in march, the governor filed a request for a federal disaster declaration and fema and the night it -- de

. >> woodruff: well, before we got so the troop question, senator menendez, what about mr. crocker ambassador crocker's statement today? he said the u.s. goal in afghanistan is plerly to create good-enough government. he said it doesn't... he said we're not after a model democracy there. >> i agree we're not after a model democracy but we're not anywhere near a government that is a... in my perspective an honest partner. how much more money will the united states taxpayers have to spend to get the type of government that even ambassador crocker talked about? we're talking about in this upcoming budget looking at another $3 billion in addition to the $19 billion just on the side of assistance. that's beyond the $10 billion a month in our counterinsurgency effort. so it just seems to me that that that there must be a different way. and if our national interests are striking against al qaeda and disrupting the taliban i'm not sure that we have to continue to spend these enormous amounts of money to prop up the karzai government and i find it very difficult to send the sons and

. >> thank you, senator menendez. mr. crocker, thank you for what you'd do for america. your qualifications are impeccable for this job. i do not envy what you are about to take on. i had been following this hearing electronically because i have had other things going on. let me just say that i share some of the skepticism that -- in fact, that is probably an understatement. i share a lot of the skepticism expressed here this morning. this is a messy situation. it is not getting any better. since i had been elected to the u.s. senate, people back home keep asking me, "what is going to happen? how is this going to end? what kind of progress has been made?" certainly, militarily, we have done it well, i believe. but beyond that, this is very difficult. to articulate what our objectives are and what our goals are and how this is going to end it with us achieving those is very, very difficult to grasp, let alone to convey to the american people. i wish you well. the problems here are very, very significant. i am glad you are the one going there because i think you're the rig

but that it will turn to senator menendez. >> mr. ambassador, thank you for your service does unchain both past and one is to serve in the future. mit still pursue some of the things we talked about at that time. i know you don't determine where strategy, i do wonder what your role will be as the ambassador in terms of information to the congress about where we're at. i am one of those who believe they would be more successful in afghanistan by reducing our troop presence in the south and continuing support for institution building in the north. it seems to me counterterrorist strategy versus the counter assertions be strategy, fighting insurgents to get the government potential of the wherewithal to stand up for itself, govern it of would maybe be a considered policy is made with a partner, which in my view, we do not have a solid partner in this regard. and so, that present policy has had an enormous toll on american lives, on american treasure and i don't think we've won the hearts and minds. so give me a sense. do you believe we

menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary clinton, thank you for coming today. i think everyone here is expressing frustration. when i first came here and look at all this, i was struck by what a -- skewed this is. perhaps eight rybinsk q. but you ik's kubicr -- rubki' you cannot result. it is very difficult to explain our objectives. for one reason, it has been changing. we are becoming more realistic. i noticed what has crept into our dialogue has been able never be perfect. thank goodness we finally recognize that. that clearly is a fact of life. the frustration with the two governments in both countries is overwhelming. we started in afghanistan with motives, as everyone said, that were great. we always hear people talk about winning in afghanistan. we won a long time ago. our objective there was debate al qaeda. references have been made that there are less than 100 left of them in the country. we are left fighting the taliban, who will fight us for centuries if we are so inclined we have to find a way to articulate what the objective is and then move on. i

menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman.rm supporter of yours i think you're an extraordinary secretary of state at an incredibly momentous time in history where there are few ton nick shifts taking place in different parts of world. i very much appreciate your service. but that does not abide a deep and nagging set of concerns i have on the course that we are on both where we send the sons and daughters of america to fight and sometimes die and in the national treasure of the united states. so i want to express those concerns that i have. we went into afghanistan for very clear reasons, reasons that i supported when i was in the house of representatives. these were the perpetrators of september 11th. that you and i vividly understand from the number of citizens that we lost both as americans and from our respective states. this is where usama bin laden was at the time. this is the where al qaeda was. they were the perpetrators. bin laden is dead. there are less than 100 al qaeda fighters in afghanistan. i look at this $10 b

whitehouse, klobuchar, cardin, binge minimum -- bingaman, merkley, menendez, shaheen, sanders, lautenberg, reed of rhode island, durbin, akaka. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:30 a.m. on tuesday, june 7. following the prayer and pledge the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day. following leader remarks, senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to one hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. following morning business the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 782, the economic development act. further that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for wee

mr. chairman. >> senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think there are some serious questions here. how is it -- we will hear from the next panel. i just want to look get some of the arguments they are presenting and give your sense of it. one is that they will say that this legislation would allow a new breed of credit unions to more aggressively pursue business customers for commercial and real estate loans. it would also serve as an invitation to credit unions that are not near this camp to focus on business lending in order to be eligible for a increase in their business lending cap. are you concerned about that? >> it would be an opportunity for credit unions to expand their business portfolio, but the loan to share ratio is about 68%. there is a great deal of capacity for credit unions to expand business lending and still meet the needs of consumers. >> what about the fact that credit unions by their nature are tax exempt and do not live within all the regulatory requirements that banking institutions live under. if we expand the nature of their portfolio, the argument is that