Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor saddened by the tragic death yesterday of Marc Dinardo, 1 of 5 of New Jersey's finest police officers shot last week by a gunman. He was killed, not by a law-abiding gun owner like millions of Americans, a sportsman or a hunter, but by one lone armed man, too willing to pull the trigger to kill another human being in cold blood. Last night, or the night before, gunshots were fired in Jersey City. In Newark, three people were killed, the victims of gun violence. The statistics are staggering. In 1 year, 30,896 people died from gun violence, 12,791 people were murdered, another 69,863 people survived gun injuries, 48,676 people were injured in a gun attack. According to the Brady campaign, in 1 year, 20,784 American children and teens were shot in murders, assaults, suicides, accidents or by police intervention. Homicide was the second leading cause of death for young people ages 10 to 24 years old, and 84 percent of victims were killed by a firearm. Amazingly, firearm homicide is the second leading cause of death for young people ages 1 to 19. These numbers are shocking. I think about what this amendment does, whom it affects, and I cannot help but ask who is it who feels the need to carry a concealed weapon and for what purpose? One must ask how we would ever want to permit, as a matter not of State but Federal law, those whose motives may not be pure to walk into a playground, school, crowded stadium in any State licensed under Federal law to carry a concealed weapon in their coat pocket or bag. Do we honestly believe that person will be the priest or the rabbi? Do we think it will be the mother taking her child to a school, saying: Let me think, I have the house keys, the cell phone--oh yes, the permit for the gun in my bag. Will it be the law-abiding sportsmen using their rifles for target practice? Sportsmen don't need to conceal their weapons. Whom do we think will benefit from this amendment? Whom do we think will carry a concealed Glock 39 through the streets of our cities, perhaps into a playground, stadium, church or mosque? It will not be that mother or that hunter. It will not be that sportsman. As Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign, so aptly pointed out, it will be something like Richard Poplowski, the White supremacist, armed with an AK-47, who allegedly murdered three Pittsburgh police officers on his front porch. He was a concealed carry permit holder. It will be Michael McClendon, the suicide shooter who went on a rampage in Alabama, murdered ten people, then shot himself. He too was a concealed weapon carry permit holder. It will be criminals such as Michael Iheme, charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of his wife in St. Louis Park, MN. She had an active restraining order against her husband because of a history of domestic violence. After shooting his wife, he called 911 and said, ``I killed that woman that messed my life up.'' He was a concealed carry permit holder as well. We are being asked to seriously consider an amendment that would benefit those criminals, not their victims, an amendment that would override State laws and federally mandate States to recognize the concealed weapon permits of people such as these three notorious criminals, even though they may not be residents of that State, even though they may be legally barred from possessing weapons in that State. Let's make no mistake, this amendment is a blatant infringement on States rights, a stealth repeal of States' hard-fought gun laws. It strips legislators and Governors duly elected by the people to represent the best interests of their constituents to make sound, competent, informed judgments about how best to regulate guns in their own State, to make those judgments based on the recommendations and input of law enforcement officials who know and understand the specific situation on the ground, on the street, in their cities, in their communities. Even the Congressional Research Service has found this amendment would have a preemptive effect on State reciprocity laws. They said in their report: This amendment is broad enough such that it would allow certain firearms that are banned from purchase or possession in one State to be brought into that State. For example, one could legally purchase, possess, and carry a concealed permit for a firearm that is banned in States such as California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. In my view, this would turn the clock back on reasonable, responsible gun laws that States such as New Jersey have passed to protect us from men like Richard Poplowski, Michael McLendon, and Michael Iheme. On the contrary, common sense, logic, reason, rationality, good judgment all say that that amendment will make our streets less safe. And, contrary to the usual approach of my Republican colleagues to maximize States rights, this amendment will trample the right of States to pass their own laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Too many times, for too long, we have seen blood on our streets from senseless, pointless, lethal gun violence. We have tried, in our States and in this Chamber, to mitigate it. We have tried in our own ways to stop it. We have all been outraged at those who, in language, attitude, and demeanor, seem to accept it as part of American culture. I do not accept it as such. We cannot stand down from battle being waged by law enforcement in every city and State against gun violence in our streets. Our charge, our solemn responsibility, is to end the violence, not add to it. There are too many guns on our streets as it is, but there are also too many people willing to use them. Let's not make it easier to carry a concealed weapon against the wishes of the people of a State whose elected representatives express their will and say, not in our State, to blithely, legally have a Federal mandate that would permit them to cross State lines into your neighborhood or my neighborhood. The evidence is before us in the names of Richard Poplowski, Michael McLendon, and Michael Iheme, all of whom had permits to carry a concealed weapon. If their States want to permit it, fine, but why should they come into my State and create the opportunity to murder some innocent family when my State, my government, my legislature has determined that, in fact, there is a better way to protect our citizens. When we go down this road, it is a slippery slope. Some day, some Federal issue will come in your State and you will not want the Federal Government to tell your State how to protect your citizens. If you permit this to happen today, then it will happen tomorrow in a way that you will not like. That is a dangerous precedent. That is a precedent I do not think we want. Finally, let us remember the victims. Let us remember Officer Marc Dinardo and all of the victims of gun violence who, in fact, are out there protecting us each and every day. They will not know the good guy from the bad guy. They will know if this amendment passes and becomes law that someone could have a concealed weapon on them. At the end of their day, their lives will be greater at risk. That is not something I want on my conscience. I do not know which Member of the Senate wants it on theirs. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, America has been listening to the confirmation hearings of Judge Sotomayor--the lengthy rounds of questioning, the probative approach of the members of the committee-- and we have seen an extraordinary jurist in action. We have seen her responses, witnessed the depth, dignity, and clarity of her thoughtful observations. We have seen a skilled, dynamic jurist carefully, thoroughly, calmly engage each member of the committee, showing each Senator a deference in tone and tenor that speaks directly to her temperament and what she will bring to the debate in the hallowed halls of the United States Supreme Court. I believe most Americans watching these hearings, though deeply concerned about the substance of the issues raised fundamentally--at the heart of it--care more about the person. They care about honor and decency and dignity and fairness. They care about her experience. They care about who Judge Sotomayor is and what she has accomplished in her long judicial career. They care about the record. And the record is clear. They care that the leaders of prominent legal and law enforcement organizations, who know her best and have actually seen her work, say she is an exemplary, fair, and highly qualified judge. They care about her work fighting crime, and that as a prosecutor she put the Tarzan murderer behind bars. They care that as a judge she upheld the convictions of drug dealers, sexual predators, and other violent criminals. They care that she respects their liberties and protections granted by the Constitution, including the first amendment rights of those with whom she strongly disagrees. Judge Sotomayor's credentials are impeccable. Set aside for a moment the fact that she graduated at the top of her class at Princeton. Set aside her tenure as editor of the Yale Law Review. Set aside her work for Robert Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office; set aside her successful prosecution of child abusers, murderers, and white-collar criminals; set aside her string of victories along the way, not to mention her courtroom experience and practical hands-on knowledge of all sides of the legal system. Set aside her appointment by George H.W. Bush to the U.S. District Court in New York and her appointment by Bill Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals; and the fact that she was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate and a Republican majority Senate which alone tells this Senator--if she was good enough twice, she must be good enough a third time. Set all that aside, and you are left with someone who would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any Justice in the last 70 years and more Federal judicial experience than anyone nominated to the Court in the last century. Her record is clearly proof that someone so skilled, so committed, so focused on the details of the law can be both an impartial arbiter and still understand the deep and profound effect her decisions will have on the day-to-day lives of everyday people. Senators should focus on Judge Sotomayor's full 17-year record on the bench as well as her career as a prosecutor and corporate attorney. She has been clear and consistent in her answers, despite repeated questions and efforts to trip her up. She has been consistently more forthcoming than any other recent Supreme Court nominee. Almost every Republican Senator has asked Judge Sotomayor, in total more than a dozen times, about the same comment made in a 2001 speech, a single speech over 8 years ago at Berkeley. She has continued to say, frankly, openly, honestly, that her comment ``fell flat,'' that she never intended that any person would have an advantage in judging. She has given the same answer each time and each time made clear that ``her personal experience does not compel a particular result and prejudice never has a role in her judging.'' She said again yesterday: ``I do not believe that any racial, ethnic or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experiences.'' I know no Senator here has ever made a speech in which their quote fell flat or their comments fell flat or what they intended to say was somehow misconstrued. I know that has not happened among the 100 Members of the Senate. On gun rights, Judge Sotomayor has consistently followed precedent in second-amendment cases. Yesterday and today she has reaffirmed her view that the second amendment includes the individual right to bear arms. She reaffirmed, again, today her statement from yesterday, when asked if she would be open to considering whether the second amendment creates an individual right applicable to the States, saying: I have an open mind on the question. . . . I would not prejudge any question that came before me if I was a Justice on the Supreme Court. Consistent with her judicial philosophy, she has strictly adhered to the precedent in considering gun rights and on her commitment to the rule of law Judge Sotomayor has repeatedly stated over and over that she is committed to precedent and the rule of law in every case, a commitment reflected not just in words but in her 17-year record as a fair, moderate judge. She said, ``As a judge, I don't make law.'' That is exactly the approach we should expect and demand from any nominee for the Supreme Court. I implore my colleagues to look at her record, listen to her answers; they are clear, focused, respectful, forthright. She has answered every question directly, honestly, thoughtfully, and without equivocation. She has held nothing back. But I, personally, as I have watched these hearings, am beginning to wonder: Are we truly in search of answers or are we badgering the witness? I know that all of America is watching this hearing, but I have to tell you Hispanic Americans are watching it with great interest. Attempts at distorting a record that has been committed to the Constitution, to the rule of law, by suggesting that her ethnicity or heritage would be a driving force of her decisions as a Justice of the Supreme Court is demeaning to women and to Latinos, it is demeaning especially in light of a 17-year record that reflects totally the opposite. Maybe some of my colleagues think that by repeating that statement time and time again they will generate some opportunity to create an image that is simply not true--that they will create an image that is simply not true. For many of us who come from the Hispanic community within this great country, we have seen the efforts to have a class of people painted in a certain way, and I implore my colleagues who seem to be traveling down this road that they are running a great risk--that they are running a great risk. If this judge didn't have the 17-year record of fidelity to the Constitution, fidelity to the rule of law, fidelity to precedent--even when that precedent binds her in a way, as in the Ricci case, in which she had sympathy for the White firefighters, but nonetheless precedent kept her obligated to the decision that they had--I would say maybe that line of questioning is legitimate. But I must be honest with you, when it was raised once or twice or three times--but when it has been raised a dozen times, sometimes by the same Senator asking the same set of questions despite having gotten a full answer on the issue, it creates great concern for some of us who have been down this road in other paths at other times but with the same tactics. Clearly, this is one of the most gifted jurists in America, and we as a nation would be honored to have her serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope these hearings will come to a conclusion soon. I look forward to the debate that will take place on the floor and I, as well as the rest of this country who are riveted on this process, are going to be looking for equal justice under the law--the template that is before the mantle on the Supreme Court: ``Equal justice under law.'' Judge Sotomayor deserved to be treated with equal justice in this process and this badgering of the witness, particularly in this line of questioning which has been asked and answered several times, raises serious concerns for those of us who have lived in this community, understand the challenges and understand the way in which people try to paint people in this community. It is time to end that line of questioning. It is time to have us have the committee move beyond it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the pending amendment. Let's all imagine a situation. You are a 25-year-old, a father of two, it is night and you are walking home across a park. A group of teenagers come near and they throw a slur at you. When you respond and their verbal attacks escalate, they are nasty. They seek to dehumanize you because of where you were born, how you look or how you speak. There is a fight, four on one, in which you are pummeled to the ground and kicked in the skull repeatedly. As you lie on the pavement in convulsions, foam oozing from your mouth, life slipping away, there is one more insult. They yell a warning to anyone who looks like you or talks like you that they will do the same thing. Imagine you are this man's two little children. Your father spends 2 days in intensive care, his face bruised and swollen, his head bandaged, tubes everywhere, and then he passes on from this world. You will never remember your father holding you or feeding you or kissing you; you are too young. What you will remember is growing up without a father. He was the victim of a needless death from a senseless beating, a beating fueled by red-hot hatred for the type of person he was. The one hope for some small measure of fairness so that these two young children will one day know that justice was served after their daddy was killed would be an appropriate conviction for this unthinkable crime. But in the courthouse the verdict is read. The most serious charges, the most appropriate charges, are discarded. At most, two of the four young men who committed this murder in a bigoted rage will spend less than 2 years--less than 2 years--behind bars. But they could be there for as little as 6 months--6 months in jail. But this man, this father, he is gone forever. It is as sad and heart wrenching a situation as you can imagine. How we wish it was only that, a horror story we simply imagined. But it is not a figment of our imagination, it is a dose of reality. This nightmare scene actually happened, and it did not happen in a society less open than ours, nor did it happen 100 or 200 years ago. It happened exactly 1 year ago in Shenandoah, PA, less than 150 miles from where this Chamber is; less than 50 miles from my home State of New Jersey. Luis Ramirez was the target of the vitriol and the beating; struck in the chest so hard he bore a bruise in the shape of Jesus Christ from the medallion he wore on a chain around his neck. As he lay, seizing from the deadly blows, if he had still been conscious what he would have heard were words that, uncensored, do not befit the Senate. Tell your [expletive] friends to get the [expletive] out of Shenandoah or you will be [expletive] laying next to him. Tell your [expletive] friends to get the [expletive] out of Shenandoah or you will be [expletive] laying next to him. This in the 21st century, in the United States of America, the land of the free--all men created equal--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not for Luis Ramirez. He may have been born originally in a different country, but he was just as human as you or I. It did not matter. He was cursed and battered and put down like an abused animal would be, in the United States of America. The people who did this, the people who beat their fellow man to death, treating him as subhuman--this gang gets a veritable slap on the wrist. We can change that--no more circumstances such as that, not with this legislation. There is no better prosecutor of hate crimes in our country than Federal law enforcement. They are tough on these hate criminals and they are determined to serve justice in each and every one of these cases. If we are to make sure hate crimes are treated with the seriousness they deserve, if we are to make sure would-be perpetrators think twice, Federal law enforcement must have a greater involvement. I can hear opponents of this legislation, this particular amendment: This is 2009. The President is African American. It is a reaction to an insignificant problem. Ask Luis Ramirez, if you could. I would ask them to consider this, from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: Between 2003 and 2007, hate crimes reported against Hispanics increased not just a little bit but by 40 percent. In 2007, Hispanics were the target of 60 percent of hate crimes committed based on ethnicity, signifying an increasingly sharp rise. But this is not just a problem confined to the Hispanic community. The man who packed up his rifle, got in his car, drove to Washington, entered a building, opened fire, and claimed the life of a noble security guard--he didn't just do that at any building. He did it at the Holocaust Museum, because this murderer hates Jewish people, hates them enough to kill. Let's never forget the namesake of this legislation, Matthew Shepard, a University of Wyoming student who had his whole life ahead of him before it was snatched away on an October night in the countryside near Laramie. Two men, uneasy with Matthew's sexual orientation, drove off from a bar with him, only to beat him mercilessly with a pistol and rope him to a fence, as if a warning to the gay community. They hated Matthew because he was gay. He lost his life because he was gay. I ask those who would argue against this legislation, how many more tragic stories do we have to hear before we make our laws tougher? How many more? Do we have to hear another story, such as the one of Jose Osvaldo Sucuzhanay, a father of two and native of Ecuador who ran a real estate agency, who was headed home with his brother from a bar after a church party. These brothers walked around the Brooklyn street with arms around each other, like men in Latino cultures often do. Up drove three men, yelling slurs that were both homophobic and racist, they belted Jose on the head with a glass bottle. They smashed his head in with a metal bat. They continued to beat him and kick him and beat him and kick him. He clung to life for 2 days in a hospital and then he died. How many more stories? Do we have to hear another story such as that of Marcelo Lucero? He, too, was born in Ecuador and he, too, was a real estate professional and he, too, was killed simply for the way he looked and the way he spoke, the innocent victim of a senseless gang of teenagers on Long Island, driving around in search of ``some Mexicans to [expletive] up.'' Here is how the prosecutor described this assault: Like a lynch mob, the defendant and his friends got out of a car and surrounded Mr. Lucero. Like a lynch mob--in the 21st century in the United States--they beat Marcelo and stabbed him to death. How many more of these stories? How many more? Do we have to hear another story such as that of Walter Sanchez? His horrific story happened earlier this year and it happened in my home State of New Jersey. Walking to a restaurant with his cousin, a car with five men pulled up. Calling Walter a Hispanic son of a [expletive], they beat him senseless. He was one of the lucky ones, escaping with his life, but he still underwent hours of reconstructive surgery to put many of the bones in his face back together. Again, how many stories do we have to tell? It is time to stop asking and it is time to start acting. We can pass this legislation and know, while there is still a ways to go until we have wiped our society clean of bigotry and hatred, we will have made it harder for the perpetrators of these evil acts to escape justice. As the law is written now, there are too many ways in which those who commit hate crimes can escape the kind of justice Federal law enforcement is prepared to bring. Sometimes these loopholes are bewildering, even perverse. Remember the story of Luis Ramirez, whose murderers will serve as little as 6 months in jail? The cruel irony is that the deadly beating he suffered occurred in the street, not in the park 100 feet away, the park where Luis had walked minutes, if not seconds, before he was battered. If this murder of a hate crime had taken place in that park, it would have been Federal law enforcement's business. The delivery of justice may have been different. As it turned out, local law enforcement, some of whom were related to the assailants, took 2 weeks to arrest the four men, and we know how the rest of the process turned out. We can all agree, a hate crime is a hate crime--whether it is in the park or in the street, on the grass or on the pavement, 100 feet this way or 100 feet that way. A hate crime is a hate crime. I sponsored, when I was back in the New Jersey legislature, the law that became one of the first landmark pieces of legislation on hate crimes in our country. I said then that we cannot eliminate hate with the passage of a law, but we can send a clear societal message that we do not tolerate such crimes against individuals because of their race, because of their religion, because of their ethnicity or, for that matter, their sexual orientation. Hate crimes are hate crimes. They are all an affront to the set of values upon which this great Nation stands, and they all deserve the full scrutiny of our Federal law enforcement. It is time to pass this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment and make sure each hate crime is met appropriately with justice. I ask you to remember, as I started this speech, that father kicked to death, with the two children who will never ever know their father as so many of us are fortunate to know ours. Remember when you cast your vote. Think that, but for the grace of God, it could be you. That is how momentous this decision is. That is how important this legislation is. That is why justice is served with the passage of this amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, what is the status of the Senate right now?

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I make a unanimous consent request that Jonathan Epstein, a professional staff member with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the Senator's comments on that. This is not just about the State of New Jersey, which has had a number of flooding problems in the past, but this is an important concern of fairness to address the issue of flooding across the country as well. I thank the Senator for her interest and willingness to work with me on this issue.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the Senator to highlight a serious concern with regard to FEMA's subcontracting practices related to the Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning Program.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Close the SILO/LILO Loophole Act. This legislation will close a loophole in which banks and other entities are taking advantage of the financial crisis to exploit transit agencies and other local public entities to collect windfall payments. This bill seeks to permanently end this abusive practice, saving the public scarce resources. Sale-In/Lease Out and Lease-In/Lease Out, SILO/LILO, contracts are a type of financial transaction in which a public entity transfers assets, equipment or infrastructure, to a bank or other entity while simultaneously entering into a long-term lease with the same bank or other entity. From the 1990's to 2003, public agencies, including transit agencies and rural electric coops, entered into these LILO and SILO transactions. As part of the agreement, the bank required the public agency to pay a AAA-rated entity a fee to make lease payments throughout the term of the lease. This arrangement provided security for the banks and insured that lease payments would be made. When the financial crisis hit last year, many AAA-rated entities involved in these transactions were downgraded. Banks took advantage of these downgrades and some sued these public agencies, citing a clause in the agreements that required only AAA-rated entities to make lease payments. They did this even though the public agencies in question did not miss any of their regular lease payments to the banks. Not only is this predatory, but allowing this practice to continue is also contrary to public policy. While the SILO/LILO contracts provided much needed resources for capital intensive projects that benefitted the public, they also provided tax benefits to the banks--tax benefits that Congress found to be tax avoidance schemes and effectively eliminated in 2003. In 2008, the Internal Revenue Service proposed a settlement of the leases, effectively eliminating all future tax benefits while allowing the underlying commercial transactions to remain in place. If we let these suits against public agencies continue, we are basically allowing banks to get these tax benefits through another means--taking taxpayer money from public transit agencies and other public agencies around the Nation. At this moment in time, we have myriad infrastructure needs. Public agencies are working hard to fill the demand for infrastructure projects. President Obama and Congress acknowledged the need and delivered the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Now is not the time to financially burden the agencies that we rely on for building, repairing, maintaining and preserving our infrastructure. The Close the SILO/LILO Loophole Act will help lift the uncertainty under which these public agencies are operating, enabling them to serve the public better. I hope to work closely with Chairman Baucus to end this crisis so public agencies can continue to serve the public and not banks seeking a windfall.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Close the SILO/LILO Loophole Act. This legislation will close a loophole in which banks and other entities are taking advantage of the financial crisis to exploit transit agencies and other local public entities to collect windfall payments. This bill seeks to permanently end this abusive practice, saving the public scarce resources. Sale-In/Lease Out and Lease-In/Lease Out, SILO/LILO, contracts are a type of financial transaction in which a public entity transfers assets, equipment or infrastructure, to a bank or other entity while simultaneously entering into a long-term lease with the same bank or other entity. From the 1990's to 2003, public agencies, including transit agencies and rural electric coops, entered into these LILO and SILO transactions. As part of the agreement, the bank required the public agency to pay a AAA-rated entity a fee to make lease payments throughout the term of the lease. This arrangement provided security for the banks and insured that lease payments would be made. When the financial crisis hit last year, many AAA-rated entities involved in these transactions were downgraded. Banks took advantage of these downgrades and some sued these public agencies, citing a clause in the agreements that required only AAA-rated entities to make lease payments. They did this even though the public agencies in question did not miss any of their regular lease payments to the banks. Not only is this predatory, but allowing this practice to continue is also contrary to public policy. While the SILO/LILO contracts provided much needed resources for capital intensive projects that benefitted the public, they also provided tax benefits to the banks--tax benefits that Congress found to be tax avoidance schemes and effectively eliminated in 2003. In 2008, the Internal Revenue Service proposed a settlement of the leases, effectively eliminating all future tax benefits while allowing the underlying commercial transactions to remain in place. If we let these suits against public agencies continue, we are basically allowing banks to get these tax benefits through another means--taking taxpayer money from public transit agencies and other public agencies around the Nation. At this moment in time, we have myriad infrastructure needs. Public agencies are working hard to fill the demand for infrastructure projects. President Obama and Congress acknowledged the need and delivered the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Now is not the time to financially burden the agencies that we rely on for building, repairing, maintaining and preserving our infrastructure. The Close the SILO/LILO Loophole Act will help lift the uncertainty under which these public agencies are operating, enabling them to serve the public better. I hope to work closely with Chairman Baucus to end this crisis so public agencies can continue to serve the public and not banks seeking a windfall.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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 Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

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 Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at 2 p.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at 11 a.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 23, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 23, 2009 at 10 a.m. in room 325 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Confronting Drug Trafficking in West Africa.''

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, today on the floor some of my colleagues have begun their attacks on President Obama's historic and incredibly qualified nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. They clearly decided, for ideological reasons, that they were going to oppose whoever President Obama appointed before the hearings even started. We have heard people try to attach a lot of labels to Judge Sotomayor over the past few weeks, but it has become clearer and clearer as we look hard at Judge Sotomayor's record and vast experience that attacking this nominee is like throwing rocks at a library. It is uncalled for and it doesn't accomplish anything. Her opponents are grasping at straws, because it turns out we have before us one of the most qualified, exceptional nominees to come before this Senate in recent history. Let there be no doubt: Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to be a Justice to the Supreme Court is a proud moment for America. It is proof that the American dream is in reach for everyone willing to work hard, play by the rules, and give back to their communities, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic background. It is further proof of the deep roots the Hispanic community has in this country. But let's be clear: We get to be proud of this nominee because she is exceptionally qualified. We get to be proud because of her vast knowledge of the law, her practical experience fighting crime, and her proven record of dedication to equal justice under the law. Those are the reasons we are proud. Those are the reasons she should be confirmed without delay. We should not be hearing any suggestions that we need infinitely more time to discuss this nomination. It should move as promptly as the nomination of John Roberts, and that is exactly what we are going to do. A little while ago at a press conference, we heard from prominent legal and law enforcement organizations that explained how the people who have actually seen her work know her best: as an exemplary, fair, and highly qualified judge. They came from across our country, from Florida to Texas, Nebraska, and my home State of New Jersey. They shed light on how important her work has been in the fight against crime, how her work as a prosecutor put the ``Tarzan murderer'' behind bars, how as a judge she upheld the convictions of drug dealers, sexual predators, and other violent criminals. And they made it clear how much they admire her strong respect for the liberties and protections granted by our Constitution, including the first amendment rights of people she strongly disagreed with. Judge Sotomayor's credentials are undeniable. After graduating at the top of her class at Princeton, she became an editor of the law journal at Yale Law School, which many consider to be the Nation's best. She went to work in the Manhattan district attorney's office, prosecuting crimes from murder to child abuse to fraud, winning convictions all along the way. A Republican President, George H.W. Bush, appointed her to the U.S. District Court in New York, and a Democrat, Bill Clinton, appointed her to the U.S. Court of Appeals. She was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate and then a Republican majority Senate. Her record as a judge is as clear and publicly accessible as any recent nominee and clearly shows modesty and restraint on the bench. She would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any Justice in 70 years, and more Federal judicial experience than anyone in the past century. Her record and her adherence to precedent leave no doubt whatsoever that she respects the Constitution and the rule of law. Judge Sotomayor's record has made it clear that she believes what determines a case is not her personal preferences but the law. Her hundreds of decisions prove very conclusively that she looks at what the law says, she looks at what Congress has said, and she looks above all at what precedent says. She is meticulous about looking at the facts and then decides the outcome in accordance with the Constitution. On top of that, Judge Sotomayor's personal background is rich with the joys and hardships that millions of American families share. Her record is proof that someone can be both an impartial arbiter of the law and still recognize how her decisions will affect people's everyday lives. I think it says something that the worst her ideological opponents can accuse her of is being able to understand the perspective of a wide range of people whose cases will come before her. Judge Sotomayor deserves nothing less than a prompt hearing and a prompt confirmation. As the process moves forward, I plan to come back to the floor as often as is necessary to rebut any baseless attacks leveled at this judge. It fills me with pride to have the opportunity to support President Obama's groundbreaking nominee, someone who is clearly the right person for a seat on the highest Court of the land. It is an enormous joy to be reminded once again that in the United States of America, if you work hard, play by the rules, and give back to your community, anything is possible. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

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