Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am advised by Leader Schumer that for the information of the Senate, there will be one rollcall vote at noon, one at 2:15 p.m., and at least one vote at 4 p.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, April 26; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Jacobs nomination postcloture; that all cloture time be considered expired at 12 noon; that the Senate recess following the confirmation vote until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 32, S. 326; further, that if the Jacobs nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to highlight what I consider to be a grave injustice, and I urge us to do something about it. I do so because I remain deeply concerned about an issue that often flies under the radar, which is our Nation's severe lack of diversity when it comes to broadcast station ownership. Three years ago, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights published a report titled ``The Abysmal State of Media Ownership Diversity in America.'' That is an apt title, especially because, according to the Federal Communications Commission--the Agency responsible for regulating broadcasters--minorities in America make up less than 3 percent of all broadcast station owners. For women, the numbers aren't much better. They account for less than 6 percent of all station owners. These abysmal figures from the FCC--consistently in the single digits--are unacceptable. They are an affront to the incredible diversity that makes America the exceptional Nation that it is. And simply put, we do ourselves an enormous disservice when the vast majority of TV and radio stations in America are predominantly owned by White men. This lack of diversity in broadcasting is a problem that materially affects the people I represent in New Jersey. Even as trusted sources of local news continue to be decimated, broadcast media stations play a crucial role in educating the public. They are an invaluable source of information, a safe harbor, particularly for minority communities at a time when new consumers continue to be bombarded with misinformation and disinformation. Very often--speaking in one element of the Hispanic community--radio is what the community turns to in the case of an emergency. During the pandemic, it is where they turned to to get trusted information about how to take care of themselves and their families. In storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes, they are the preferred entity. So all of us in this Chamber have a duty to be responsible stewards of the public airwaves, and we do this by ensuring that the ownership of stations reflects the audiences they reach. When minority communities turn on the radio and the television, the programming should be about events in their community, very possibly in a language they understand, speaking about a culture they know, and addressing issues they care about the most. We can only achieve this by having broadcast station leaders with similar life experiences to their listeners and viewers alike. Make no mistake, if we hope to raise the appalling numbers of minority-owned broadcast stations in America, it starts with seizing every opportunity in front of us to increase their ranks. It is long past time that the regulators at the Federal Communications Commission prioritize diversity in broadcast ownership. Right now, the FCC has before it the case of Soo Kim, a Korean- American entrepreneur who has applied to acquire TEGNA Broadcasting. Should the deal go through, it would make TEGNA the largest minority- owned broadcast station group in the country. However, for more than a year, this deal has been in limbo. I am not here to speak about all the details of this deal or the pros and cons of its merits, but basic fairness dictates that the FCC should make a decision one way or another and not just veto it through, in essence, inaction. That is not the American way. A vote is a fair shot and a way to see how the Commission will react to diversity issues when they become available. Diversity, for me, means the fullness of diversity. It means African Americans. It means Hispanic Americans. It means women. It means LGBTQ Americans. And, yes, it means Asian Americans. We need the FCC Commissioners to commit to increasing diversity in media ownership not just in words but with actions. I, for one, will not support nominees for the FCC if they are unwilling to support diversity, including by acting in a way that denies a vote to a diverse applicant. They cannot argue that broadcast station owners should reflect their audiences, publicly saying--this is the FCC--``We need to do better.'' Well, that is great. Then you miss the opportunities to expand diversity in broadcasting when it is before you. In the past, I have tried to address this issue head on through legislation. I will continue to follow that route as well. Last Congress, alongside Senator Peters, I introduced a bill, the Broadcast VOICES Act, that would help address the lack of diversity in the industry through innovations in our Tax Code. Through a Federal tax incentive, our bill would ensure that women- and minority-owned stations can compete on a level playing field to provide a benefit to audiences. It would reestablish a program in order to reincentivize broadcast ownership. I say ``reincentivize'' because Congress has actually done this before. During the nearly two decades that this tax incentive as outlined in the Broadcast VOICES Act was active, minority ownership and diversity in the broadcast media industry grew fivefold. It grew fivefold. So think about where it was when I referred to the earlier percentages and where we are today. This tax provision helped increase it from virtually nothing to fivefold. That is right--the number of minority owners quintupled when the incentive was in place. So make no mistake, the task in front of us is clear. Government regulators at the FCC have identified that there is a diversity problem in broadcast ownership. As I have said, there are steps this body can take to address it through the Broadcast VOICES Act, but the FCC has its share of the burden as well. It must more than talk the talk; it must walk the walk on the issue of diversity in media ownership. I pushed for diverse candidates at every Agency. I will continue to do so. I am hopeful that the administration seizes the opportunity before them to nominate a diverse candidate to the Federal Communications Commission because part of taking proactive steps on industry diversity is ensuring that the regulator itself is more diverse. My first question to any FCC nominee I meet will be ``What actions will you take, if confirmed, to expand diversity in broadcast ownership?'' If they are a present FCC Commissioner seeking to be reestablished at the Commission, voted on again to return to the Commission: ``What actions have you taken to expand diversity in broadcast ownership?'' Only if we as Members press this issue will things change. It is time to afford our communities the representation in media they deserve, not just representation that others think they deserve.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 326, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 11 and that it be in order for Senator Fischer to make a motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 11; further, that at 4 p.m., the Senate vote on the motion to proceed; that if the motion to proceed is agreed to, the Senate immediately vote on passage of the joint resolution without any intervening action or debate; and that the time used related to the joint resolution count against the postcloture time on the motion to proceed to S. 326.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, the Committee on Foreign Relations has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 118th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Risch, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that the Senate will be voting shortly to confirm Ambassador Richard Verma to be the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources at the Department of State. This role is one of the most critical positions at the Department of State. DMR, as it is known, has wide-ranging responsibility for overseeing personnel and ensuring the Department is sufficiently resourced to carry out effective U.S. diplomacy. And there are no shortages of challenges. As we reorient our foreign policy toward strategic competition with China, as we counter malign influence by Russia across the globe, as we work to address global health, food insecurity, and climate crisis, it is imperative that our diplomatic corps has the tools they need to address the challenges ahead. Ambassador Verma is superbly qualified to lead this part of the Department in confronting these challenges. His long public sector career, which includes service in the Air Force, the Senate, and the State Department, will help him be an effective leader who can advance the Department's modernization agenda. And as our first-ever Indian-American Ambassador to New Delhi, he has firsthand experience leading a major U.S. Embassy and a deep understanding of the strategic advantage of cultivating and retaining a diverse and expert workforce. I have full confidence that Ambassador Verma will be a constructive partner with Congress and work to make sure the Department has the support, the resources, and the leadership it needs to succeed. Given the challenges ahead, I am pleased that we are finally voting to confirm Ambassador Verma today, and I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this vote that we are about to take today has deep personal significance for me and for many others. For me, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I finally have come full circle from my vote in the House of Representatives 21 years ago when I did not support the 2002 AUMF. I have, for my 31 years in Congress, had a standard. If the cause is right and the Nation needs it, then I will vote to send my son and daughter into war, and I will vote to send anyone else's sons and daughters into war. But if the cause is not right and the Nation truly doesn't need it, not only will I not send my son and daughter into war, I won't vote to send anyone else's sons and daughters into war. And, at that time, as a Member of the House, I did my due diligence with all the evidence that was available, and I saw no clear and present danger, no imminent threat to the United States, and, above all, no evidence--underline ``evidence''--of weapons of mass destruction. So I voted no. I was in the minority at the time, and it was, in many respects, a tough vote, but it was the right vote. It is significant for some of my fellow Senators who also themselves, many, have fought in the war in Iraq, and I echo what Senator Risch, the ranking member said. When our sons and daughters answer the call, they don't say: Is this the right or wrong war? They just say: I am here to serve. And so we honor their service, both in the Iraq war and in the Gulf war before it. And I think what we do today, actually, is the ultimate way in which we honor it. It is significant for those whose sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and loved ones have fought, and it is significant because, for the first time in five decades, when Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, we are ending a war-- the first time in five decades. So, today, I want to speak about what we are accomplishing together as we turn the page on that war and that chapter of American foreign policy. It has taken 21 long years for this body to reevaluate the adoption of the 2002 AUMF, and, today, we are working together--and this is the ultimate expression of what this body should be; working together, Democrats and Republicans--to support repeal. And I want to salute the majority leader, Senator Schumer, for giving us the time on the floor and a process for which the weightiness of what we are doing could be fully considered, and I salute him for doing so. That makes this historic vote a bipartisan vote. With this vote, we make clear that the Iraq of 2023 is not the Iraq of 2003. Far from being a menace to the region, today's Iraq is a willing U.S. partner that seeks closer integration with its Arab neighbors. With this vote, we can show the world that the United States is a strong partner, that we are not an occupying force, that we engage with partner countries when their interests are aligned with ours. This vote shows that, while we still face challenges and threats to U.S. interests--and I agree with my colleague about the challenges of Iran. No one has fought harder for over two decades on the question of meeting the challenge of Iran, but this is not about Iran. This is about Iraq. Saddam Hussein is gone. The Iraq of 2002 is not the Iraq of 2023. This vote shows that, while we still face challenges and threats to U.S. interests, the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force do not address those threats and are not necessary for the United States to defend against them. This vote shows that Congress is prepared to claw back our constitutional role in deciding how and when our Nation goes to war and also when it should end wars. It also protects against future administrations abusing authorizations that outlive their mandate but remain on the books. We can take our responsibilities once again to call if the Nation needs it and the President comes and says: I need an authorization for the use of force because country X is challenging the national security of the United States. We can do that. But we should not allow any President to use an authorization that was never intended for country X or the circumstances of that to be the excuse to go to war without coming to Congress. So I see it differently than my colleague. To be clear, this vote has nothing to do with Iran and in no way diminishes our ability to protect U.S. interests against Iranian aggression. It has taken a long time to get here. I want to commend my colleague Senator Kaine, who has been a constant clarion call of our responsibility and pricked the conscience of the committee and the Senate on several occasions to get to this point, and also Senator Young, who has been joining him in that effort, for their stalwart commitment to get this done and to see this through to such a momentous conclusion. This is a defining moment. I urge all my colleagues to vote to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations to use military force in Iraq. We owe it to those who made the ultimate sacrifice and to their families. We owe it to the servicemembers who again may be called upon to fight. We owe it to them to demonstrate that we take our solemn duty seriously and to do what is right. I am proud that we are taking this step today. We should all be proud of the history we are making together to pass this legislation with a strong bipartisan vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, the vote the Senate is about to take is about what is right for our Nation. It is part of exercising our most solemn duty as elected officials. It is a recognition that Congress not only has the power to declare war but also should have the responsibility to end wars, and it is a decision to turn the page on one of those chapters in our country's history. With today's vote, we can move closer to repealing two obsolete and outdated authorizations for the use of military force against Iraq. Repealing these authorizations will demonstrate to the region--and to the world--that the United States is not an occupying force; that the war in Iraq has come to an end; that we are moving forward, working with Iraq as a strategic partner. So I commend the Senate for moving forward to take this critical step. I hope the Senate will speak overwhelmingly in support of preserving congressional prerogatives as to when and under what circumstances we send our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters into harm's way and clawing back authorities that have clearly outlived their purpose and scope. Some of my colleagues have argued that repealing 20- and 30-year-old authorizations will weaken our ability to confront Iranian aggression. Some have offered amendments that would alter these authorizations. Others have offered amendments that would expand these authorizations. And a few have offered amendments that have, well, quite frankly, nothing at all to do with these authorizations. So let me address that point briefly. Just in the last few days, the President directed targeted strikes against groups affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Syria. This was in response to Iranian-backed drone attacks that killed a U.S. contractor and wounded five American servicemembers at a maintenance facility in Syria. The President looked at the intelligence, he consulted his advisors, he ordered the strike, and he committed, publicly, to continue to defend against Iranian aggression and to respond to attacks against U.S. forces. He did so without-- without--relying on the 1991 or 2002 authorizations for use of military force against Iraq. This President has been clear in his view that he has sufficient authority to defend against threats to U.S. personnel and interests. If we are going to debate whether to provide the President additional authorities, then we should have that debate separately. But it should not be under the cloak of keeping old authorizations on the books, authorizations that are not needed to meet any current threat. They are not about the current threat; they are about a regime that is no longer alive and has been gone for the better part of those 20 years. This is just a tactic to delay this repeal from going forward. Nor should we turn a debate about repeal and a chance to take a historic step forward into a new backdoor authorization for the use of force against another country. So I urge my colleagues to stay focused on the facts, repeal an authorization that is no longer used or needed, and close this chapter on American foreign policy. Let's finally--finally--repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force against Iraq. I urge my colleagues to vote to move forward with repeal of these AUMFs. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my statement before the vote.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to speak to the amendments that we are considering on the effort to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorization for the use of military force. As I have previously said, I welcome a broader discussion on the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, but that is not before us today. Following repeal of the 1991 and 2002 AUMF, I hope that we can engage in what will likely be a robust debate about what authorities the administration does need and what the scope, potentially, of a replacement AUMF would be, but as yet we have not had that substantive discussion, and I don't believe it would be wise to repeal the 2001 AUMF without engaging in that debate first, without having a hearing to understand what is the authority the administration needs to continue to protect America. The details matter here. We just finished a hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the Secretary of State. He testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the 2001 AUMF is still a vital authority that is being relied on. So we may disagree with how the 2001 AUMF has been maybe stretched by other executive branches and concerned as to how we will continue to use it, but an outright repeal, with nothing to replace it--nothing to replace it--is not a sound response that ensures our military has what it needs to execute missions of defense of U.S. interests. So I support a debate to replace the 2001 AUMF and to develop what should be the specifics of that replacement. But absent a framework to replace it with a new authority, how do we repeal it outright and leave the country naked? So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Paul amendment.I want to speak to Senator Graham's amendment. I share and appreciate Senator Graham's concern about the Iranian regime. Indeed, he and I have worked very closely on the issue of Iranian threats. I have spent the better part of my career addressing Iranian threats--its nuclear program, its support for global terrorism, its destabilizing its neighborhood through proxies and interference, and the threat that it poses to its own citizens. Yet the question before us is not whether Iran poses a threat to U.S. interests but whether the 2002 AUMF is necessary to counter those threats and if there is already sufficient legal authority to respond to any such threat. And the answer is pretty clear. The President is clear in his view--one shared by every recent administration--that he has sufficient authority under article II to defend U.S. interests and personnel against Iranian-backed militias. Indeed, the administration has actually taken military action a number of times to protect and defend our personnel against attacks from these groups and to deter future attacks. The fact is, the 2002 AUMF that we have been debating is superfluous to today's military efforts in the Middle East. The administration has the authorities it needs to address Iranian threats to our people and our interests. Now, I thought this debate was about ending the authorization for use of force that already exists, that no longer needs to exist, and that should be closed. Just as Congress has the power and the responsibility to declare and to give the authorization for use of military force, it should also end it. That is what this discussion is about. That is what this debate is about. That is what these votes are about--not to create a new authorization for force. That is what Senator Graham's amendment would do. I think that would be a lot more robust debate as to how and when and in what way we would give such authority. So I would urge my colleagues--as someone who has fought for the better part of these 25 years against Iran, I would take a back seat to no one as it relates to that fight--to, in fact, oppose that amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks in full before the vote.