Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, there will be parts of my comments that, for historical purposes, will be said in Spanish, and then I will translate them into English, so I ask unanimous consent that be permitted.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to give my strong support to President Obama's choice to lead the Department of Labor. It is hard to stress enough how urgent it is for us to have a Labor Secretary at work in the face of this economic crisis: 3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since this recession began in December of 2007--almost 600,000 in the last month alone--workers are losing their health care, their pensions, and their life savings. The American men and women who have been damaged the worst by the financial crisis we have had--the worst financial crisis in generations--need full unemployment benefits to carry their families through this period of transition and the benefit of job training to be able to meet the challenges of the 21st century economy. Those who still have a job to go to every day need a champion for their rights and their safety. As the American people struggle through these difficult economic times, it is more important than ever to have a fully functioning and fully staffed Department of Labor. At this moment, we need a Secretary of Labor who believes workers should not be intimidated when they try to organize. We need a Secretary of Labor who believes that after decades of stagnation, it is time for wages to rise. We need a Secretary of Labor who believes it is not acceptable for women to make 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, for African Americans to earn 80 cents and Latinos to earn 68 cents for every dollar their white counterparts earn. Some will argue that a recession is an inconvenient time to pay workers a fair wage or to protect them from exposure to dangerous chemicals because the economy will suffer under the weight of additional benefits or rights for employees. We need a Secretary who understands how false that argument is. For 8 years, we have seen administration policies punish workers for their efforts and treat their rights in a way that ultimately can't sustain their hopes, dreams, aspirations, and their families. The Bush administration virtually gutted the Department of Labor, drastically cutting its budget, choosing instead to trust CEOs and big business to look after the welfare of workers. In 8 years, the Department issued only one worker safety rule on its own accord. While the Department was neglecting to address safety in the workplace, it focused its attention on helping corporate interests weaken the rules for overtime compensation. After 8 years, we have seen who actually benefits from these policies: No one. We now know that being pro-labor is pro-economic growth. We know a rising tide of wages can lift the ships of business as well, as American workers are also the customers who purchase our products and services. It is time we acted on a clear principle: An economy that works is an economy that works for everyone. I can think of no one better to take up the challenge than Hilda Solis. She has the best interests of American workers in her heart and her blood. She is the daughter of union workers, the first in her family to go to college. I had the privilege of serving with her in the House of Representatives. She has served the people of southern California in Congress for 8 years, not just advocating for their rights but for recovery, not just expanded help for workers but creating jobs to expand the workforce. She knows that with the right investments, we will fuel the creation of millions of green jobs, bring down energy costs and end our dependence on foreign oil. She has won friends on both sides of the aisle, and even when they don't agree with her on every issue, they cannot help but respect her work ethic, her intelligence, and her integrity. I know very much so that she is eminently capable to lead the Department of Labor. Also people throughout the country cannot help but admire history in the making. Hilda Solis would be the first Latina to hold the position of Secretary in a President's Cabinet. That is incredibly powerful for young Latinas across this country, a growing part of America's population who will look to a Hilda Solis and say that in fact everything is possible. I look forward to voting to confirm her today because America's workforce and our economy cannot afford to wait. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, what we are debating in the Senate is about fighting for the economic future of America. Dr. King talked about the ``fierce urgency of now'' in the context of a struggle for civil rights. We have to remember the fierce urgency of now when we are tackling the worst economic crisis our country has seen in generations. We have to understand the urgency for the 3.6 million Americans who have lost their job since December 2007--almost 600,000 in the last month alone. It is an urgent situation when millions of American families are in danger of losing their homes. It is a dire situation when State budgets are stretched so thin they have to watch school buildings crumble. It is an emergency situation when local communities are forced to consider cutting police or firefighters who protect their residents. It is an immediate crisis when a young girl needs an operation but her parents cannot afford health insurance. The Dow lost 40 percent in a year's time. Businesses are closing. Life savings are being drained. Even for the hard-working Americans who still have their jobs, pensions, and health care, there is still a lot of fear out there that their careers and health insurance aren't secure; that the job loss or foreclosure that hit their neighbor might knock on their door next. Yet in the midst of all of that, I hear so many of my colleagues basically saying: Oh, no, do nothing. Without bold and decisive action, the country faces the possibility of a prolonged economic collapse rivaling the worst we have ever seen. In a crisis this severe, the Federal Government has the responsibility to step in and to stabilize the economy and lay the groundwork for recovery. We are not just talking about the financial recovery of individuals; we are talking about the renewal of a nation. We have before us a tremendous opportunity to strengthen the 21st- century economy, to make investments so the private sector can create the innovations that will help our country prosper in the future, to transition away from fossil fuels and stop sending our money abroad, enhance America's energy security and meet the climate crisis that threatens our planet. We have an opportunity very soon to vote on a bold plan to create and maintain more than 3.5 million jobs in America and 100,000 in my home State of New Jersey, helping workers damaged by this crisis and laying the foundations for economic growth well into the future. Is the bill we are considering perfect? No. But in my many years of legislating, I have never seen a perfect bill. People are losing their jobs, their homes, and their life savings. The unemployment rate in New Jersey is the highest it has been in a decade and a half. More Americans are filing first-time jobless claims than any time in a quarter of a century. This isn't a time for delay, and it isn't a time for games or political posturing. It is time for quick, bold action. This is a complicated piece of legislation, so I will take a little time to lay out its most important provisions. First, this bill brings tax relief to the middle class--about $230 billion worth of tax cuts. In the Finance Committee, I introduced an amendment to save over 1 million New Jerseyans from the alternative minimum tax, saving families up to $5,600. That AMT tax was originally designed to ensure that the wealthiest Americans could not use creative accounting to avoid all taxes, but it was never intended to hit the middle class as hard as it is hitting them now. If we don't act, millions of taxpayers could wake up next tax season to realize they owe more in taxes even though their income hasn't changed. The cornerstone of this legislation, in terms of tax relief, is a making work pay credit--the credit that is available to those who are working. The average working family--95 percent of all working families--are going to get a tax cut of up to $800 to put money back into their pockets to support their families and, at the same time, create demand for goods and services in this economy that will be provided largely by the private sector that creates other jobs for those who provide those goods and service. It expands the earned-income and child tax credit to help low-income working families get through these difficult times. Those are the individuals who need money, and when they have it, they spend it in an economy that also creates demand for goods and services, created largely by the private sector. In fact, 90 percent of all of the jobs created under this bill will be from the private sector. It supports tax incentives for businesses to make new investments and hire new employees. This recovery package would not just create jobs; it will create a new generation of green jobs. What we are considering today is a green recovery package, which will help change the direction of our economy for one based on fossil fuels to one based on clean renewable energy. It makes important investments in building efficiency, renewable fuels, clean vehicles, and green job training. It makes a massive investment in weatherizing homes, which will reduce emissions while bringing down energy costs. All along the way, each of those initiatives creates a different sector of the job marketplace that Americans will be able to fulfill. Just like the rest of it, the energy piece of this legislation isn't perfect. I would have liked to have seen more support for mass transit. They are facing major budget crises and have to consider service cutbacks, just as ridership is growing and climate change is accelerating. Transit funding is essential if we are going to meet our emissions goals, get cars off the streets, and keep efficient transportation affordable. The Federal Government has been dragging its feet on energy security and climate change for too long. Our local governments have been leading the way. That is why I am proud to have created the energy efficiency and conservation block grant in 2007, along with Senator Sanders, to help fund and reward them for that work. I am thrilled this Economic Recovery Act contains substantial funding for these grants, including tens of millions of dollars for New Jersey. Cities and communities across the country can use the funding to promote efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and invest in renewable energy and the jobs that will go along with that in doing that work. A municipality could work to insulate office buildings, install fluorescent light bulbs, install solar panels, invest in LED lighting for traffic signals or purchase more efficient municipal vehicles. Of course, what a municipality would do for energy efficiency in New Jersey would be different from what one might do in Alaska or Arizona. So the funding allows for flexibility. There is strong support for solar energy, including a manufacturing tax credit and tax incentives for homeowners to install solar panels. That is good news for New Jersey, which is the second-biggest solar- producing State in the country and where the solar cell was invented. The support for energy efficiency is complemented by important investments in infrastructure. With this recovery plan, we can start building and rehabilitating scores of roads, bridges, and bypasses. We have the chance to secure a stream of funding to start construction on the ARC rail tunnel, to ease commutes across the Hudson, reduce traffic, and clean our air. Most important, those kinds of projects put people to work. Not only the construction people but the engineers and architects, the clerical workers in their office, and everybody who creates supplies for these jobs at their places of work, and the transportation that brings it to the job site. This is how we create all of these jobs, and they're mostly in the private sector. We understand a major part of helping the economic recovery is allowing workers who have lost their jobs to keep their families afloat, develop the skills necessary to maintain long-term employment and find new jobs. This economic recovery package makes exactly this type of bold investment. It helps States close gaps in their unemployment programs. It rewards States for innovative reforms, providing benefits to more than 500,000 workers a year who are now falling through the cracks of the unemployment program. It stimulates the broader economy as every dollar put into the hands of temporarily displaced workers and their families generates $1.64 in economic growth, whether it is spent on housing, groceries, or other basic necessities. For those who have fallen on the hardest of times--who have been laid off and haven't been able to find work and are having trouble putting food on the table or keeping a roof overhead--the recovery package includes important support for food assistance, as well as housing programs that will help prevent foreclosures, rehabilitate homes, and provide emergency housing in New Jersey. This legislation that we are talking about is not only recovery but investment. This legislation also means about $4 billion for worker training and employment services. The labor market has fundamentally changed. If we are going to stay competitive in our State and country, we need to invest in human capital and give our workers the skills to thrive in the 21st-century economy. Preparing those students and workers and those who will prepare them for the high-tech, high-paying jobs means investing in education at every level. That is also not only going to lay the foundation for long-term economic growth but give immediate opportunities for jobs as well. These are ways in which we, in fact, can modernize our schools. At least 205 New Jersey schools will have the opportunity to modernize themselves with the technology necessary and the laboratory necessary for preparation for this 21st-century economy. It is an investment that could mean the difference between a crumbling schoolroom and a science lab that prepares a child for a career in biomedical engineering. I was raised in a tenement, poor, the son of immigrants, the first in my family to go to college. I know I would not be standing in the Senate today if it weren't for the Federal Government's support and those opportunities. Whether it is our public education program or in college through the Pell grants and the opportunities in the American opportunity tax credit to make college more affordable, it will produce a workforce that can compete anywhere in the world and be able to capture the new jobs created under this bill. Any parent in America knows the challenges of affording health care, even if you haven't lost your job. Families working in low-wage or even moderate-wage jobs struggle every month just to pay the bills, not to mention the medical bills on top of that. Those who have recently lost jobs are pretty much out of luck. Unfortunately, a child's illness doesn't always wait for a good-paying job with health care to come along. That is why we have included provisions in this bill to help States continue to provide health coverage to those children and families they are serving. For those who lose their jobs and their health insurance with it, we have included a tax break to help them pay for the COBRA coverage they are eligible for in between jobs. I will end where this whole crisis began, in housing. This bill includes provisions that will allow more families to get tax relief when they buy a home, provide additional funding for those who recently lost their home, and provide additional funding for a provision I authored to help children affected by a home foreclosure stay in school. This plan may be detailed; the investments it makes may be diverse. But we are not talking about just throwing money haphazardly. We understand every dollar in the plan belongs to the American taxpayer. They deserve assurances that their money is invested wisely. So we are going to ensure unprecedented transparency, oversight, and accountability to the plan so Americans can see not only how their money is being spent, but also the results of their investments. This includes requiring the President to report quarterly on the plan's progress, as well as establishing an oversight panel to review the management of taxpayer dollars. We have had a vigorous debate in the legislation. That is part of our democracy and it is always welcome. It has been troubling to me to see such a bad case of amnesia in some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think it would make every American who loss his or her job in this recession cringe to hear that some of my Republican colleagues want to repeat the policies that helped create this crisis in the first place. Republican policies dominated the last Presidency over the last 8 years and dominated Congress for a good part of that period of time. All of a sudden, they are guardians of fiscal responsibility, after taxing the middle class while passing capital gains and dividend tax cuts aimed at the wealthy, after turning President Clinton's record surpluses into President Bush's record deficits and doubling the national debt to more than $11 trillion--$11 trillion. If we did absolutely nothing, if President Obama did absolutely nothing, he will have inherited a $1.2 trillion debt. I hear these voices now of fiscal responsibility. Where were they when they were driving this enormous deficit to the Nation? Now, to top it all off, they added amendment after amendment that added to the debt, and then they turned around, after adding to the debt and complaining about it, and voted against the package because they said it adds too much to the Federal debt. Only in Washington can one believe that. Finally, I hope our Republican colleagues are not of the belief that by hoping this package does not succeed they will achieve political victory because, in essence, they would be voting and betting against an American economic recovery, against the American people's hopes and dreams and aspirations to live a better life. I fear, after reading some of the articles today, that is exactly where they are: no plan to meet the economic challenges we have, complain about the plan that is there, and then ultimately find ourselves in a set of circumstances in which they are betting against the American people and this economic recovery. That is not only bad politics, it is pad policy for the Nation. I hope they will see the light when it comes time to vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. For a unanimous consent request.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Will my colleague from Kansas yield for a moment?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time from now until 5:30 be for general debate purposes only and that it be evenly divided.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. It is interesting--I guess the arguments for and against this bill move, depending upon your point of view, especially those who are against the bill overall. They have certain standards, and then they obliterate those standards when it doesn't work for them. For example, targeting. What does the Government Accountability Office say? They say targeting is important. According to a letter from the GAO--Members of Congress implied that it is more efficient to target funding to States with what? Greater need. That larger amounts of funding are needed to get the same stimulative effect if an across-the-board approach is used. With less targeting, more funding goes to States with less need; less funding goes to States that need it the most. So much for it being targeted. The Government Accountability Office says targeting means you want to do it the way that was devised originally--by the way, this came over from the House with a 50/50 proposition. Then the chairman of the Finance Committee said, well, let's try to work that out in a more conciliatory way and put it at 60/40. Amendments were offered that made it 80/20. We are talking about States that have higher unemployment, more people who don't have a job, who cannot put food on the table, and at the end of the day find themselves in desperate need. So States with higher unemployment clearly have a greater need for assistance. The higher the State's unemployment, the more people qualify for Medicaid and the less revenue a State has to pay for those increased Medicaid rolls. Therefore, increases in unemployment, which is where the underlying bill is, and was even in a greater way, is the recognition. It is not about just spreading the wealth across the process and, more importantly, spreading the amount of taxpayer money across the process; this is about targeting where greater numbers of people are unemployed. States like my own that have high percentages of unemployment, would be happy to give you the unemployment in your States and not realize it in our States at higher levels. But it seems to me the way this is being pursued--this particular amendment--by eliminating targeting, that reduces assistance to the States with the worst economic problems and thus the greatest need for relief. So by eliminating the portion of assistance targeted based on a State's unemployment rates, the amendment significantly reduces assistance for States facing the largest increases in their unemployment rate. That doesn't make sense. In addition, this amendment, at a time in which we are saying we want it to be stimulative--and I have heard arguments on how the money doesn't get out there quickly enough--well, this amendment permits the States to delay by 6 months, potentially reducing the stimulative effect of this portion of the legislation. Finally, 19 of the 20 States facing the smallest increase in unemployment would get more assistance under this amendment--a little counterintuitive. If the State has more unemployment, it would get less money. For all of those reasons, and because this is already dramatically shifted in the way my colleague from Iowa wants, this amendment should be defeated both in the Nation's interest, in the pursuit of targeted and stimulative and, at the same time, basic fairness. I reserve whatever time I have remaining.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I reserved the remainder of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. How much time do I have?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the remarks of Senator Enzi. Comparative effectiveness research should focus on clinical outcomes and produce information that patients and providers can use to make better decisions about their treatment options. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, which amendment are we talking about?

Mr. MENENDEZ. How much time?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Could we move that to 20 minutes equally divided?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate what my distinguished colleague from Iowa is trying to do--bring more money to his State. The question is whether it is fundamentally fair. The answer is no. Let me tell you the States that will get hit pretty badly here: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, to name a few. The fundamental question is whether we are going to live to this credo of whether targeted is important or whether timely is important. Well, we have the Government Accountability Office saying that the way we are doing it--the way that would be undone by the Senator from Iowa would undo the targeted; it would undo the ability to have the greatest impact to be stimulative. In essence, it would hurt States that have the greatest need. We are one country. I often have voted for issues that have very little benefit for my State, but I understand that at a given moment in time, they are in the greatest interest of the country. Agriculture is one example, and there are others. The bottom line is that we have rising numbers of people, higher unemployment rates, more demand on Medicaid, and less opportunity for individuals to be able to get the resources in States that are already cash strapped. I have listened to moral hazard. There has been no talk about that. We want to teach the States a lesson now. There was no talk about moral hazard when the regulators were asleep at the switch and Wall Street was getting billions. You want to teach States a lesson now? You are going to hurt people. This amendment will hurt people who otherwise would have resources under the bill that have already been adjusted to give States such as my colleagues' more research. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, will my colleague from Kansas yield for just a moment?

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak again on behalf of children of New Jersey and others in the country and the working families in my home State who seem to be under attack by some of our colleagues here on the floor. I did not know there are different values to the importance of the health care of a child regardless of the happenstance of where they live, but it seems some think so. On behalf of these children and families, I rise strongly to object to Senator Bunning's amendment. In New Jersey, we cover over 130,000 children and, yes, we cover children to a higher percentage of the Federal poverty level. But there is a reason for that, and I will go through that right now. But there are only 3,300 New Jersey children who are covered under that higher Federal poverty level from the 130,000 who are covered below the poverty level Senator Bunning and others would want to maintain. So we are talking about 3,300 children but 3,300 children whose health and development and well-being depend upon the ability of States such as New Jersey to do this. The families who are covered at this level are paying toward this. They are not getting a free ride. They are paying $128 each month in premiums and between $5 and $35 in copays each and every month. So this is not a free ride. These families in New Jersey are working, and they are working at some of the toughest jobs we have. But they work at jobs in which they do not have health care coverage, and they are working at jobs that do not give them enough in the context of what it costs to live in New Jersey to afford health care insurance. So somehow those people have to be penalized when you listen to the other side. Now, let me talk to those who want to talk about fairness. New Jersey followed the law. The former administration approved New Jersey's waiver to continue insuring kids at up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level because they understood the reality that a family living in New Jersey--to make essential elements of their costs for housing, food, transportation, childcare, and, yes, insurance--just was far behind others in the Nation who, in fact, could achieve those goals for a lot less money. So the Bush administration gave a waiver. They gave a waiver. They understood it. New Jersey needs to cover children up to 350 percent because New Jersey families face higher living costs and they get less return on their Federal dollar. Let me talk about that. I hear my colleagues bemoaning the fact that my State allegedly wants some sort of special treatment, that because we want to provide health benefits to children, we are somehow taking advantage of the Federal Government. That is simply ridiculous. Let me put it in perspective. For every $1 a New Jersey taxpayer pays in Federal dollars toward the Federal Government, our State only gets back 65 cents. My colleague from Kentucky, who was on the floor and whose amendment we are debating now and who rails about New Jersey--his State gets $1.51 for every $1 Kentuckians send to the Federal Treasury. So they get more back than, in fact, they pay. Let's talk about fairness. The reality: One size does not fit all. As shown on this chart, for a family in New Jersey, living in Middlesex County, whose monthly income is about, roughly, $4,600, for their housing, it is going to cost them $1,331; for food, it is about $645.70; for childcare, it is $844.80; for their transportation, it is $393.80; for their taxes, it is $479; and for their health insurance, it is almost $1,800. So what do they end up with? They end up with a negative amount in terms of their budget. These are people who are working--working--trying to sustain their families. But they end up in the negative if they try to provide health insurance for their families. So the answer is, they cannot provide health insurance for their families unless they get some help. Yes, one size does not fit all. So let's look at that same family. For that family in New Jersey to get the same ability in terms of their purchasing power as a family in Louisville, KY, that needs about $55,808--for that same family, whose happenstance is that they live in New Jersey versus Louisville, KY, for the same exact things, they need $77,000, roughly, in purchasing power. Now, why do I have to hear an argument that says those families, in fact, whether they be in Kentucky or Arizona or Oklahoma or Georgia or Tennessee or Utah or in all these other States, who, in fact, deserve to have their children covered--they deserve to have their children covered, and I am fighting for their children to be covered as well-- but why do I have to listen to that, in fact, their children are more valuable than my children in New Jersey who need this amount of money to be able to meet the same goals and dreams and aspirations and health care that they have? So they can get benefits under the bill, but my children in New Jersey should be denied? That is the core of the argument here. One size does not fit all. I would love for a family in New Jersey at $55,000 to be able to make ends meet. That is simply not the fact. So we need to ensure all children are covered within this class. I am simply baffled and I find it embarrassing that some in Washington--those who have some of the best health care coverage in the world--would propose to jeopardize coverage to some of America's neediest families. In this economy, in this recession, we cannot allow our children to be the silent victims. It is morally wrong to jeopardize the health care of these children. What have they done? What have they done to deserve this? It is even more outrageous during a time when jobs and homes are being taken away from their parents. Where is the moral compass in this Chamber? I hear my colleagues speaking eloquently about how our children are our most precious asset, and they certainly are. But they are also our most vulnerable asset. Is a child in New Jersey worth less than a child in other parts of the country simply because of the happenstance of where they live and the costs that are necessary in order for them to meet the same quality of life? So I hope my colleagues, as other amendments have been rejected, will once again reject this amendment. This is about being for the value of life. You cannot fulfill your God-given potential if you do not have good health. You cannot say you are profamily when, in fact, you would take away the insurance necessary for that family to be able to realize their God-given potential. This is about all children, regardless of where they happen to reside, the happenstance of what station in life they were born into, that if they fall into this criteria that, in fact, they should be covered. That is why this amendment should be defeated. I hope, after having considered amendment after amendment after amendment on the same fundamental issue, we can finally move to final passage of this bill. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 28, 2009. The Committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

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 Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Addressing Global Climate Change: The Road to Copenhagen.''

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 Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Lessons from the Mumbai Terrorist Attacks, Part II.''

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 Wednesday, January 28, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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