Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today we are taking a very important step to help reverse the trade deficit and support American companies by reauthorizing the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Trade Development Agency, and the International Trade Administration programs. I want to take a moment to thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for his work and his support, as well as my ranking Democrat on the committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for his encouragement and support in bringing us through the committee and to the floor today, and my coauthor of the legislation, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). Working together, we have fashioned a bipartisan bill that promotes America's interests at home and abroad. With the U.S. trade deficit reaching record highs, $24.6 billion in June, America needs to take immediate steps to reverse the deficit by helping American companies to export American products. This bill begins that process by reauthorizing these agencies and by looking at new ways in which we can help American companies, small, medium and large, to harness the opportunities of emerging markets throughout the world, particularly in Africa and Latin America. At a time when the Congress is striving to adhere to the constraints of a balanced budget, when we talk about the reauthorization of OPIC, it stands apart as a revenue-earning program. OPIC's budgetary contributions are returned to the Function 150 or the International Affairs account and help offset the deep cuts that have been made to our foreign aid and development programs. That is a fitting relationship, as OPIC was created by President Nixon to complement our foreign aid programs. OPIC not only complements our foreign aid programs, it is helping to sustain them while simultaneously providing a much needed service and market opportunity to American businesses. Let me give an example. In my home State of New Jersey, OPIC has provided more than a billion dollars in financing and insurance, generating $3 billion in U.S. exports, items that were created here, manufactured here, and exporting them abroad, and created over 10,288 jobs. From Newark to Camden to Princeton, OPIC has supported New Jersey companies and their suppliers, and that is only one small example of the many places across the country for which that is a reality as well. Turning to the International Trade Administration, among the branches of the International Trade Administration is the U.S. and foreign commercial services. These offices overseas and at home provide real hands-on assistance to small- and medium-sized companies that need help getting started in the export arena. We have to face it, we are living in a global trading economy. The fact of the matter is, we want to engage more of our companies in the opportunities to be able to export their products and services abroad. The U.S. foreign commercial service helps us do that. TDA is also an important complement to ITA and OPIC's efforts. TDA is often the crucial factor between a project going to an American company or to a foreign company. By funding feasibility studies, orientation visits, specialized training grants, business workshops and various forms of technical assistance, TDA enables American businesses to compete for infrastructure and industrial projects in middle income and developing countries. So when we are there creating the standard and helping to create that standard, the reality is we are creating an American standard and in creating an American standard we create the opportunity for American companies to succeed abroad. So as we seek to address our trade deficit and maintain our competitive edge in the global market, we need to look to programs like these which yield big benefits for small costs. We need to understand that American exports mean American jobs here at home, and that the U.S. exports of goods and services are estimated to support more than 12 million domestic jobs. Each one billion in dollars in U.S. goods and services exports supports some 13,000 U.S. jobs. We want to increase those. We want to create more jobs at home. We want to improve the profitability of American companies. We ultimately receive revenues from that and everybody prospers. So I urge Members to support the bill. These programs are not corporate welfare. They are opportunities for American firms to compete on a level playing field with our global competitors, and their success means a lower American trade deficit and more American jobs. That is ultimately what this bill is all about. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the distinguished ranking Democrat of the full committee.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the statements of several of our colleagues. I just want to put them in some context in this general debate. I want to address some of the arguments that have been made because they make good sound bytes, but I am not sure they hold up under scrutiny. We are not talking about, I say to our colleagues who are listening back at their offices and those that are here on the floor, it is not about trade agreements, it is not about Most Favored Nation trading status, it is not about other trading issues that are sometimes divisive in these chambers. This is not about that. So let us get that straight. I know many people will try to bring in those issues in this debate, but the legislation being considered today is not about that. It is about creating the opportunities in the context of the reality of the world today to have American companies that create American jobs here at home and that export American products to those manufacturing plants in other parts of the world to have opportunity. Now, there are those that have questioned, why does OPIC not become a private entity? Why the hell do we need the United States Government to be engaged? Well, the full faith and credit of the United States is a powerful tool, and it is a tool that is not available to private insurers. For a job as big as this, this is a tool we need. It is not that these projects are not a good risk, because they are. But we, the United States, have an incentive to provide this insurance that private insurers do not. We are leveraging the full faith and credit of the United States to create American jobs, to improve American profitability. That is an American interest. That is a function that benefits all Americans, and it is a proper role of Government. Now, if a factory is going to be built overseas, it is going to be built overseas. OPIC already, in its law which we reauthorize here, is statutorily prohibited from supporting any project that is likely to have a significant negative effect on the U.S. economy. And a business which receives OPIC's support must agree not to transfer U.S. jobs overseas. The question is, if a factory that does not exist here is going to be built overseas, is it going to be a plant that requires American parts, American manufacturing skills, and creates demands for American products overseas; or is it going to be a French factory or a Japanese factory or a German factory that is not going to be buying any American parts made here at home and sold abroad but which American workers are making and gaining salaries from? So we should not advocate these jobs to other nations. We should not advocate these emerging markets to other nations. As I said, OPIC's charter prohibits any financing for projects that could cause Americans job loss here at home. Those projects actually mean more American jobs. It is in that context that I want our colleagues to think about this debate. This is not about overall trade issues. This is about helping American companies who find themselves competing with companies of other countries abroad whose countries are investing enormous amounts of money to make their contracts possible. The Germans, the French, the Japanese all over the world, they are helping their companies make it possible. How could we disarm American companies, which means American workers, from having the opportunity to compete in that global marketplace? That is what is at stake in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Rohrabacher amendment. I understand his passion, and I certainly share his concern about American jobs. But the fact is I believe that this amendment, which is well-intentioned, is unnecessary and actually penalizes those that it is intended to protect, which is U.S. workers. OPIC is already committed in the law not to export jobs. It is statutorily prohibited from supporting any project that is likely to have a significant negative effect on the U.S. economy. A business that receives OPIC's support must agree not to transfer U.S. jobs overseas. OPIC monitors projects and terminates assistance if a company deviates from its commitment to protect U.S. jobs. Now, OPIC's economists already screen each prospect project for its impact on U.S. jobs and exports. As mandated by its authorizing statute, OPIC does not support any projects that might harm the U.S. economy or that will result in a loss of a single U.S. job. It operates a comprehensive program to monitor each and every project it assists for its impact on the U.S. economy. After it approves a project, OPIC monitors such a project from the beginning to the end of the agency's contractual commitments to it. It monitors, and its monitoring enables the agency to check the accuracy of its own methodologies, ensuring the project investors live up to its original representation. Now, there is a ban on manufacturing projects which would hurt U.S. companies and the U.S. economy. Manufacturing projects help create new markets for U.S. goods and services, which would be lost if the Rohrabacher amendment were adopted. Restricting the type of projects OPIC supports would put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage with their heavily subsidized foreign counterparts. For example, if one has an auto manufacturer who is both foreign and domestic, having manufacturing plants all over the world to be closer to their consumer market, the absence of OPIC support may have the intended effect of keeping an auto maker from having a plant in Argentina. But it will also mean that the company will sell considerably fewer cars in Argentina because they would have used U.S. manufactured parts, inputs that would have generated exports and create American jobs here at home. That is an example of what, in fact, we would do. This is not about taking some plant that exists in the United States and, as a result of OPIC's efforts, transferring it to some other country abroad. I think, generally, we would be opposing that. That is not the issue here. The issue here is whether or not we allow OPIC to make such an investment in a plant that does not exist now, that will not detract from American jobs, and that, by doing so, will create American design and American parts that will be used in that plant that ultimately will create jobs here at home. So I understand the gentleman's concern. But the fact of the matter is the very concern he has is undermined by his amendment. It is important that we look at the whole picture. It may not be a choice between manufacturing in the United States or overseas, but, rather, whether or not to manufacture at all if a company cannot get sufficient financing or insurance to make the investment. It is a lot better to make sure that, when we create the opportunity abroad, that it is an American product and American design using American imports with American workers and American ingenuity to, in essence, influence that market and to create the jobs here at home that will go towards that manufacturing plant in that regard that did not exist here and would not exist here under the set of circumstances that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) envisions. I think we need to defeat his amendment. I know we need to defeat his amendment to protect the very goal that he seeks to preserve. Announcement By The Chairman

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to support the Manzullo amendment, as well, because it does go to the very core of what the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) says he wants to accomplish and, in essence, accomplishes that. It clearly says, if any such investment would cause a reduction in manufacturing in the United States, then clearly OPIC would not be able to pursue such an investment. And so that ultimately goes to the question of do we lose any American jobs. But if we do not adopt the Manzullo amendment and we were to adopt the Rohrabacher amendment, then, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has suggested just a few minutes ago, the reality is that we would lose those American jobs that would not exist but for the opportunities created by that company in Lithuania. The reality is that we would lose opportunity here at home to create products that would be used abroad in the development of the products being made in these manufacturing plants abroad. The fact of the matter is that, in essence, we would lose American jobs here at home. But I think our colleagues in their passion, and I understand their passion, not to lose American jobs are blinded by the fact that, in fact, what they seek to do, in essence, will make us lose American jobs here at home. We are much better off to ensure that opportunities of manufacturing here, at home, parts or other supplies that will be used abroad in an investment make eminent sense. And we are much better off to ensure that, in fact, that the last 5 fiscal years where OPIC has supported 43 manufacturing plants have generated $3.1 billion in United States exports and over 10,000 U.S. jobs. Now, if we adopt the Rohrabacher amendment, we will lose the $3 billion in potential U.S. exports in the future, these are real exports that have taken place; we will lose those in the future and whatever else we can enhance; we will lose the 10,000 jobs created here in the good ol' U.S.A. That is not what our intention is. Our intention is to create jobs here at home, to promote American interests here at home. And we are also promoting it abroad, because often what we are doing is creating new markets abroad when we make these investments, which not only are investments that are repaid but end up generating revenue for the Treasury of the United States. So I want to support the Manzullo amendment very strongly. It will accomplish what the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) wants to do, but it will not strike the blow to American jobs here at home that the Rohrabacher amendment would.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I think the case for OPIC's longer term reauthorization is very strong. A 4-year extension does not increase OPIC's program ceilings. It continues OPIC's self-sustaining operations. It brings OPIC in line with its sister agency, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which has a 4-year reauthorization. The notion that, in fact, we have only 1- year reauthorizations for all pieces of legislation is obviously not the case. I am sure that gentleman, just as I, has voted for reauthorizations that have far extended beyond 1 year, and in fact there is good reason for giving reauthorizations for beyond 1 year. It is because we provide the wherewithal for that agency and/or that program to plan long term. Just as the private sector would plan long term in terms of making its investments and business decisions, just as we, as a government, hope to plan not just from year to year, but also long term as we make budgetary calculations and projections and do programmatic work, OPIC needs to be able to have the opportunity to plan long term, and such a reauthorization would not be unique. Its business cycle, OPIC's business cycle, is long term. Many OPIC projects extend over a period of years. A 1-year authorization could threaten projects mid-term. If for some reason there is a delay in the authorization process, a 1-year authorization, I would submit, is really not in the best interests of an agency that in essence is self- sustaining. It needlessly burdens the legislative process with the sole intent of obstructing OPIC's operations. A 4-year authorization provides American companies with security that their overseas investments will not be subject to congressional delays. A 4-year authorization does not impede the Congress from rescinding OPIC's operating authority at any time if the majority of this House wants to do that and it can get a majority in the other body and get the President to sign it. It can do that at any time if the Congress so chooses to do so. So the fact of the matter is that we should not jeopardize the ongoing investment of American companies overseas who depend upon OPIC to protect their investments and to whom they pay substantial fees for that service. We should have some long-range planning here, particularly of an agency that, in fact, has shown itself worthy, is self-sustaining, produces revenues, creates jobs at home. And that, I think, makes eminent business sense; it makes good sense for the Congress to pursue. And so respectfully I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, and that is why I went along with his first amendment. But this amendment actually I think creates harm, and I want to call the gentleman's attention to why I have to oppose it and hopefully, we can work something out, but if not, I will have to oppose his amendment at the end of the process. Imposing a fixed timetable on OPIC creates a series of problems. It disadvantages the small business investor who cannot make his best case early. I understand the gentleman's concern is about a small business, but one cannot at the end of the day create a process that disadvantages them because they cannot make their best case early. It pressures OPIC to deny a claim that might, with both parties' cooperation, be satisfactorily documented in the long run. It frustrates joint efforts at overall settlement of the investor's total claims, both the insured and the uninsured, because settlement efforts with a foreign government takes time, making the fair and flexible OPIC claim process formalistic and confrontational, and lastly, it impairs OPIC's historical claims record of paying over 90 percent of claims and realizing a 94 percent recovery rate as a successor to the investors' valid claims against a foreign government. So even when OPIC comes to the conclusion that it is a valid claim and that it has to be paid, by being the successor in interest to that insured party, it still goes after and tries to pursue and ensure that we are not left holding the bag. And it has a 94 percent success rate in that regard. This process, by confining OPIC, actually works to the detriment of the small business investor who might be seeking a claim, works to the detriment of OPIC. And then there is a second provision in the gentleman's amendment that actually hurts the taxpayers of the United States, which is that, in fact, in this compacted time period, in situations in which OPIC will be forced to deny the claim in order to be able to best create the circumstances to ensure itself and ultimately the taxpayers, we are going to force it to pay interest, which interest ultimately as a governmental agency would come from the taxpayers. Now, we have an agency that has not cost the taxpayers money, the previous speaker mentioned something about an OPIC loss, and that they only have interest based upon government bonds. Well, that is from proceeds that they have achieved from the revenues that they generate from the insurance that they offer and for which they are paid for, and that they have invested, so they have not operated as a loss; and we do not want them to operate as a loss. Therefore, we cannot constrain them in such a way. OPIC's bottom line result on claims payment is excellent and its process is flexible and fair. Rigid timetables would create pressure to deny claims that are not at first convincingly supported where OPIC's practice has been to work with the investor, to make the best case for compensation in the amount claimed. This can take time, but it is fairest to the investor and to the taxpayer. So, we need to make sure that this process is one that works, as it has, with an excellent percentage of payment of claims, and an excellent percentage of restoring those claims paid by going after the entity with OPIC standing in the interest of the investor. That is what we want to achieve. And yes, we want it to be as fast as possible; but we do not want to hurt the small businessperson in the process that is going to have to make their case early. And we do not want to hurt the taxpayers by imposing upon the agency payments that will ultimately be costly to both the agency and, therefore, to the taxpayers in a premature manner. So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman would try to work with us in a conference and withdraw his amendment, but in view of the fact that I assume the gentleman wants to proceed, then I will offer an amendment to the gentleman's amendment at the appropriate time.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that goes back to our original discussion, that the very intervention that is going to be published in the Federal Register already unlocks the door to a whole series of things that we may not want, foreign nationals and foreign countries.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am reading the gentleman's amendment. It says nothing about politics here. It simply says no department or agency of the United States or any of its officers may intervene in any pending settlement determination.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment, as modified.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, secondly, if the gentleman's amendment would give flexibility to the company to engage with OPIC and extend the time frame that the gentleman suggested, then it might be more reasonable, because OPIC would not be forced to make a determination, the company would not be forced to pursue its interests in a limited time frame in which it might not make its best case, and everybody would be better served.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, what we hope to do through this amendment is to try to reach the gentleman's concern, but at the same time, create the operational capacity for OPIC to do what it does so well. What we offer here is a review of claims processing for OPIC. Having the General Accounting Office providing a report not later than 6 months after the day of the enactment of this law to both the Committee on International Relations and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to review the claims activity of OPIC which includes an analysis of the claims paid, settled, and denied; the number of claims determination made by OPIC which are challenged in arbitration; the number of OPIC's claim denials which are reversed in arbitration; the number of claims which are withdrawn; and recommendations for ways in which the interests of OPIC's insured and the public could be better served by OPIC's claims procedures. To the extent that OPIC has a great record and it can be improved upon, this gives us the wherewithal to do it without creating the constraint that the gentleman's amendment would. Mr. Chairman, OPIC's standard contracts presently allow OPIC a reasonable time to make a decision after receipt of a completed application, one that establishes the insured's right to be compensated in the amount claimed. Now, when we have this political risk insurance, the fact of the matter is it raises complex issues: issues of fact, contract interpretation, foreign law, international law and accounting. They cannot be resolved over the phone as we might do if we had an automobile accident or a homeowner's claim and try to deal with our insurance company. They are extremely complex. Therefore, the time frame that the gentleman wants, while his goal is worthy, ultimately really hamstrings OPIC in a way that is detrimental to that small businessperson, as well as to the taxpayers, by the enforcement of a mechanism that makes them pay interest by the time that the time frame is exhausted, and that time frame is rather short, 150 days, total. That is a very short time frame. OPIC's decisions on claims become public. They are relied upon as a way and as a means and as a guide to looking at OPIC contracts and are cited in broader discussions of international investment law. Reaching the right bottom line result is simply not enough. OPIC's rationale has to be properly articulated, because if not, others will seek to pursue those future actions if we do not articulate the right set of reasons, and that can be more costly to us. So any interactive process takes time. If OPIC has to reach final decisions within a fixed deadline, more claims will be denied and in that process of denial will start a series of circumstances that we are going to hurt the investor, we are going to impinge upon the agency, we are going to start charging interest after that 150 days; and that ultimately is going to create a problem for us in terms of the taxpayers of this country. I think, while the gentleman's intention is well-meaning, his effort as to how he achieves that is both problematic for the agency, problematic for the entities to be insured, problematic for the taxpayers. So I urge the adoption of my amendment to the Terry amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the point that the gentleman made is an important one. When we deny claims, when OPIC is forced by this new set of circumstances to deny claims, what happens to the claimant, the American company that the gentleman is concerned about? Now their only course is to litigate, which is more costly, more time-consuming, than to work with OPIC in trying to reach a conclusion. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that, number one, the denial of claims because of the time constraints causes a set of circumstances that is even worse for the claimant, and the claimant happens to be an American entity.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate my friend's comments, but the fact of the matter is that what we would have, there are maybe some agencies covered by other statutory provisions in the intelligence community that might offer OPIC information which might be able not to appear in the register, but there are a series of agencies which we might not consider quote/unquote ``intelligence information,'' but which information would be harmful to the interests of the United States that are not covered by any such provision and that would have to be issued in the Register. If not, it would be a violation of law if this amendment were passed. So I think that there is a serious concern between that and what the gentleman seeks to do. He wants to know if there is some undue influence in the determination of a payment of a claim, and I think that that is fitting and proper; but we have to limit that to make sure that it is undue influence and not just open the whole book for the whole world to see what we are doing out there to try to determine how we process our way to achieving a claim.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern about the possible intervention of other Federal agencies on pending settlement determinations and clearly claims should be considered on their own merits, without necessary delays, unrelated to the actual claims process, but I am offering this amendment to clarify the gentleman's language. My amendment would change the language in paragraph 2 to read that no other department or agency of the United States or any officer thereof or any employee thereof may intervene with the intent to impede or delay in any pending settlement determination, and it makes the same change in paragraph 3. Now, what is the reason for the clarification? The proposed amendment by our colleague would prevent OPIC's board members from carrying out their statutory functions. OPIC is governed by a board of directors that, in fact, seven of whom are officers of department or agencies of the United States Government. These are the board of directors. Seven of them are, in fact, officers of departments or agencies of the United States Government. This amendment would prevent the board from exercising its responsibilities by, quote, ``interfering with the ability of its private sector members to participate in discussions regarding claim settlements.'' So they, in essence, would not be able to engage. Secondly, the proposed amendment would hurt OPIC's ability to protect the taxpayer by interfering with OPIC's ability to coordinate its claims salvage efforts with other parts of the United States Government. Now, what does that mean? We had a debate earlier, when OPIC has a claim and it is willing to pay the claim, it stands in the shoes of the company that it paid the claim on behalf of to try to get the money from some overseas entity or government. If we cannot coordinate with the agencies of the Federal Government to put OPIC in the best possible sort of circumstances, to protect itself as the claimant and to protect the taxpayers thereof, we are hurting OPIC; we are hurting the taxpayers. That does not make sense. OPIC's history of successful salvage is due, in part, to its strong coordination with our embassies abroad; and those salvage efforts not only protect the U.S. taxpayer by resulting in a recovery of close to 95 percent of amounts paid or settled on claims over OPIC's history but it also benefits the insured investor whose uninsured interests, uninsured interests, those not covered by OPIC, are also attempted to be covered by OPIC in the salvage effort. The broad prohibition on intervention that the gentleman would offer in his amendment would inhibit OPIC's ability to obtain relevant information from U.S. embassies in that country and other United States Government sources of information, and it is that very information that is at the core of successfully accomplishing a recovery of the claim. The threat of violation of this provision would have a serious impact on the willingness of United States Government information sources to provide relevant information to OPIC with respect to claims. Cutting off OPIC's ability to obtain this kind of information would do a disservice, both to the taxpayers and OPIC's insureds, by restricting OPIC's fact-finding efforts to non-U.S. Government sources of information, when we have all of those U.S. government sources of information that can help us achieve a 100 percent claim and cost nothing to the taxpayers. So my amendment tries to accomplish what the gentleman wants by saying if there is an intent to impede or delay, then that cannot be done and those employees and agencies and officers cannot do that; but otherwise we create a huge opening in which no governmental agency, no embassy abroad, and even the directors of the board of trustees of OPIC who we want to be questioning the director about their payments and their liabilities will not be able to do so in this regard. We would want no corporation in America, we would want no public entity in the country, to be told that we do not want the people overseeing that entity to have the ability to question on the very liabilities they might have as an agency and on behalf of the taxpayers of the country. So I urge adoption of my amendment to the Terry amendment. I think it accomplishes the gentlemen's goal and at the time preserves the sanctity of OPIC's ability to protect itself, the taxpayers, and the claimant.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. We certainly all hope that we can achieve an agreement on our budgetary needs by that time. But if not, and if there is to be a schedule for November that is already out there, we certainly would appreciate it as quickly as possible. If I may ask the gentleman one last question, Mr. Speaker, is there a chance that Friday may be given away, in view of the schedule at this point, with only two stated pieces of legislation for the week? Does the gentleman expect that Friday may be given away?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank my friend, the gentleman from New York.