Sen. Robert Menendez

La reforma migratoria: paso a paso

2013-04-29T13:09:58-04:00

Como miembro del grupo bipartidista de los ocho en el Senado, me gustaría reflexionar sobre la introducción del proyecto de ley para reformar nuestro sistema migratorio. Hay un proverbio chino que dice: "un viaje de 1000 millas comienza con un solo paso." El hecho de que pudimos llegar a un acuerdo sobre la reforma migratoria fue ese "paso" - un logro extraordinario, del cual estoy orgulloso de haber podido ayudar a alcanzar.

Esta propuesta arregla nuestro sistema migratorio, asegura nuestras fronteras, ayuda a la economía estadounidense, y preserva nuestra tradición como un país compuesto por inmigrantes.

SI TIENES ALGO QUE DECIR, HAZ CLICK AQUÍ: NOS INTERESA TU COMENTARIO

Este proyecto de ley provee un camino hacia la ciudadanía para los 11 millones de indocumentados que viven en los Estados Unidos. El camino, que tomará 13 años, establece una serie de requisitos de sentido común que son duros pero justos, incluyendo verificaciones de antecedentes, multas y sanciones, el pago de impuestos, y el aprendizaje de un nivel de inglés básico. No será fácil, pero las reglas serán claras. Esta propuesta no le regala nada a nadie; esta propuesta establece un camino para obtener derechos y responsabilidades merecidas a través de esfuerzos y trabajo duro.

Las familias se reunificarán por medio de una clausula de la propuesta que permite la reunificación inmediata de los residentes permanentes con sus cónyuges e hijos menores de edad.

Las personas con solicitudes de residencia permanente pendientes recibirán prioridad y preferencia sobre los 11 millones de indocumentados que ya se encuentran en nuestro país. Y la legislación fortalece aún más la seguridad fronteriza con un plan de 5 años para conseguir un nivel de eficacia de 90 por ciento y vigilancia permanente.

Pero quizás una de las mayores victorias de esta legislación es que proporciona una de las grandes promesas de los Estados Unidos: la promesa de mejores oportunidades, la cual inspiró a mis padres a que vinieran a los Estados Unidos de Cuba. Este proyecto de ley le ofrece mejores oportunidades a aquellos indocumentados que han estado aquí, contribuyendo a la economía de los Estados Unidos, viviendo en constante temor de la deportación y la explotación. Aunque sus vidas comenzaron afuera de los Estados Unidos, esta propuesta le brinda mejores oportunidades a los DREAMers - los jóvenes que fueron traídos a este país por sus padres, quienes a través de toda su vida sólo han jurado lealtad a la bandera de los Estados Unidos, y el único himno que conocen es el himno nacional de este país.
Nuestra legislación nos da la esperanza de que no volveremos a ver casos como el de Vidal Tapia, quien después de graduarse con honores en el 2011 de la Escuela Internacional de Paterson, se enfrentó a una expulsión por 10 años de los Estados Unidos por ser uno de los miles de DREAMers en nuestro país. Esta propuesta también reconoce el patriotismo de personas como el cabo José Gutiérrez, quien sacrificó su vida por esta nación al ser el primer fallecido estadounidense en la guerra de Irak - un soldado que murió soñando con ser un ciudadano americano.

Sería negligente de mi parte no reconocer el admirable esfuerzo bipartidista que forjó este proyecto de ley, que pudo unir a aliados poco probables - entre ellos el senador Charles Schumer de Nueva York y el senador John McCain de Arizona - para así encontrar soluciones permanentes a los complicados problemas de nuestro sistema migratorio. Las negociaciones no fueron fáciles, pero siempre se mantuvo la buena fe. Al final, el "Grupo de los 8" logró su objetivo.

Espero que todos mis colegas en el Congreso siguán los pasos del "Grupo de los 8" y nos ayuden a arreglar nuestro sistema migratorio roto al aprobar una reforma migratoria integral este mismo año.

Robert Menéndez, senador demócrata de Nueva Jersey, miembro del "Grupo de los 8", y Presidente del Comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado.

Afghanistan Is Ready to Seize Its Destiny

2013-03-13T15:28:03-04:00

After 9-11, we sent American troops into Afghanistan to drain the swamp of terrorists who attacked us, and our brave men and women in uniform have done everything we asked and more. There are now fewer than 100 known Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan and the Taliban's ability to provide them a safe haven has been severely diminished. Thousands of American advisors, from election experts to engineers have been building the underpinnings of Afghanistan's democracy and infrastructure, and have put Afghanistan on the road to a brighter, more secure, and more prosperous future.

But, having recently returned from my first trip as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to a region that remains essential to our overall national security, I realize that Afghans and Pakistanis are deeply fearful that history will repeat itself. In my conversations with government officials, civil society, and human rights leaders, I heard firsthand the anxiety and fear folks have about the transition and U.S. plans post 2014. Too many in the region still question our intentions and staying power. They do not want the United States to stay as an occupier; nor do they want us to abandon them. Afghans today fear U.S. abandonment more than they fear the Taliban, an anxiety that leads many actors in the region to hedge their bets to protect their interests instead of supporting a unified political strategy.

It will not be easy to change the narrative on the ground. But we must make clear that the United States will not forsake Afghanistan by emphasizing that our Strategic Partnership Agreement, which we signed last year, lays out specific terms for long-term political engagement. This spring, we and our Afghan partners must quickly conclude our Bilateral Security Agreement so that all parties understand what the U.S. military footprint will look like post 2014. President Obama has committed to a responsible and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops. We have to convince the region we will not leave behind a security vacuum in its place.

In fact, the transition to an Afghan national army is working. Afghans are now responsible for securing 87 percent of the country. Significant challenges remain in building the quality of the forces and transitioning the police to a community policing model, but they are making real progress in securing key population centers. Today, 80 percent of the violence takes place among only 20 percent of the population. With our long-term help, this will not be a force that is going to fall apart when coalition troops depart.

Our troops and civilians have done a terrific job in creating an enabling environment for Afghans to take over responsibility for their country. They have made enormous sacrifices, including multiple tours away from their families, life-altering injuries, and, in too many case, lives lost. Because of our collective efforts, Afghanistan has made tangible progress in educating its girls, improving maternal and child health, creating a road network and energy grid, fostering small business development, and connecting to the outside world through cellphones and the internet.

In order to sustain these gains, Afghanistan must have a successful presidential election next year that results in a legitimate transfer of power from President Hamid Karzai to his successor. In fact, the most critical milestone for Afghanistan's future stability is a peaceful and credible transition of power through elections in 2014. It is important that President Karzai adopt laws and make necessary appointments in the next month or two that ensure the independence of the Independent Election Commission and allow election disputes to be resolved openly and fairly. The elections must be free from internal or external interference, and the United States should condition long-term assistance on their credibility and the successful transition of power.

To be clear, significant political, security, and economic challenges remain as we transition to full Afghan control next year. The success of current reconciliation efforts with the Taliban will be a barometer of whether the Taliban can make a transition to a political movement. Insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan continue to threaten Afghanistan. Much work remains to build a regional consensus on the way forward. And the Afghan government must live up to its reform commitments as laid out in the Tokyo conference last year.

Despite these challenges, I believe President Obama has us on the right path for withdrawing our troops and transitioning to a U.S. mission focused on counterterrorism operations and to Afghan-controlled security operations. This shift in military engagement can also be accompanied by a streamlining of development assistance that puts U.S. taxpayer dollars to good use in helping Afghans strengthen their national government and improve conditions for free market growth. Afghanistan today is ready to seize its own destiny, and the United States will stand by as a friend and partner.

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Para Romney, demasiado tarde

2012-09-19T15:25:40-04:00

Mis padres eran una pareja joven cuando llegaron a Estados Unidos desde la Habana, inmigrando a un país que les prometió oportunidades y libertad. Este era el país donde cualquier persona podía llegar a la clase media, un país que pronto garantizaría que ninguna persona de la tercera de edad quedara sin cuidado de salud, un país incluyente que recibía a las personas del mundo con brazos abiertos.

Hoy, Mitt Romney aparecerá en Univisión e intentará convencernos que bajo sus políticas, Estados Unidos podrá prosperar. Intentará reinventar su historial como ya lo ha hecho muchas veces al afirmar que sus valores se alinean a los de la comunidad hispana.

Pero ya será muy tarde.

Durante el último año, el gobernador Romney ha demostrado una y otra vez que está de lado equivocado de todos los temas importantes para nuestras familias. Más que eso, está de lado equivocado de la historia. Una administración Romney-Ryan socavaría la seguridad económica de la clase media y la seguridad de salud de las personas de la tercera edad. Y en cuanto la inmigración, Mitt Romney es el candidato más extremo en la historia moderna.

Mientras muchas familias están batallando, Romney no haría nada para generar empleos ni oportunidades para la clase media. Sus planes son las mismas políticas económicas fallidas que llevaron nuestra economía al borde del colapso.

¿Cuál es la respuesta Romney-Ryan para los millones de dueños de hogar que están sufriendo por los juicios hipotecarios? Dejar que el mercado de vivienda "toque fondo". Y aumentarían los impuestos de la típica familia de clase media con hijos por $2000 para pagar reducciones de impuestos para los estadounidenses más ricos.

La falta de honestidad de Romney en cuanto al cuidado de salud es asombrosa. Ha llenado la radio de la Florida con afirmaciones falsas acusando al Presidente Obama de haber recortado Medicare. A la vez, él y Ryan convertirían Medicare en una libreta de cupones, obligando a las personas de la tercera edad a acudir a las empresas privadas de seguro médico. Si la libreta de cupones no cubren lo que necesita, Romney y Ryan le dicen: ni modo, está solo.

Como alguien que ha pasado toda su carrera trabajando para proteger a la clase media a la cual mis padres lucharon tanto por permanecer, sé que ese plan no refleja los valores de la comunidad hispana o aquellos de la comunidad estadounidense en general.

Las posturas migratorias de Romney devastarían familias y comunidades. Prometió vetar el DREAM Act, llamándolo una "limosna", dijo que la radical ley migratoria de Arizona era un "model a seguir" para la nación y apoya hacer insoportables las vidas de millones de personas, que llegaron aquí en búsqueda de una oportunidad, para que se "auto-deporten". Y apenas la semana pasada, respaldó al congresista Steve King de Iowa, un hombre que ha comparado a los inmigrantes con perros y sugiere que construyamos una cerca eléctrica en la frontera.
Aunque Romney y Ryan quieran desmantelar Medicare y aumentar los impuestos de la clase media para que puedan reducir los impuestos de los más ricos, el Presidente Obama entiende que nuestra máxima prioridad debe ser regresar las personas al trabajo y hacer crecer la clase media.

Cuando el Presidente Obama asumió el cargo, nuestro país estaba perdiendo más de 800,000 empleos al mes. Pero en los últimos 30 meses, las empresas estadounidenses ha generado más de 4.6 millones de empleos nuevos y el desempleo entre los hispanos ha caído.
Las reformas de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio, la cual apoyo orgullosamente, también les darán más seguridad económica a los hispanos. Ya han permitido que más de 900,000 jóvenes hispanos permanezcan bajo la cobertura médica de sus padres y cuando sea implementado por completo, millones de hispanos en todo el país podrán comprar el seguro médico que antes no podían comprar.

A diferencia de Romney y Ryan, el presidente nunca romperá la promesa que le hemos hecho a nuestras personas de la tercera edad al convertir Medicare en una libreta de cupones. De hecho, ya ha fortalecido y resguardado Medicare al bajar los precios de los medicamentos de receta y al extender la solvencia del programa por años.

Sé que el Presidente Obama está resuelto a implementar una reforma migratoria integral que asegure nuestras fronteras, haga que las empresas rindan cuentas y fomente el esfuerzo y la responsabilidad--y cuando sea reelecto estaré ansioso por trabajar con él desde el Senado para lograrlo.

Comparte mi compromiso a pasar el DREAM Act para que los jóvenes que fueron traídos aquí por sus padres, y son estadounidenses en todos los sentidos menos en papel, por fin puedan contribuir al único país que consideran suyo. Y hasta que los republicanos en el Congreso estén dispuestos a trabajar con nosotros, la administración de Obama les ha dado a los DREAMers la oportunidad de seguir sus sueños abiertamente, no entre las sombras.

Mitt Romney ofrecerá muchas citas pegajosas y promesas vacías en televisión mañana pero tenemos que hacer que rinda cuentas. No comparte nuestras prioridades ni nuestros valores, y hay demasiado en juego para dejar que nos regrese al pasado.

También en HuffPost Voces:

¿Te gustó este artículo?
Mira qué opinan otros y deja tu comentario aquí

A Letter to Santa Claus

2010-12-23T11:00:20-05:00

December 23, 2010

Dear Santa Claus,

I am writing out of concern, because you may have to move from the North Pole due to the dramatic melting of Arctic sea ice. The Navy's chief oceanographer says that by the summer of 2020 the North Pole may not have summer ice and other scientists project that an ice-free Arctic is possible as soon as 2012!

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that polar ice is melting because of greenhouse gas pollution and I am working hard to reduce these emissions. But there is probably nothing we can do in time to save the North Pole. I am worried about your safety and your ability to deliver billions of Christmas gifts if the ice cap on the North Pole no longer stays frozen all year. What will happen to your house, your workshop, the elves' houses and your reindeer barns?

I want you to know that if you want to relocate to the beautiful state of New Jersey, I would be proud to assist you. But given the climate you are accustomed to, I will understand if you would like to relocate to the South Pole. Just be sure not to move to the Antarctic Peninsula or West Antarctic ice sheet, areas that are also experiencing rapid ice melt.

Please know that I will work to mobilize the U.S. federal government to assist when you relocate. I am sure we can both agree that on a warming planet, we need to do all we can to save Christmas.

Sincerely,
Robert Menendez
U.S. Senator

This Year, One Extra Mother's Day Gift

2010-05-07T19:39:40-04:00

Postpartum depression is a national problem that needs a national response. The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act is the beginning of a long overdue national effort to combat this debilitating condition on multiple fronts -- with education, support services, and research -- so that affected new mothers can feel supported and safe rather than scared and alone. This Mother's Day we have cause to celebrate because the MOTHERS Act is now the law of the land.

Melanie Blocker Stokes was a healthy young mother who did not seem to know how to respond when her dream of motherhood became a reality. By the time her daughter, Sommer, was only 8 months old, Melanie's depression had become severe. She stopped eating and drinking and could no longer swallow. She became paranoid and looked for ways to end her life. She was hospitalized three times in seven weeks, was treated for depression and anxiety, but in the end she took her own life as a result of postpartum psychosis.

The MOTHERS Act we both have fought for -- along with Congressman Bobby Rush -- is named for her. It was passed into law and signed by the President as part of health insurance reform. It will begin to build the type of support structure that can be vital to the 10 to 20 percent of all new mothers who suffer from postpartum depression. It will focus national attention on the condition and help those affected by it feel safe, help them get through it, and help researchers get to the bottom of it.

With a National Public Awareness Campaign, the MOTHERS Act will shine a needed light on the seriousness and potentially devastating consequences of postpartum depression, so that new mothers, their families and the general public will better understand this condition and let them know that help is available.

Some people still think postpartum depression is just the "baby blues." This law will help dispel that notion and raise awareness among all of us. It will help educate new moms, their families, and every American about the torment of postpartum depression and how it can alter a woman's life and affect the lives of those who love her.

We both know there is still a lot to learn about why women get postpartum depression and how best to help them with treatment. This law is a beginning. It will open avenues of new research into the causes, diagnosis, and treatments of postpartum depression that affects as many as 800,000 new mothers in the United States each year.

We also know the importance of providing sufficient support in local communities so that new mothers suffering from this condition will have a place to go to find the help they need. The MOTHERS Act encourages the creation of local programs to give grants to community organizations, hospitals, and local governments to put in place effective support services. Hopefully, over time, we will see such support services spring up in every city and community across America because postpartum depression has no boundaries.

The bottom line for us is that, finally, this law makes postpartum depression a national issue. That's a victory for all women and, at this time of year, an added gift for Mother's Day. We believe we are now on a path toward better understanding postpartum depression, and we believe that a national effort to identify the best ways to promote the most effective screening and diagnostic techniques will make a difference to women and their families.

We are also pleased that, with the passage of health insurance reform this year, all new insurance plans will be required to cover comprehensive women's preventive care and screenings. That is now the law of the land and a major victory for women across this nation.

The overwhelming sadness, the unbearable thoughts, the emotional nightmare of postpartum depression is a horror that can cause extraordinary suffering. Anyone who has endured the emotional pain knows that this law is not only badly needed, but it is the right thing to do. We as a community -- each of us working together for the betterment of all of us -- have an obligation to all new mothers who need our help. We have an obligation to raise awareness, establish support services and do the research necessary to provide a ray of sunshine to those affected by postpartum depression.

That is what the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act is all about. It was enacted for Melanie and for the many women, one of whom has co-authored this article, who have experienced postpartum depression. We believe that a new national focus on this condition will, in the coming years, bring hope to millions of new mothers.

The Politics of Fabrication and Fear

2009-08-14T10:45:37-04:00

The politics of fabrication and fear is back. In the tradition of Karl Rove, the architects of our recession are at it again, pushing a fear-stoking message based on falsehoods. They are delighting as the fear turns into public anger, and the cable news networks can't get enough.

Some have marveled at how the special interests and the right wing leadership have influenced the health insurance reform debate by fostering town hall tempers. I suppose they would call a political strategy based on misinformation smart. I prefer to call it tremendously cynical. It is the same sort of politics that took our country to war in Iraq.

President Obama has worked incredibly hard to communicate what health insurance reform would mean to every American, using his figurative megaphone more assertively and repeatedly than on any other issue. Many of us in Congress have worked to back him up.

We strive to communicate the facts -- facts about the reform we are actually pursuing, facts about what more of the same could cost our families. Unfortunately, facts and legislation don't often make for good television.

The projection that one out of every three dollars the average American earns could soon be consumed by health insurance costs doesn't make for good television. The legislative effort to stop insurance companies from denying valid claims or refusing to cover pre-existing conditions doesn't make for good television. The fact that we want Americans to have a real choice of health insurance doesn't make for good television.

What does make for good television is people, driven out of fear by a threat that doesn't exist, showing their anger and frustration at public meetings. They do this because they are told that health insurance reform will amount to a "government takeover" of health care, "socialized medicine" and the implementation of so-called "death panels." And the images of people angrily repeating this bill of goods they have been sold look better on TV than the response explaining what reform would really mean.

Let's get this straight, there is no truth to a government takeover, socialism or so-called death panels.

Instead, here are some actual facts that are truly frightening: until recently, our nation was on the brink of another Great Depression. Americans lost trillions of dollars -- that's trillions, with a "T" -- worth of investments and retirement savings with the collapse of the financial markets. Millions of American families have lost their homes to foreclosure over the past couple of years.

And the same people who steered our families into this economic ditch want to protect the status quo when it comes to health insurance. They want to "break" the president who is working to bring our nation to a place of economic security.

Let's not have short memories about what brought us into this recession and what it will take to create long term economic security for our families.

In this struggle of fabrication versus facts, those of us who think health insurance needs to be reformed should keep emphasizing what we hope to do and what would happen if nothing is done. But there's another set of facts we have to highlight.

We have to talk about and stand with our constituents who have approached us year after year, some in tears, to tell us how their health insurance simply wasn't there when they needed it the most. How their small business is drowning under the costs of providing their employees with insurance. How they are in a health care abyss between Medicaid and costly insurance.

How in New Jersey, an expectant mother was denied coverage for all of her pregnancy-related costs when her insurance company claimed she couldn't prove that her pregnancy started while enrolled in their plan.

These stories -- and there are millions upon millions of them across this land -- are the reason that health insurance reform is so crucial. These stories help illustrate why focusing on fabrications is so detrimental to our nation. These stories are why we can't let the people who created this recession force us to accept more of the same.

Realizing the Ideal: America Fulfills its Promise

2009-08-06T19:01:44-04:00

The Senate, in confirming Judge Sonia Sotomayor, has made history and stood witness to the coming of age of America.

Our founders built a nation on an idea and an ideal.

They devised a unique experiment in a new form of government built on tolerance, equal rights, justice, and a constitution that protected us from the mighty sword of tyranny. They forged a community from shared values, common principles, yet preserved the freedom of every citizen to pursue happiness and reach for the stars no matter their circumstance at birth.

It was a revolutionary notion that, in America, one is not bound by economic or social status, and that, if we work hard, reach further, aim higher, everything is possible.

I was born in the same year as Judge Sotomayor. Like her, I came from humble beginnings, raised in an old tenement in an old neighborhood in Union City, New Jersey, the son of immigrants, first in my family to go to college.

I never dreamed that, one day, someone of my background would have the opportunity to go to the floor of the United States Senate to vote to confirm an eminently-qualified Hispanic woman who grew up in a housing project in the Bronx, across the river from that old tenement in Union City.

When Judge Sotomayor takes her seat on the United States Supreme Court, we will need only to look at the portrait of the Justices of the new Supreme Court to see how far we have come as a nation, who we really are as a people, and what our founders intended us to be, yet still we are too often divided by deeply-held individual beliefs.

The fact is we have different perspectives and different views not withstanding our common concerns and interests. All of us see the world differently and cannot deny our backgrounds or who we are. All we can ask of ourselves is that wisdom, intelligence, reason, and logic will always prevail in the decisions we make. But it is important to emphasize that who we are is not a measure of how we judge; it is merely the prism through which we analyze the facts. The real test is how we think and what we do.

The fact is that Sonia Sotomayor brings more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any Justice in the last 70 years and more Federal judicial experience than anyone in the last century. Her credentials are impeccable. She was appointed by George H. W. Bush to the U.S. District Court in New York, by Bill Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and was confirmed by both a Democratic majority Senate and a Republican majority Senate which should tell us: if she was qualified then, she must be qualified now.

The worst her opponents can accuse her of is an accident of geography that gave her the unique ability to see the world from the street view, from the cheap seats. I know that view well. It provides a unique perspective on life. It engenders compassion. It engenders pathos, and it focuses a clear lens on the lives of those whose struggles are more profound than ours, and whose problems run far, far deeper.

That view remains with me today, and will remain with me all of my life. To me, there may be no greater vantage point from which to see the whole picture than a tenement in Union City or a housing project in the Bronx.

Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said: "I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground." Judge Sonia Sotomayor commands a view of the whole ground. It is a strength, not a weakness.

It is who she is, not what she will do or how she will judge. It is the long view, and it gives her an edge, for she may see what others cannot, and that is a gift that will benefit this nation as a whole.

When Judge Sonia Sotomayor places her hand on the Bible and takes the oath of office, the new portrait of the Justices of the Unites States Supreme Court will more clearly reflect who we are as a nation and what we stand for as a fair, just, and hopeful people. Let that be the legacy of our generation.

Introducing the Concept of Choice Into Our Health Care System

2009-06-25T14:32:56-04:00

Public plan option. Three words in the health care reform process about which much has been said -- a lot of it meant to stoke fears. Amidst all of the mischaracterizations being thrown around, let's focus on the most important of those three words: Option.

As in choice.

As in something that isn't common for American families when it comes to their health care.

If your family has health coverage through your employer, that certainly brings some peace of mind. But there's still a good chance that only one insurance plan is available to you. If your premiums are high, if you can't choose the doctor you want or if your plan refuses to cover your pre-existing condition, there's little hope for improvement.

In recent health care reform listening sessions I held in New Jersey, a top complaint of families who already have health insurance is that their claims keep getting denied. Without any other real options available to them, even families that have health coverage are struggling to get affordable treatment.

Meanwhile, if you're not offered health coverage through work and don't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, then you really have no health insurance choice at all. That's just not right.

Setting up a system in which more families have a real choice of health insurance would be tremendously empowering. We can shop around for our car insurance, property insurance and life insurance. Why should our choice be so limited when it comes to the most important insurance -- the one that protects our families' health?

Now, if your family is happy with your insurance as it is, you will continue to have it, even if there's also a public option. We have to be very clear about that. If you like what you have, you will keep it.

We're not against private insurance; we just want to make it more affordable. Let's not forget that between 2000 and 2007, the premiums for employer-based insurance rose five times faster than average incomes, and between 2008 and 2016, the premiums we pay are expected to rise more than 83 percent.

Choice in health care isn't just about allowing families to shop around. It's about making health care better through real competition for your business.

A public option would change the way insurers do business. It would keep them honest, in order to keep their customers. That means lower costs for everyone: for individuals, for families, for small businesses.

More options would get more people involved, bringing down the share of the cost burden any one family has to shoulder, and reducing the number of expensive emergency room visits that taxpayers have to pay for. In that sense it would promote not just public health care but public health. That's in everybody's interest.

If we do it right, I think we're going to see substantial savings from having expanded options -- savings for families and savings for our nation.

Amidst all the naysaying we've heard about health care reform, let's remember this basic truth about our nation's health care system and why we must reform it: Millions of Americans are prevented from accessing quality and affordable health care. It's not just the 47 million without health insurance. It's also millions more gainfully-employed Americans whose insurance just doesn't give them enough coverage, enough stability or enough peace of mind.

To hear some of my colleagues criticize bold ideas meant to expand and improve health care coverage, you'd think the current level, quality and expense of health care coverage is acceptable. You'd think that keeping insurance companies in charge of your health care rather than doctors is the way to go.

I know from my conversations with family after family that this just isn't so. It doesn't matter who you are or where your family lives -- if your child has a cough that won't go away, if your husband or wife has a swollen knee, or if you feel discomfort in your chest, you should never be put in the position where concerns about the cost of seeking medical treatment can affect the health of our loved ones.

The sooner we can fix health care, the sooner we can get our economy on a stronger footing, create American jobs that won't be shipped overseas, and help all our families rest a little easier.

The old saying goes, there is nothing more powerful on earth than an idea whose time has come.

With the right leadership in Congress, with President Obama on our side, and with the strong support of millions of Americans, we will make it absolutely clear, in the words we say, in the actions we take and the laws we make, that the time for health care reform has finally come.

Other Types of Bonuses Deserve an Examination

2009-03-16T11:31:25-04:00

The well-justified furor over executive bonuses at banks that receive taxpayer money, which has been reignited over the weekend by the reports of AIG bonuses, is rooted in two entirely valid issues. One is the very appropriate concern over the wisdom of these payouts from a business perspective -- Americans have major ownership stakes in these banks and want a return on their investment.

The other is something that is even more visceral: It's about a sense of fairness. Families who have had to trim their budgets, tighten their belts and change the way they live just to get by are understandably furious when they see these banks carrying on with business as usual.

Because of that, positive balance sheets aren't the only things that would be good to see coming out of Wall Street. There would be enormous substantive and psychological value in seeing bank executives proactively demonstrate that they know we're all in this together, that they too have changed their way of life and that they too can sacrifice in times of crisis.

This is why I'm unsettled by the recent reports of banks giving out deferred or creatively-titled bonuses, even as Congress was passing legislation to ban bonuses in banks that receive federal assistance under TARP.

A big part of the concern is about whether these payouts constitute misuse of taxpayer money. Banks have argued that deferred bonuses can be kept completely separate from taxpayer money, though it's been said that money moves around like water at these firms. And banks have also argued that "retention awards" will help keep skilled brokers from jumping to a rival firm, though I doubt there are many jobs on Wall Street to jump to these days.

But beyond whether or not these payouts make for smart business, I am concerned that these actions merely reinforce the perception that Wall Street will go to great lengths to preserve an out-of-touch way of life, even as it stays afloat on taxpayer money.

From a personal perspective, financial institutions have laid off thousands of workers in my home state of New Jersey. It would be comforting to know that their former employers are doing everything they can to get credit flowing, become viable again and start re-hiring -- and it would be comforting to know that that my constituents' jobs weren't lost to save a CEO bonus.

I have asked the Treasury Department to examine whether these alternative bonuses violate the letter or spirit of the law. I would think that if the banks believe these payouts to be necessary and productive, they would welcome this examination wholeheartedly.

But it's really about more than the legality of these bonuses. It's also about whether banks "get it," even after all the controversy.

Do they understand that it seems like they're pulling out all the stops to hang on to the status quo? Do they understand how this looks to families who are feeling a financial squeeze? Do they understand that they are held to a new standard of responsibility that comes with taxpayer money?

The answers to these questions would help us understand if the banks are doing what they're supposed to be doing with taxpayer dollars: jump-starting the lending that allows homebuyers to get responsible mortgages, families to get auto loans, students to pay for their education and small business to create jobs and grow the economy.

Banks need to show they understand what's going on in this economy -- that if your business is in trouble you can't just go about business as usual, that as families tighten their belts, banks have to tighten the reins on their internal expenses. All across America, this is a time for shared sacrifice. Whether they're using taxpayer dollars or not, banks need to focus their resources on lending -- for the sake of their future and for ours.

The Importance of Focusing on Credit Card Debt

2009-02-25T19:59:08-05:00

A quick post of appreciation for Arianna Huffington helping to put the issue of out-of-control credit card debt in the spotlight. The nuts and bolts of why it is such a big threat to so many families and the already-battered economy are fully explained by Arianna (or in my November post).

The bottom line is that, more than ever, we cannot allow credit card companies to continue fleecing consumers, or making them feel like it's all one big guessing game. The convergence of over-stretched family budgets, increasing reliance on credit cards just to get by and wild credit card interest rate hikes threatens to put many families into bankruptcy and deepen the economic crisis.

I have reintroduced The Credit Card Reform Act -- the strongest credit card holder protection bill in existence -- to prohibit blatantly unfair actions, like unilateral interest rate hikes. The momentum exists to pass credit card reform legislation this year, and I'm optimistic we can get it done soon.

One other point to mention: much fanfare was given to new federal regulations curbing certain egregious credit card company practices, announced in December. Although these rules do not cover the full range of tricks and traps that must be ended, they marked a big step forward. The main drawback to the regulations was their late deadline for implementation: July of 2010. Between now and then, far too many Americans could go bankrupt.

I wrote the CEOs of the six biggest credit card issuers, urging them to implement these rules as soon as possible for the sake of families facing mountains of debt and for our economy. Five responded, and all but one claimed it was too much of a burden to do it any faster. Their feet should be held to the fire to reform their practices as soon as possible, and passing reform into law would be the most effective way to do it.

The Gathering Credit Card Storm

2008-11-18T12:01:00-05:00

Our current financial crisis is a case study in ripple effects. A lot of bad mortgage loans, bad loans between organizations, bad evaluations by ratings agencies and bad oversight by government collectively toppled big Wall Street firms. This caused our credit markets to freeze, leading to business contraction, massive job losses, and deep economic pain on Main Street.

First came the crisis over bad paper, now the crisis could get worse because of bad plastic.

Consumer credit card defaults are a gathering storm. At the same time it's becoming harder to get new credit, Americans have almost $1 trillion of credit card debt outstanding. Defaults are rising. Delinquencies are at a six-year high.

And the credit card debt itself is only part of the problem. While consumers are struggling, credit card issuers haven't let up on some of their most questionable practices, including exorbitant penalties and rate hikes. To make matters worse, just recently several credit card issuers have announced plans to raise interest rates, even for people who've paid their bills on time.

We can't afford to watch consumers' finances dragged down by unfair credit card practices. It wouldn't be fair in any situation, but at a time of such national financial turmoil, it's an even bigger threat to our economy. Inappropriately high credit limits, high penalties, and high interest rates have nudged so many people toward bankruptcy in the first place.

I've introduced a bill, the Credit Card Reform Act, to give consumers even greater protection from deceptive lending practices. The bill will end the industry practice known as "universal default," so a company can't raise your interest rate if you have a perfect record with that credit card, but miss a payment with some other creditor. It will force fees to be reasonably tied to costs incurred by the company, protect young consumers from card solicitations they didn't ask for, and make sure that when a company offers you a set of terms, they can't change those terms once you've applied for a card.

Congress isn't the only body that can act. Following measures that I proposed in the legislation, the Federal Reserve has taken some steps to address this issue. Earlier this year it took action on retroactive rate increases and the amount of time customers have to make payments. It was the right move, but it was only a start. The Fed's rules apply to subprime lending, but don't address excessive fees on the vast majority of cards on the market. Now we're seeing the consequences of limited action.

Earlier this week Secretary Paulson announced that the Treasury Department is considering giving tens of billions of dollars to the Federal Reserve to purchase securities based on credit card debt. I'm not necessarily against some kind of direct action, but if the government is going to get involved, it should insist upon a high degree of fairness and protection for the consumer. The Fed should issue guidelines for any credit card company that wishes to participate, prohibiting arbitrary rate increases, unilateral changes to credit card agreements and universal default.

Now is the time to act, because, like the debt on our cards, if we keep putting this problem off month after month, it's only going to get worse.

Bush and McCain: Drilling us into a Deeper Hole

2008-06-18T13:52:53-04:00

It's hard to imagine that John McCain was too happy today when President Bush echoed his call for drilling up and down our nation's coastlines. He was having a hard enough time trying pass the laugh test when claiming that his plan would have any effect on gas prices anytime soon. Now this over-hyped plan has the stamp of approval from the one person you want to avoid -- a president who is not only an oil man but has also been wrong on just about every issue over the course of eight years.

Even without the Bush kiss of death, however, most people could see through this nonsensical idea. To hear John McCain or George Bush talk about it, you'd think that gasoline was going to be pipelined straight out of the ground and directly into your gas tank.

But people understand that, in an area devoid of the appropriate infrastructure, it takes a long, long time to build the derricks that would line our shores, along with the pipelines to reach land and the refineries to process the oil. And people also understand that the type of production McCain and Bush are talking about is a drop in the bucket -- or a drop in the barrel -- compared to what this nation consumes.

They may sell it as immediate relief at the pump, but what they're talking about is really a decade or more down the road and would amount to maybe a few pennies in savings, according to the Energy Information Administration. Who would think that's worth the wait? Or the economic risk?

What John McCain and George Bush are not saying is how their friends at the oil companies are sitting on -- get this -- 68 million acres of unused land leased to them by the American taxpayer. 68 million acres.

As we are moving to develop renewable energy, create alternative fuels and boost energy efficiency, that land represents domestic oil and gas production waiting to be had -- only the oil companies are not doing anything about it.

I'm an original co-sponsor of Senator Chris Dodd's legislation to penalize the oil companies that leave this type of land unused. Big Oil is looking for yet another government handout by opening up our coastline and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling -- it's time that our government stopped bending over backward for oil companies and instead started pushing them to do what they can with the generous resources they have been given.

In the long run, this Bush-McCain drill, drill, drill mentality only ends up drilling us into a deeper hole. The continued dependence on oil is disastrous for our economy and toxic for our planet. The economic dangers now and in the future are obvious by just looking at what our reliance on oil is doing to our nation today.

Families are pinching every penny so they can drive their kids to school or get themselves to work. With high food prices, some have to choose between putting a gallon of gas in their cars and putting a gallon of milk in their refrigerators. And many families aren't even thinking about flying anymore since gas prices have hit airlines so hard that fares are sky high and checking luggage is $15 a bag.

While we look at the critical short-term economic issues related to gas and food prices that matter a great deal to American families, we have to also make sure our planet is healthy for our kids and grandkids.

This dependence on fossil fuels does nothing to reduce the carbon emissions that have created our planetary crisis. The longer we put off transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy, the more severe our weather will get, the higher the oceans will rise and the more damaged the Earth will become.

For those of us living in coastal states, drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf presents another serious threat. With oil derricks and pipelines near our beaches comes the prospect of spills like the ones that have devastated the California coast in the past, which is why I introduced the COAST Act to permanently ban drilling on our coastlines.

Even if a state government somewhere like my home state of New Jersey would maintain its ban on offshore drilling, the next state over could lift its moratorium, and our coast would be threatened just the same. The millions of people who go to the Jersey Shore this summer and the thousands of business-owners who thrive on the tourism can tell you better than I can how an oil spill would be devastating in many ways.

There are so many reasons why the Bush-McCain drilling plan is absurd. There are hometown reasons, like the threat to our beaches. There are national reasons, like the failure to lower gas prices. And there are global reasons, like the future of our planet.

In the end, this is a plan that brings relief to oil companies, not American families. John McCain and George Bush just don't seem to get that the future is in a green economy, renewable energy, alternative fuels and energy efficiency, not in oil. But then again, I guess we shouldn't expect anything more from a president who is an oil man and the candidate he supports, who chose to give his big energy and environment speech in Houston, oil capital of the nation.

Effort to Save Bear Stearns Must be Matched by Effort to Save Homeowners

2008-04-02T11:56:19-04:00

"Who are you working for?" It's a simple question that carries a lot of meaning depending on who's asking and when. It's the question millions of Americans - struggling with enormous mortgage payments, gas nearing $4 a gallon and unappetizing higher prices at the grocery store -- must have wanted to ask the Bush administration when they heard that the federal government had bailed out one of Wall Street's main investment banks.

Clearly, assisting Bear Stearns was necessary to stave off further economic collapse, but the message it sent was unsettling. The federal government, at the direction of the Bush administration, will pull out all the stops, spare no expense, and burn the midnight oil to bail out Wall Street, but that same administration has put in only a fraction of the effort over the past year to help homeowners on Main Street.

The effort to rescue Bear Stearns was nothing short of extraordinary. It featured top Treasury officials, the Federal Reserve, experts, and lawyers, working around the clock, racing against the ticking time bomb of a failing investment bank that threatened to further sink the economy. War rooms were established, conference calls held, plans of action drawn up and decisions executed -- all in a matter of days.

Yes, when it was clear that a major investment bank on Wall Street was in trouble, the Bush administration rushed to the scene like firefighters responding to a five-alarm blaze. But a full year into the subprime mortgage crisis, they have done nothing but hit the snooze button on the alarm as 20,000 Americans watch their dreams of homeownership go up in smoke every week. For families facing foreclosure, the housing crisis doesn't mean red ink on a balance sheet, but a padlock on their door.

Some have argued that when families can't keep up with out-of-control mortgage payments, they are at fault and should be left to fend for themselves on the streets. These are many of the same people, incidentally, who have no problem with the idea of bailing out irresponsible Iraqi politicians with $120 billion dollars of taxpayer money per year for the next hundred years, but don't think the government should step in to prevent widespread homelessness here in America.

That argument blaming homebuyers for their irresponsibility is as exaggerated as it is heartless. It ignores the irresponsible brokers in the subprime market who did everything they could to make a buck -- including selling mortgages to homebuyers who could not make the payments.

Furthermore, foreclosure is in no one's interest. Lenders say they lose tens of thousands of dollars on each foreclosure. Families see the American Dream turn into the American Nightmare. Their neighbors see the values of their own homes decrease. And if recent job losses, weak earnings reports and stock market swings are any indicator, foreclosures have shockwaves that reverberate throughout the entire economy.

Americans deserve far stronger efforts from their public officials to end a crisis that affects us all.

For a while now, Democrats in Congress have been trying to offer a ray of hope to struggling homeowners with a plan that would give those facing foreclosure more options and assistance in refinancing bad loans. We don't have a magic wand to wave and immediately make the economy whole again, but we do have a series of helpful measures, including a bill being considered in the Senate today, that can extend a hand to homeowners where now there is none.

For weeks, our Senate Republican colleagues, adhering to the president's directive, have blocked this particular proposal from consideration -- even as more and more Americans fall further and further into debt and their homes slip away. Yesterday, however, the ray of hope that this measure represents shined a little brighter upon the announcement that a bipartisan deal is in the works. We should all hope that the product of these negotiations is not too watered-down to be effective -- in situations like this, Americans deserve bold action, not more empty promises.

Even if we are successful in our efforts to attack the symptoms of the housing crisis, much more work will be needed to address the root causes. It will require a sustained effort to get our regulatory mechanisms to catch up to the intricacies of modern finance. Make no mistake, our efforts are way behind the times.

It's going to take aggressive, sustained action to bring our oversight up to speed and to stop the tsunami of home foreclosures that is ravaging our communities. And to start, it's going to take a government that cares just as much about the well-being of the occupants of a row house in Newark or Camden as it does about the occupants of a billion-dollar skyscraper in Manhattan.

Latinos Step Up

2007-11-15T18:35:12-05:00

It's hard to predict much about November 2008 from the vantage point of November 2007. But one thing is going to be a demographic certainty: the road to the White House passes through the Latino community.

The importance of the Latino vote in next year's elections is getting some attention thanks to the Democratic presidential debate in Nevada, a key early primary state where almost a quarter of voters are Latino.

The Latino vote has also gotten brief mention in some print media over the past year.

But this story -- really, this growing reality -- is not breaking through on cable news, or gaining a strong presence on the web. Candidates in both parties should be reminded of the scope of Latino electoral clout across the nation, and the momentous consequences of the Latino vote on who wins in 2008 and beyond.

Here are the demographics: In 2008, more than 17 million Latinos will be eligible to vote. The percentage of the electorate our community makes up has been rising in every election.

I hardly have to say anything about the influence of the states where the most Latinos live. Small shifts in the voting habits of Latino Floridians, who make up around 15% of the population, could have swung the entire election in 2000 and 2004.

But it's not just Florida. How truly national the Latino vote is becomes clear when we look at the electoral math. If you add up all the electoral votes cast by states where Latinos make up 10% or more of the population, you get 228. That's just a few states short of the 270 votes necessary to win.

Every year, more states in the American West become swing states. And every year, more Latinos live in those states. I'm certainly proud of the vision shown by my party in choosing Denver as the site of next year's convention. It's a city smack in the middle of a swing state and smack in the middle of territory where there are Latino votes to be won.

And what's going to amplify our community's electoral presence even more next year is the influence states with large Latino populations have on the primaries. Look at the calendar.

Nevada will likely vote soon after Iowa and New Hampshire on the Democratic side. It's population: 24% Latino.

Then we get to February 5, which might as well be called "Super Martes". California, with more delegates than anywhere else: 35% Latino.

New York, Arizona, New Mexico, Illinois, Connecticut, Utah and my home state of New Jersey - all heavily Latino. Rich with delegates. All holding primaries on February 5.

Latinos are more than just a growing political group. Our influence in key states means that we could hold the key to the party nominations, and after that, the White House.

When we look at those realities, we're talking about more than just Latinos holding the key to the White House. We're talking about an election that is going to be truly transformational.

Here's the bottom line: if my party continue to seize the issues important to Latino voters, issues the party has consistently led on - universal health care, real educational opportunities, economic empowerment, stronger families, comprehensive immigration reform and changing our course in Iraq - then we will see record numbers of Latinos come out to vote, we will see a Democratic president and we will see a president more responsive to our community than ever before.

Every candidate, everyone running for Congress, for the Senate, for assemblyman and sheriff and dogcatcher, everyone who wants to win the confidence of Latino voters, must advocate for the values we hold dear: compassion, fairness, opportunity, and dedication to family.

These are values that resonate with every hard-working Latino American. And if these are the values the Democratic Party champions, then in 2008, the two groups are going to converge in a powerful transformational movement for change.

No Time to Lose Focus of the True Meaning of the Iraq Debate

2007-09-25T19:32:15-04:00

Last week on Capitol Hill was particularly unsettling. As another 15 sons and daughters of America died in the crossfire in Iraq, as 130,000 American troops over there still saw no light at the end of the tunnel, as Osama bin Laden continued to control his own safe zone, and as the United States Senate debated a change of course, the news coverage and the political dialog zeroed in on... a newspaper ad.

A number of Republicans pointed to the ad in question while demanding, "Support the troops!" Then, they turned around and blocked a measure to give our troops time at home equal to their tours overseas -- a measure supported by the 360,000 member Military Officers Association of America. Apparently, the irony was lost on many.

And so it was another Iraq debate in Washington, perhaps the only place where the uproar over an advertisement can supplant the devastating reality on the ground. Meanwhile, buried in the who-said-what headlines about a newspaper ad was the fact that one of the most seminal weeks of the war came and went without nearly enough attention.

It was a week in which once-realistic hopes for a broad coalition needed to change course in Iraq were dashed. It was a week in which Senators whose consciences had seen enough of this awful war in July were suddenly pulled back in line with the president. And in the end, it was a week in which "stay the course" got another Republican stamp of approval.

Media interest in these developments appeared to have been sucked away by the fabricated controversy over the ad, as well as the skillfully orchestrated, if marginally accurate, PR surrounding "The Surge."

With the true significance of the week muddled, many Republicans latched onto General Petraeus, hiding behind his personal poll numbers instead of facing the facts and images from the ground. With actions like this on the most important issue we face, the Republican Party is losing the public faith more each day.

Their staunch support for the president and this war means that they must be accountable for the failed policy -- and I believe that their constituents will take them to task. The more times they act to extend this dead-end war policy, the less they have in common with the American people.

Politically, that is an untenable place to be with the most important elections in recent memory a little more than a year away. But they chose a short-term political victory. They chose to back a president who lost credibility on this war about the same time he stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished", four and a half long years ago. And they will have to live with that.

Still, the electoral implications of the Iraq debate always take a back seat -- a far back seat -- to the more immediate life-and-death consequences. These are the consequences that were somehow glossed over last week.

Perhaps some have grown weary of the tangible results of our Iraq policy -- after all, this war has worn on our country and its psyche for years. Perhaps some in the media simply enjoy the peripheral maneuvering more than the reality of the Iraq war. Perhaps my party continues to fall short in our attempts to communicate the real meaning of these Iraq votes.

Whatever the reason, the story about one of the most seminal weeks of the war got buried. Because we still haven't broken through, the real, human consequences of our votes on Iraq should be repeated again... and again, and again, until we all focus on what's at stake and understand that a newspaper ad isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things.

That's why everyday, in everything we do, we should keep in our minds that 130,000 sons and daughters of America remain in the crossfire, with no prospects for coming home. That our military continues to be stretched thin to the point that it can't adequately respond to other threats that may arise. That our national guard remains overused and overburdened to the point that it can't properly respond to disasters here in the homeland.

That the terror training ground in Iraq remains fertile, and one day those trainees could be on our soil. That Osama bin Laden is back in business and continues to roam free in a safe zone along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

That thousands upon thousands of Americans fighting in Iraq won't be sitting at the table this Thanksgiving... or the next one. And that some won't see another Thanksgiving, period.