Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to reiterate my strong support for Tom Perez, a man eminently qualified to serve our country as the next Secretary of Labor. I am pleased that the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee voted last Thursday to favorably report Mr. Perez's nomination to the full Senate. But we must remember this step forward came only after weeks of delay. This is the week we should have been on this floor debating and voting on the confirmation of Tom Perez, but we are not. Instead, delaying tactics on this and other nominees have now needlessly, pointlessly pushed this debate into next month. Let me state for the record that the obstruction we have seen thus far in the confirmation process is completely unacceptable and, for the sake of the American people, for the sake of good governance, it must end. It does not stop at the Department of Labor. Republicans have refused to take up nominees at the National Labor Relations Board, threatening the operation of this critical agency. It appears any agency that stands up for workers' rights is under attack. Let's just do the job the American people sent us here to do. Tom Perez is a quintessential public servant, but apparently that is not enough for my colleagues on the other side. He is a consensus builder, but that is not enough. As secretary of labor in Maryland, he brought together the chamber of commerce and Maryland labor unions to make sure that workers received the level of wages and benefits they deserved and that businesses had the skilled workforce they needed, but that experience of bringing both sides together is not enough. It is not enough that he is the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, where he increased prosecutions of human trafficking by 40 percent, won $50 million for armed services members whose homes were improperly foreclosed on while they served, and settled the three largest fair lending cases in the history of the Fair Housing Act, recovering more money for victims in 2012 than in the previous 23 years combined. But none of those accomplishments on human trafficking, on servicemembers, on people who were abused in fair housing--that is not enough. It is not enough that he spent his entire career in public service. It is not enough to be a Brown University graduate or have a master's in public policy from the Kennedy School or a juris doctorate from Harvard Law. The truth is that my friends on the other side are looking to block his nomination because Tom Perez is not enough of a Republican to pass muster. He is too much of an advocate for people with disabilities, achieving the largest ever disability-based housing discrimination settlement. He is too much of a civil rights champion. He obtained the first convictions under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act. He has been a strong supporter of ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They seem to hate the Civil Rights Division, but who could deny the importance of their work? Tom Perez is just too much for my friends on the other side who want to block this nominee and insist on obstructing, obfuscating, and politicizing everything that comes before the Congress. The fact is that this is not even about Tom Perez. It is about rendering government helpless and standing in the way of any effort to govern. Tom Perez is a good man. He is qualified and competent. He is a professional public servant nominated by the President and already confirmed by the Senate to the post he holds today. I endorsed Tom Perez after meeting him. I continue to stand firmly by him as a nominee. But what I will not stand for is Republicans blocking his nomination for no valid reason, without any real objection, only an ideological objection to allowing this President or this Congress to govern or to at least select a Cabinet that will help us do so, and in this case particularly the Department of Labor that stands for working men and women of this country. I said, when the President nominated him, he was an outstanding nominee to be the Secretary of Labor. He has ``dedicated his career to championing the rights of workers and all Americans, and I am confident he will continue to do the same if confirmed.'' I also marvel that I listen to all the election postmortem about how the Republican Party has to reach out to Hispanic Americans in this country, how they have to do a better job of engaging them and selling their vision of America. This is the President's first nominee for this second term of a Hispanic American who is eminently qualified. To try to stop this nominee is reverting back to the same old failed political strategies during the last election. It is unfortunate that the President's first Hispanic choice for his second-term Cabinet comes under such attack, no valid attack. It does not have to be that way. Mr. Perez deserves an up-or-down vote, and he deserves to be swiftly confirmed as the next Secretary of Labor. To my friends on the other side, I would say to you it is time to stop the obstructionism. I would say to you the empty rhetoric and baseless objections to Tom Perez's nomination are not going to serve you well in the Hispanic community. You should allow, as I have heard so many times--give us an up-or-down vote--an up-or-down vote. Working families in this country, those who depend upon the Labor Department to have a sense of fairness and justice, deserve an up-or-down vote. Hispanic Americans who want to see someone from that community represented in the President's Cabinet want to see an up-or-down vote. That is what justice would be all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I wish to thank the distinguished ranking member for her courtesy. I intend to support this nominee for all of the reasons the distinguished chairman has said. (The remarks of Mr. Menendez pertaining to the introduction of S. 980 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER, the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise at this moment, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, outraged at the implication that we in the Senate have not done enough to investigate what has happened in Benghazi; that we have not investigated it thoroughly; that we have not looked at the details, have not analyzed the information-- classified and unclassified--that has come before us. The committee has held four hearings--four--on the attack on Special Mission Benghazi. The very first hearing I chaired in January was on this topic with Secretary Clinton. In fact, we postponed the nomination hearing of Senator Kerry so that Secretary Clinton could come before us and explain what happened and why, despite her medical condition at the time. Let's make that very clear. One of the very first things we did, despite a pending nomination of a new Secretary, and the sitting Secretary's medical concerns, was to hold a hearing on this topic and air the facts. Prior to that, Chairman Kerry held a hearing of the committee on December 20 on the events that transpired in Benghazi with Deputy Secretaries Burns and Nides. There were also two classified briefings in December specifically on the circumstances surrounding the attack. The December 13 briefing included a video of the attack with high level officials from State, the Joint Staff, Defense Department, the FBI, and the intelligence community. They included Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management at State; Matthew Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Maj. Gen. Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations at the Joint Staff; Gary Reid, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict; Jenny Ley, Deputy Assistant Director at the FBI. On December 19, there was a high-level classified briefing with the Accountability Review Board with Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen. At his nomination hearing in January, Secretary Kerry also fully addressed this issue and then again at the committee's annual budget hearing this past April. Last week, the nominee to be our new Ambassador to Libya, Deborah Kay Jones, testified before the full committee--another opportunity for my friends on the other side to ask questions, to get the truth, not create their own truth for political purposes. That hearing was yet another opportunity to ask questions about the security situation on the ground. Yet Republican participation was limited to just a handful of Members. We have fully vetted this issue. We have held hearing after hearing. We have, on both sides, had the opportunity to have our questions answered. In fact, in total, between the House and the Senate, there have been 11 hearings on Benghazi, 25,000 pages of documents released, and now a full e-mail history of the interagency process. Our focus now should not be on the work product of the CIA or State on draft talking points we have seen in hundreds of e-mails released by the White House yesterday; it should not be to score political points at the expense of the families of the four victims. It should be on doing all we can to protect our personnel serving overseas and providing the necessary oversight and legislative authority to carry out the Administrative Review Board's recommendations. I would remind my friends and the American people that nothing has changed. The facts remain the facts. They are the same today as they were in September, in October, in November, in December, and in January. It is the rhetoric and the political calculus that has changed. In fact, the e-mails released by the White House further demonstrate that point. The original CIA-produced talking points, notably produced as the result of a request by the House Intelligence Committee for media interviews, clearly show that in the days immediately after the attack, the intelligence community was not sure what exactly happened or who was responsible. The points produced by the CIA said the agency's belief the events in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. That point stays in the talking points from beginning to end of the interagency process, with no debate, and is conveyed to the House Intelligence Committee. Throughout the e-mail discussions, the agency makes clear their information is limited and that there is a lot they simply don't know. In fact, the National Counterterrorism Center says in one e-mail: At this point we are not aware of any actionable intelligence that this attack was planned or imminent. The intelligence community is combing through reporting from before and after the attack to determine the full extent of who was involved. It became clear over time that this was, in fact, a calculated terrorist attack, but there was no political calculation involved in the initial assessment. So let's be honest about what is happening here. It is not about doing all we can to find the truth and making sure it never happens again; it is about political gamesmanship and finding someone to blame. I remind my friends, and the American people, again, nothing has changed. Some wish to make this a political issue to drive a purely political agenda. I believe our real focus, our honest focus, and what the American people truly care about is the security of our missions and the safety of our personnel. That has been, and will remain, the clear focus of the Foreign Relations Committee going forward, and I hope we will have the support of our Republican colleagues. In my view the Monday morning quarterbacking on this issue is politically driven--a perspective shared by former Republican Defense Secretary Gates, who said on Sunday: ``Frankly, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were'' with regard to sending in Special Forces teams or overflights by fighter aircraft based in Italy. Former Secretary Gates said: Without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on, on the ground, would have been very dangerous. So I think we have common interests. I have been working hard to ensure full implementation of all 29 recommendations made by the Administrative Review Board--recommendations to ensure that going forward we are providing adequate personnel and resources to meet local conditions at more than 280 facilities in over 180 countries around the world, specifically where host nations are unable to provide adequate protection to our diplomats. I call on our Republican colleagues to join us in that effort. Today, I am introducing legislation. I hope we will be able to count on the support of all of our colleagues to enact this crucial, time- sensitive legislation without delay, without obstruction, and without political grandstanding. The bill will provide authority to fund the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program to permit us to move forward with construction at high- risk, high-threat posts. This account was created following the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and in Tanzania, and at that time it would have allowed us to construct 8 to 10 facilities per year. However, the way the Congress is funding it, it presently is funding for construction of just two to three facilities per year, despite the fact that there are at least two dozen posts that fall into that high-risk, high-threat category. At that rate it will take us over 8 years to get around to construction at just the posts with the highest risk of attack. The bill authorizes funding for Arabic language training and for a Foreign Affairs Security Training Center to train diplomatic security personnel. It provides contract authority to the State Department to allow it to award contracts on a best value basis rather than to the lowest bidder where conditions require enhanced levels of security. At the administration's request, the bill will authorize disciplinary action in cases of unsatisfactory leadership by senior officials related to a security incident, which does not presently exist. This will allow appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against any future officials in a circumstance such as Benghazi. The bill requires planning to incorporate additional marine security guards at overseas facilities, and it requires extensive reporting on State's implementation of the Accountability Review Board's recommendations on the designation of high-risk, high-threat posts. I hope we can work together to do what has to be done to protect those who serve this Nation abroad. If we want to address the problem, we have an opportunity to do it. If we want to score political points, fine, but do not do it at the risk of American lives. Let's work together to fix the problem, not use it for political advantage.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise at this moment, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, outraged at the implication that we in the Senate have not done enough to investigate what has happened in Benghazi; that we have not investigated it thoroughly; that we have not looked at the details, have not analyzed the information-- classified and unclassified--that has come before us. The committee has held four hearings--four--on the attack on Special Mission Benghazi. The very first hearing I chaired in January was on this topic with Secretary Clinton. In fact, we postponed the nomination hearing of Senator Kerry so that Secretary Clinton could come before us and explain what happened and why, despite her medical condition at the time. Let's make that very clear. One of the very first things we did, despite a pending nomination of a new Secretary, and the sitting Secretary's medical concerns, was to hold a hearing on this topic and air the facts. Prior to that, Chairman Kerry held a hearing of the committee on December 20 on the events that transpired in Benghazi with Deputy Secretaries Burns and Nides. There were also two classified briefings in December specifically on the circumstances surrounding the attack. The December 13 briefing included a video of the attack with high level officials from State, the Joint Staff, Defense Department, the FBI, and the intelligence community. They included Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management at State; Matthew Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Maj. Gen. Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations at the Joint Staff; Gary Reid, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict; Jenny Ley, Deputy Assistant Director at the FBI. On December 19, there was a high-level classified briefing with the Accountability Review Board with Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen. At his nomination hearing in January, Secretary Kerry also fully addressed this issue and then again at the committee's annual budget hearing this past April. Last week, the nominee to be our new Ambassador to Libya, Deborah Kay Jones, testified before the full committee--another opportunity for my friends on the other side to ask questions, to get the truth, not create their own truth for political purposes. That hearing was yet another opportunity to ask questions about the security situation on the ground. Yet Republican participation was limited to just a handful of Members. We have fully vetted this issue. We have held hearing after hearing. We have, on both sides, had the opportunity to have our questions answered. In fact, in total, between the House and the Senate, there have been 11 hearings on Benghazi, 25,000 pages of documents released, and now a full e-mail history of the interagency process. Our focus now should not be on the work product of the CIA or State on draft talking points we have seen in hundreds of e-mails released by the White House yesterday; it should not be to score political points at the expense of the families of the four victims. It should be on doing all we can to protect our personnel serving overseas and providing the necessary oversight and legislative authority to carry out the Administrative Review Board's recommendations. I would remind my friends and the American people that nothing has changed. The facts remain the facts. They are the same today as they were in September, in October, in November, in December, and in January. It is the rhetoric and the political calculus that has changed. In fact, the e-mails released by the White House further demonstrate that point. The original CIA-produced talking points, notably produced as the result of a request by the House Intelligence Committee for media interviews, clearly show that in the days immediately after the attack, the intelligence community was not sure what exactly happened or who was responsible. The points produced by the CIA said the agency's belief the events in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. That point stays in the talking points from beginning to end of the interagency process, with no debate, and is conveyed to the House Intelligence Committee. Throughout the e-mail discussions, the agency makes clear their information is limited and that there is a lot they simply don't know. In fact, the National Counterterrorism Center says in one e-mail: At this point we are not aware of any actionable intelligence that this attack was planned or imminent. The intelligence community is combing through reporting from before and after the attack to determine the full extent of who was involved. It became clear over time that this was, in fact, a calculated terrorist attack, but there was no political calculation involved in the initial assessment. So let's be honest about what is happening here. It is not about doing all we can to find the truth and making sure it never happens again; it is about political gamesmanship and finding someone to blame. I remind my friends, and the American people, again, nothing has changed. Some wish to make this a political issue to drive a purely political agenda. I believe our real focus, our honest focus, and what the American people truly care about is the security of our missions and the safety of our personnel. That has been, and will remain, the clear focus of the Foreign Relations Committee going forward, and I hope we will have the support of our Republican colleagues. In my view the Monday morning quarterbacking on this issue is politically driven--a perspective shared by former Republican Defense Secretary Gates, who said on Sunday: ``Frankly, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were'' with regard to sending in Special Forces teams or overflights by fighter aircraft based in Italy. Former Secretary Gates said: Without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on, on the ground, would have been very dangerous. So I think we have common interests. I have been working hard to ensure full implementation of all 29 recommendations made by the Administrative Review Board--recommendations to ensure that going forward we are providing adequate personnel and resources to meet local conditions at more than 280 facilities in over 180 countries around the world, specifically where host nations are unable to provide adequate protection to our diplomats. I call on our Republican colleagues to join us in that effort. Today, I am introducing legislation. I hope we will be able to count on the support of all of our colleagues to enact this crucial, time- sensitive legislation without delay, without obstruction, and without political grandstanding. The bill will provide authority to fund the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program to permit us to move forward with construction at high- risk, high-threat posts. This account was created following the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and in Tanzania, and at that time it would have allowed us to construct 8 to 10 facilities per year. However, the way the Congress is funding it, it presently is funding for construction of just two to three facilities per year, despite the fact that there are at least two dozen posts that fall into that high-risk, high-threat category. At that rate it will take us over 8 years to get around to construction at just the posts with the highest risk of attack. The bill authorizes funding for Arabic language training and for a Foreign Affairs Security Training Center to train diplomatic security personnel. It provides contract authority to the State Department to allow it to award contracts on a best value basis rather than to the lowest bidder where conditions require enhanced levels of security. At the administration's request, the bill will authorize disciplinary action in cases of unsatisfactory leadership by senior officials related to a security incident, which does not presently exist. This will allow appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against any future officials in a circumstance such as Benghazi. The bill requires planning to incorporate additional marine security guards at overseas facilities, and it requires extensive reporting on State's implementation of the Accountability Review Board's recommendations on the designation of high-risk, high-threat posts. I hope we can work together to do what has to be done to protect those who serve this Nation abroad. If we want to address the problem, we have an opportunity to do it. If we want to score political points, fine, but do not do it at the risk of American lives. Let's work together to fix the problem, not use it for political advantage.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the chairman for her remarks. If I may, I would like to further clarify the language and purpose of section 3004. Post- Sandy, there is an acute need for an assessment of the northeast region's storm-protection infrastructure needs. Is it correct that section 3004 gives the Corps of Engineers the power to conduct feasibility studies on specific projects?

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to join with my distinguished colleagues in our collective call for a greater engagement. I start off, as I always do in many years in Congress between the House and the Senate, with two questions: What is in the national interests of the United States? What is in the national security interests of the United States? The answer to those two questions is, in essence, how I determine my views, my advocacy, my votes, and the policies I want to pursue. There are vital U.S. interests engaged in Syria. First, of course, there is a humanitarian crisis, probably the most significant humanitarian crisis at this moment--70,000 dead and climbing, 4 million displaced. That is, of course, an urgent call. Beyond that we have large chemical weapon stockpiles that potentially can fall into the wrong hands. Some have, by a whole host of public reports, already been used against the Syrian people. Unless you believe that somehow the rebels have in their possession chemical weapons, then this largely has to be from Asad. He has used them. I think once you use them, you are willing to use them even in greater quantities. That is a real concern. The Syrian State could collapse. That would leave a safe heaven for terrorists, constituting a new threat to the region. You already have al-Qaida affiliated al-Nusra, you have Hezbollah, you have the Iranian Guard. You have the opportunity for a safe heaven for terrorists constituting a new threat to the region with broader implications for our own security. The refugee crisis and sectarian violence spread instability throughout the region. The King of Jordan was here 2 weeks ago and sat with our committee. He made it very clear, his population has already increased by 20 percent. At the rate it is going, the population of Jordan could double. That is not sustainable for the kingdom. This is one of the countries that has been one of our most significant and faithful allies, and a constructive ally in the region. We cannot afford for that ally to ultimately find itself in a position in which it could very well collapse. We look at all of that. Finally, there could be no more strategic setback to Iran--which this body has spoken collectively and in a bipartisan united fashion to stop its march toward nuclear weapons--than to have the Asad regime collapse. That would be a tremendous setback to Iran and would cause a disruption in the terror pipeline between Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. These are just some of the vital national security interests of the United States in changing the tide. Under the present set of circumstances, Asad believes he is winning. For so long, as he believes he is winning, he will continue the course he is on. There has to be a change in the tipping point. After 2 years I believe there are those in the opposition--rebels we can and have thoroughly vetted--we can assist in trying to change that tipping point. If you have a monopoly on air power and on artillery, then the reality is you will not see a change on the ground. So the legislation I have introduced and am working with colleagues on begins to move us in a different direction. It is to seek to arm thoroughly vetted elements of the Syrian opposition so we can change the tipping point. It is to, of course, continue to provide humanitarian assistance and at the same time work for the assistance of a transition fund to help those rebels that are already controlling parts of the civilian population to help them administrate there and prepare for the future. The key point is unless we change the dynamics on the ground, we will not have a change in the regime. So long as the regime can continue to bomb its citizens indiscriminately--and if the reports, as we have seen from various countries, including our own, suggest that Asad has used chemical weapons against his own citizens--that is only an invitation to allow him to continue to do it unless we act. I am willing to consider other options. I know my colleague, Senator McCain, very distinguished in this field, has suggested others. I am willing to consider those as well. But I think, finally, we strengthen the hand of the administration and Secretary Kerry. We all want to see a politically, diplomatically achieved solution. But in the absence of changing the calculus not only of Asad but of his supporters who have propped him up, unless they believe he will fall, I am not sure we have changed the calculus for the political opportunity to take place and the diplomacy to be effective. I think these efforts strengthen the hand of the administration, create a parallel track that if diplomacy fails, we will have an opportunity to pursue our vital national interests and security interests, end the humanitarian tragedy, and create the type of stability we want to see in the region. I appreciate my colleague bringing us together on the floor of the Senate. I look forward to continuing to work with him. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 802, which I understand will be offered to the WRDA bill by my colleague from Louisiana Senator Landrieu which would stop flood insurance premiums from skyrocketing until FEMA completes its study on the affordability of premiums of the National Flood Insurance Program. As everyone here knows, my home State of New Jersey was at the epicenter of Superstorm Sandy which destroyed thousands of homes, left millions without power, and caused billions of dollars in damage. But despite the devastation, the people of New Jersey didn't give up. They began rebuilding, and we showed the country that ``Jersey Tough'' isn't just a slogan. But even as we slowly recover from the worst natural disaster in our State's history, a manmade disaster is looming in the distance, jeopardizing our recovery. The combination of updated flood maps and the phaseout of premium subsidies for the National Flood Insurance Program threaten to force victims out of their homes and destroy entire communities. It is like a triple whammy. We have the consequences of Superstorm Sandy, which devastated homes, so they have to rebuild. Many times, that insurance didn't rise to the level of the cost of rebuilding. Secondly, and as a result of flood maps that came in after the storm, there are now requirements for new elevations. Thirdly, the premiums are going to skyrocket because the subsidies go down. So we have a triple whammy. Now, many homeowners are going to be forced to pay premiums that are several times higher than their current policy. Those who cannot afford the higher premiums will either be forced to sell or abandon their homes. This, in turn, will drive down property values and local revenues at the worst possible time--when we are doing everything we can to bring communities back to life after the storm. I have heard from countless New Jerseyans. Many who are facing this predicament have come to me in tears. These are hard-working middle- class families who have played by the rules, purchased flood insurance responsibly, and now are being priced out of the only home in which they have ever lived. This amendment would delay these potentially devastating changes until FEMA completes its study on premium affordability. This study is the result of a requirement I authored in the flood insurance bill last year because I was concerned that premiums could become unaffordable for too many families. Of course, at that time the challenge was made by many of our colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, who said: Well, we will let the flood insurance program die unless it can be self-sufficient. Given the choice between having no flood insurance program--that, therefore, would mean no homeowner would have any insurance available to them, and, of course, it dramatically reduces the value of the home if you cannot get flood insurance and you are in a flood plain--or having a flood insurance program under the conditions our colleagues insisted on, there was a need to have a flood insurance program. But because I knew that had some potential rate shock to individuals, the study I required and sought and achieved in the flood insurance bill last year was because of this concern of unaffordability for too many families. That was even before Superstorm Sandy struck. While my friends on the other side of the aisle protested my efforts to provide assistance to help low- and middle-income families afford insurance, I was able to include a requirement that FEMA conduct this study on affordability. Well, it has been 10 months since we passed the reauthorization, and there is still no study. Unfortunately, my concerns about premiums becoming unaffordable have already come true for many New Jersey homeowners. Until FEMA does its job and provides options, according to the law, to improve affordability, the people of New Jersey should not have to face these skyrocketing premiums at a time they are, in essence, getting a triple whammy: They lost their homes or their homes are dramatically uninhabitable, they have to rebuild--in many cases, because of new flood maps, they will have to elevate--and they will have to pay incredibly higher premiums. That is simply a devastation that should not take place. We all remember the devastation that happened in New Jersey in late October and the way the country came together to help the victims. Last week we marked the 6-month anniversary of Sandy, and the work is far from over. We still have too many people out of their homes and too many people who are afraid of losing their homes. New Jersey families already suffered from a natural disaster. The next disaster should not be a manmade one. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise as a parent, as a father, as an American who saw the horror of Newtown. Too many times I have come to this Senate floor to say I offer my thoughts and prayers to the parents of the victims of an assault weapon attack. Too many times. Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Newtown. How many times will we have to offer our thoughts and prayers to the victims of gun violence? I have two beautiful children, Alicia and Rob, and they are the most important and cherished people in my life. I don't know what I would do if anything happened to either one of them. So I am here for them and for the children they may have one day and for every child in Newtown and across America whose small voice has been silenced by a gun. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that each and every Member of the Senate felt a loss that day just 4 months ago. Here we are, 4 months later, trying to do something--but still not enough--for those children, for those families, for all the families who have suffered the devastation of a shooter with the ability and the will to kill innocent people--as many as an assault weapon can kill as quickly as it can fire--a shooter with a desire to get off as many rounds in as short a time as possible. In my view, we are already too armed. We are by far the most armed Nation in the world. There are more guns in America--almost 90 per 100 residents--than in any other nation. Do you know there are five federally licensed gun dealers in America for every McDonald's? Think about it. Think about how many times you see a McDonald's. Well, imagine five times as many gun dealers. There are about 310 million guns in America. But consider that those 310 million guns are owned by only about 40 percent of American households. Now we are in the midst of a debate in which some are arguing that not only should we not ban assault weapons, but we should force every State to allow people to carry concealed weapons. How does that help reduce gun violence? How are we reducing gun violence if we allow people to carry concealed weapons across State lines; if we allow someone in Florida or Virginia to carry their gun to New York City and Times Square or my home State of New Jersey? Is that the legacy we want to leave the children and families of Newtown? I strongly oppose any amendment that would allow reciprocity for concealed weapons. Yet even as we skirt the real issues, banning the weapons and the ammunition devices that have caused our Nation so much heartbreak, we would have those who see this as an opportunity to weaken gun laws; those who see this as a way to push, from my view, a radical agenda and put more firearms into the hands of those who don't deserve them. My home State of New Jersey has a gun control regime specifically tailored to a densely populated State. Our State requires affirmative permission to buy a firearm. But we leave that decision to those who know the State best in terms of its security--the State Police. They conduct a thorough background check, even more thorough than the Federal background check, and then the police sign off and give a purchaser a card to buy a firearm. Of course we have commonsense safeguards to ensure the Second Amendment is not violated, including appeal rights. But under an amendment offered by one of my colleagues, soon New Jersey's carefully constructed firearms law, if this amendment were to be adopted, would be eviscerated. Soon New Jersey's law would only be as good as the least restrictive States. This amendment, in essence, is mandatory concealed carry reciprocity. Not the current type of concealed carry reciprocity where States might voluntarily enter into agreements to allow their permits to be used in another State. No. This amendment forces States to accept other States' concealed carry permits. I guess so much for the States rights advocates that I have listened to here so many times. At least 28 States grant concealed carry permits to those convicted of stalking, and at least 7 States grant concealed carry permits to those convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery. At least 12 do not require any firearms safety training before the issuance of a concealed carry permit. Florida and Utah do not even require residency for a concealed carry permit. Yet this amendment would force States such as New Jersey to accept these permits even if the out-of-State concealed carry permit owner would not be eligible to simply possess a gun under our laws, much less carry. This amendment would turn our positive discussion on how to best protect our children into another feather in the cap of the NRA and its gun manufacturers, another example for it to show how it has a stranglehold on this national discussion. And, in my view, this is just asking for more gun violence, not ending it. Not banning assault weapons is asking for more gun violence. Allowing larger clips with more firepower does nothing to end the violence. It is not about hunting. If you need 100 rounds to hunt a deer, you are in sad shape. Do we honestly think it makes sense to allow someone without a mandatory background check to buy an assault weapon that can fire up to 13 rounds a second with something called a bump fire stock? Should we not even be considering making weapons that can fire 13 rounds a second legal on the streets of America? Bang. That is one round fired. It took me 4 seconds to say those five words. In those 4 seconds, if I had an assault weapon, I could have gotten 52 rounds--52 bullets--fired in the time it took me to say five words. There is no need for that kind of firepower on the streets of America. There is no need for the same weapons of that sort to be on the streets of Newark, NJ, or Newtown, CT, as they are in Baghdad, Kabul. Any attempt that uses the Second Amendment as an excuse to allow that type of firepower on the streets without some common sense applied to it is not solving a problem, it is creating one. I will support efforts during this debate to go even further in keeping mass slaughter weapons out of the hands of criminals. I do not believe assault weapons--some of them having names such as ``Street Sweeper''--are about anything other than mass killing. I strongly believe in banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips that allow a deranged individual to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. There is simply no rationale for having these weapons on our streets--unless your intent is to inflict terror and destruction and mass casualties. In a nation where there are already 310 million guns and far too few regulations as to who owns and carries them, I believe we have a responsibility to take these assault weapons off the street. I understand that not everyone shares that view, but the one thing I cannot understand is how someone can argue against something as simple and as basic as requiring a background check before putting a deadly weapon in a person's hand. We owe it to the American people. We owe it to the children of Newtown, to the families who are still trying to pick up the pieces from that tragic day. We owe it to the family of the 6-year-old boy from Toms River who was shot recently by a 4-year-old neighbor with a .22 caliber rifle that was in the house. He did not survive the wounds. We owe it to every victim of gun violence to send a message that America will no longer be the most armed Nation in the world without at least having commonsense gun safety regulations. Who among us would be content with the counsel of patience and delay when we lose a neighbor or lose a loved one to the type of violence we could have prevented by a vote in the Senate today? It is time for some profiles in courage, and I believe that in the men and women of the Senate there exists that opportunity and that moment for a profile in courage to stand up for what is right. That is the opportunity that is presented to us today.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled ``The Future of Passenger Rail: What's Next for the Northeast Corridor?''

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2014.''

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 432 Russell Senate Office building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Proposed FY2014 Small Business Administration Budget.''

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Helping Homeowners Harmed by Foreclosures: Ensuring Accountability and Transparency in Foreclosure Reviews, Part II.''

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 2 p.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 6 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the confirmation of Judge Patty Shwartz to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a nomination which has finally come to the floor, and the time has come to confirm Judge Shwartz. I express my full support and urge my colleagues to do the same. I am happy we were able to work out the vote on this nominee without a cloture vote, which is incredibly important. I want to refer to my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who mentioned a home State Senator--who happens to be me--and to clarify some issues. I have always taken the role of advice and consent for judicial nominations very seriously, as I am sure we all do. Appointments to the Federal bench are lifetime appointments, and the circuit court is often the last stop before the U.S. Supreme Court. That makes that responsibility even greater. Very few Americans, if they appeal, get past the circuit court to Supreme Court consideration. We know the process can be long and difficult; sometimes overly partisan on both sides based on legitimate concerns and personal beliefs. In the end we always look to confirm the best and most qualified individuals. We conduct a thorough review of the nominees, their understanding of the law, their intellect, their analytical thinking and reasoning, and we make our decisions--and I have made mine--about the nominee. I had the opportunity on more than one occasion to discuss with the judge issues that I believe reflect the high standards to which a nominee should always be held. There is no understanding between this nominee and me as to how she would rule in any given set of circumstances. There was a suggestion about what the law is today in both those instances. I am sure the judge simply did not recall the specifics of that at the time of the hearing but was forthright in coming back and saying: Yes, there were two cases. The simple discussion of what is a Supreme Court decision is, in my mind, not only appropriate, but at a circuit court level is more than desirable. In the totality of our discussions Judge Shwartz indicated to me the type of intellectual rigor, the knowledge that in fact guarantees to me that she deserves the lifetime appointment to which I expect the Senate will confirm her. The fact that I come to the floor today in full support of her confirmation speaks not only to her qualifications but to her character and to her judicial temperament and suitability to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Aristotle said: ``Character may be called the most effective means of persuasion.'' I can say that, having spent time meeting with Judge Shwartz, I am absolutely persuaded that she is a person of character and meets the highest standards for any nominee. I urge my colleagues to unanimously confirm this highly qualified woman who, I know, will serve honorably and serve well. Judge Patty Shwartz is a proud New Jerseyan. She has been a magistrate judge for the District of New Jersey since 2003. Originally from Paterson, she graduated from Rutgers as a Henry Rutgers Scholar with the highest honors. After college, Judge Shwartz went to the University of Pennsylvania Law School, edited the law review, and was named Outstanding Woman Law Graduate. She has been an associate in Philadelphia at Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, clerked for the Honorable Harold A. Ackerman of the District Court for the District of New Jersey, and, in 1989 joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey. She rose to the position of deputy chief of the criminal division and then to chief of the criminal division serving as the Executive Assistant United States Attorney. She has handled over 4,000 civil and criminal cases, and, since 2009, she has been an adjunct professor at Fordham University School of Law. She is on the advisory board for the Association of the Federal Bar of the State of New Jersey, the Board of Advisors for the Historical Society of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the Board of Directors of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association, where she represents the Third Circuit. She is clearly highly qualified--a woman of distinction who deserves confirmation. If experience, character, and temperament are the most persuasive weapons in a judicial nominee's arsenal, then Judge Shwartz comes before this chamber very well-armed. Let me say to my colleagues who may not have had the opportunity to look as closely at this nominee's record as I have, in making my judgment I have had the benefit of invaluable advice and counsel from many members of the Federal bar whose opinions I sought. They are both Democrats and Republicans, and they affirmed what I subsequently discovered for myself in discussions with her; that there is not a single reason to vote no on this nomination. I urge my colleagues to send a message that although the process can be long and fraught with conflicting opinions, in the end it bends toward the best and brightest, and Judge Patty Shwartz is proof of it. She has strong bipartisan support not only from both the Senators from New Jersey but also our Governor Chris Christie. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm Judge Patty Shwartz to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized to engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Washington, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Murray. I want to commend the chairman's tireless efforts on this budget resolution. She has done the yeomen's work in crafting a document that reflects the values of our caucus in a balanced and pragmatic way. This stands in sharp contrast to the polarizing and ideologically driven budget our friends in the House passed earlier this week. As you know I have introduced legislation in the last three Congresses to create what I call the ``children's budget.'' This bill would require that the executive branch agencies include in their annual budget request to Congress a detailed analysis on children's programs. This analysis would include a breakdown of the appropriations, spending levels, and obligational authority and outlays for each program specifically targeted towards children or that serve children as a major component of their mission. Importantly, this would include an analysis not only of the fiscal year for which the budget request is being made, but also the previous and current fiscal years, to provide the Budget Committees and the Appropriations Committees with a comprehensive look at how funding is affecting the youngest Americans. I have filed an amendment to this concurrent resolution that seeks to address this very issue by encouraging the Appropriations Committees to request the analysis of children's programs contingent on the agencies' funding. However, I understand through conversations with the Senate Parliamentarian and others that indicate such an amendment might not comport with the strict requirements and procedures of a budget resolution. Is this the chairman's understanding as well?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 651.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this is a side-by-side to Senator Coburn's amendment, and while I stand in strong opposition to the underlying amendment of Senator Coburn, I do recognize the need for a comprehensive examination to the current Medicare wage index system. HHS and MedPAC and others have issued detailed reports highlighting that very fact, showing that the current system is full of special add- ons, reclassifications, and other provisions that distort the overall system. In essence, that amendment would create such harm in so many hospitals across this Nation from Alaska to New Hampshire, to Nevada, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Rhode Island, just to mention a few. Our effort is to look at this comprehensively. We need to look at the entire Medicare hospital wage index system. We should not pick out one small provision that does so much harm to so many hospitals across the country instead of addressing the system as a whole. I am joined in this with Senator Warren, Senator Cowan, and Senator Lautenberg, among others, and I urge my colleagues to support the side- by-side amendment so we can address this in a comprehensive and responsible way.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, is my amendment called up, No. 705?