Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise with grave concern to speak about the troubling political situation in Uganda in the runup to that country's elections on January 14 and to call on President Museveni to take immediate action to stop the country's downward political spiral. Uganda has been an important if not critical security and counterterrorism partner to the United States for well over a decade, playing a prominent role in the African Union's Mission to Somalia and hosting over 1.4 million refugees. Its leadership and influence in East Africa and the African continent writ large is difficult to overstate. However, these are troubling times in Uganda, and longstanding efforts to advance its democracy are now in peril. National elections in Uganda have not met internationally accepted standards for free and fair polls since 1996, when they were held for the first time after a long-running conflict that brought President Museveni to power. For decades, Museveni's ruling National Resistance Party, NRM, has leveraged access to and influence over state resources and institutions to tilt the electoral balance in its favor. These efforts are not new. Under President Museveni's leadership, the NRM successfully moved to change the Ugandan Constitution in 2005 to remove Presidential term limits and again in and 2017 to lift age limits. These changes allow President Museveni, who has been in power since 1986, to remain in office indefinitely. Not only have Museveni and the NRM engineered a constitutional coup, they have undertaken a campaign of political repression that has only become worse since the last general elections. Ugandan authorities have increasingly used coercive measures, including arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, extrajudicial killings, and intrusive surveillance technology to intimidate and silence critics, place a strangle hold on media, and stifle political opposition in the country. Leading opposition figures have been targeted in brazen and shocking ways. Members of Parliament have been arrested and detained on numerous occasions, and there is strong evidence to support their claims of being tortured by President Museveni's security forces while in custody. Last week, prominent human rights attorney Nicholas Opiyo, along with several other attorneys, was arrested in what appears to be a blatant act of intimidation for their investigation into killings that occurred as a result of the arrest of rival Presidential candidate Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu in November. Just this past weekend, one of Kyagulanyi's bodyguards was killed by security forces in a violent confrontation that also saw two journalists injured. Imagine that happening to any political candidate here in the United States to one of our colleagues as they were out on the campaign trail this fall. We should all be outraged by such acts. To date there have been no meaningful investigations into these incidents and no accountability for these abuses. The question we must ask ourselves is, Why? Why has President Museveni failed to take swift and decisive action to ensure the safety and security of members of the Ugandan Parliament and other opposition figures, and bring those responsible to justice? Is President Museveni protecting particular individuals? Or perhaps direct responsibility for the violence against the Uganda opposition lies even further up the chain of command? Journalists and nongovernmental organizations have been under pressure as well. Ugandan authorities continue to use a range of restrictive and onerous administrative measures against NGOs, including deregistration of more than 12,000 mostly local NGOs in November 2019. Earlier this month, Ugandan authorities froze the bank accounts of some NGOs, and in the past, the Museveni administration has denied entry and deported some leaders of international NGOs in what were clear acts of intimidation. Journalists working for foreign media outlets are now required to reregister with Ugandan authorities or risk criminal penalties, and some foreign journalists have also been deported from the country. Government has also attacked digital rights and academic freedoms. Individuals with large social media followings are subject to onerous administrative regulation. Burdensome taxes have been imposed on social media users, and some individuals who have criticized the Museveni administration on social media platforms have even been prosecuted. Ugandan authorities have taken repeated action to suppress academic freedom and intimidate students and faculty who have been critical of the Museveni administration, including by firing and jailing professors who criticize the regime. In short, the longstanding effort to build democracy in Uganda is under grave threat, and we must take action in support of those defending political freedoms in the country. That is why I introduced S. Res 807. It not only condemns the actions of the Museveni administration, it calls on the Secretary of State and the heads of relevant departments and agencies of the U.S. Government to undertake three essential actions: first, to consider the imposition of targeted sanctions and visa restrictions on actors involved in undermining credible, transparent elections, and those who have perpetrated or abetted human rights abuses; second, to work with African partners, like-minded countries, and international institutions and organizations to develop and implement strategies and actions to promote and defend human, civil, and political rights and multiparty democracy in Uganda; and third, to immediately conduct a review of U.S. assistance and cooperation with Uganda for the purposes of reprioritizing such assistance should neutral observers determine that the January 2021 polls do not meet internationally accepted standards for credible elections. If the outcome of the elections in Uganda does not reflect the will of the people, I will be calling for the Biden administration to reevaluate our relationship with the Museveni administration, and I plan to pursue binding legislation in the 117th Congress that builds on S Res 807. Uganda's stature and importance as a security partner should not prevent the United States from speaking out in support of democracy and taking action in support of those Ugandans fighting for democratic freedoms.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 1301 of title XIII of the FY21 consolidated appropriations act delays implementation of reforms to the U.S. Agency for Global Media outlined in section 1299Q of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. While the FY2021 NDAA has not yet been enacted and may be enacted following the enactment of the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Chairman Risch and I believe it is Congress's intent that these two provisions be understood concurrently and that the reforms outlined in section 1299Q be delayed for 90 days following enactment of the FY2021 NDAA.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my colleague Senator Scott has chosen an interesting point in this pandemic to object to public safety measures intended to protect human life and ensure scarce resources are not squandered. Over 17 million Americans--17 million--have contracted COVID, that we know of, and over 300,000 of our friends and our neighbors and loved ones are no longer with us. Think about that. September 11 was a great national tragedy. I know because I lost 700 of those 3,000 citizens, on that fateful day, from New Jersey. This is 100 times more than what happened on September 11. The people we have lost are not just some nameless numbers but mothers and fathers and grandparents. Essential parts of our hearts are gone forever due to a pandemic that has been mishandled and mismanaged from the start. And now, when this virus is running unchecked through our communities, we have before us this resolution that is riddled with misstatements of fact that I find deeply concerning. No Governor wants to see their constituents cut off from their daily lives, and I think we can all agree that the administration here in Washington--their inability to guide us through this crisis--has left our Governors holding the bag when it comes to securing resources, providing guidance, and making the difficult calls about the right public policy to prevent COVID-19 from rampaging like an unchecked bull in a China shop through our States because they know, the Governors of our States, that the lives of their residents--our neighbors, brothers, sisters, children, and parents--rest in their hands and these difficult decisions they must make. We are still losing Americans from COVID-19 at an unprecedented rate. Hospitals throughout the country are providing an amazing level of care with exhausted providers and continued resource issues. And our economy is cratering because we cannot fully reopen it until it is safe. I am deeply troubled to see a false claim about my State and the Governor banning indoor religious services. Let me be clear, houses of worship were never ordered closed--never. In fact, today, religious gatherings are allowed to have substantially higher capacity limits than most other gatherings. While New Jersey restricted the capacity of indoor religious services, as they did with all indoor gatherings, religious gatherings were never--never--designated as nonessential or essential, as this resolution suggests. That distinction was only applied to retail businesses. Perhaps religion is different in Florida, but our houses of worship are not retail businesses. Houses of worship and religious organizations have been subject to neutral restrictions that equally burden religious and nonreligious entities. They were put in place to do what? To save lives, not under the guise of doing so and certainly not for the purpose of targeting religious groups. I am a man of strong faith and conviction. I have always found deep solace in the rituals and shared worship of my church. I know many of us have. But perhaps the most important part of my faith is the duty, the responsibility to care for my neighbors up and down the State of New Jersey and all across the Nation. Our faith calls us to ensure the health and safety of this Nation before all else. As a matter of fact, I am reminded of a passage in the Bible of James 2:14. It says: What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ``Go in peace; keep warm and get your fill,'' and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But someone will say, ``You have faith and I have works.'' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. As for me, I will continue to work for the people of New Jersey, our healthcare workers struggling to care for the thousands filling ICU hospital beds, for the families who don't know how they will pay next month's rent and keep food on the table, for the small business owner trying to keep his doors open, and, yes, for the churches that want the see their parishioners safe. I, however, do not intend to play these partisan games. For those reasons, I object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I know that my colleague, I understand, is going to be the next chair of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, and he has every right to do that, but what he has no right to do is misrepresent in this resolution what, at least in my State, is going on. You cannot say that churches were designated by the State of New Jersey as nonessential or essential. That simply is not true. It is simply not true. You cannot suggest that somehow these purposes are to target religions. They are to save lives. Now, maybe if my colleague and others here had spoken up when the administration was asleep at the switch as this pandemic was raging, maybe if my colleagues had spoken up when we found out that the President knew back in January, early February of this year, of how vicious this pandemic could be, how contagious it could be, how it was transmitted, but said nothing to the American people--and that silence was echoed in this Chamber--well, maybe then we wouldn't in the position that we are in. Maybe we wouldn't have lost 300,000 of our fellow Americans. So I find it really, really upsetting that, in the midst of a raging pandemic, one would seek to obtain a political value out of something that is simply not the case--simply not the case. I think there is a lot more to be done in this Chamber to stop this pandemic, to stop more lives from being lost, to save our brothers and sisters, to help those who have been ravaged by the pandemic, but not to pick a few States that happen to be Democratic--please.

Mr. MENENDEZ. The resolution is replete with inaccuracies, and, therefore, I will continue to object.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, let me thank Senator Grassley for his work on this issue, and I agree with him that our current foreign regime is in need of updating. I look forward to working with him and Senator Cornyn and with Senators Whitehouse and Shaheen, who both came to speak to me about this, as well as with Chairman Risch and the cosponsors of this legislation, on engaging in a comprehensive effort to do just that. FARA, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, is perhaps the most critical tool we have for shining a light on foreign influence efforts in the United States. Its aim is to ensure that the public knows the source of foreign-directed efforts that are intended to influence American public opinion, policy, and laws. I agree with the Senator that the past few years have demonstrated that changes are sorely needed to FARA, but they also demonstrate that the statute may need more than a few tweaks. And before we have determined exactly what the most needed reforms are, it seems shortsighted to provide additional enforcement tools before we have figured out what that regime should look like. Indeed, adopting ad hoc changes rather than looking at more comprehensive reform could actually create more problems down the road. Many have noted that FARA's definitions and requirements are broad and sow confusion over exactly when and under what circumstances an individual must register and report covered activities. There is no denying the nature of lobbying, influence efforts, and communication methods have dramatically changed since FARA was enacted in 1938 or even revised in 1966. We live in a dramatically more interconnected and complex world today. Foreign influence efforts and disinformation have made their way into the top echelons of U.S. Government and this very body. It seems only prudent that we step back and examine whether there are blind spots in the current FARA regime. There are a number of bills pending in both the House and the Senate that propose reforms to FARA. Some propose a new unit altogether for reviewing and enforcing FARA violations. Others propose additional disclosure and registration requirements, significant changes to the current FARA exemptions, or more electronic reporting. Yet none of those have been given thorough or, indeed, any consideration by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the committee of jurisdiction. There are also a number of concerns about the current FARA regime, as well as how it has been applied, that deserve consideration. Some nonprofit organizations, for example, have raised serious concerns about how FARA could be applied to them and are seeking additional changes to this bill to ensure it is not weaponized. And as other countries, such as Russia and Hungary, adopt their own versions of FARA laws and look to use them to crack down on civil society groups and nonprofits, we should be especially concerned about the signal that any potential weaponizing of FARA sends. The past few years have shown how critical it is that we not adopt a patchwork approach but that we get it right. The disturbing rise of foreign influence campaigns that use a variety of measures to mask who is the ultimate source or beneficiary should serve as an alarm bell for all of us. So before this body passes any tweaks or new tools and adds to the current patchwork of FARA regulations and exemptions, I think we should take a step back and take a comprehensive look, and we have not done that. So, respectfully, these changes should not pass this body without careful consideration by the committee of jurisdiction. A committee markup is the appropriate vehicle for considering such changes to assess the ramifications of the changes in this bill and to see if other changes are warranted. I stand ready and willing to work with Chairman Risch, Senator Grassley, and other colleagues to make any needed changes to FARA, but because of all of these concerns that I have, I would object today to passing this bill out of the Senate without first giving the committee the opportunity to consider it and other potential reforms. I urge my colleagues to give us the opportunity to work through this together and ensure the Foreign Assets Registration Act is fit for the 21st century. And because of that, I do object.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor today and will soon ask unanimous consent for the passage of the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2020. This legislation is about standing up for the independence of our Federal judiciary and the safety of all of those who serve it. Many of you already know the terrible tragedy that recently struck Federal District Judge Esther Salas and her family in New Jersey. This summer, an unhinged and violent individual showed up at Judge Salas's home, impersonating a package delivery driver. When her 20-year-old son Daniel Anderl answered the door, the assailant opened fire, taking the life of her only child and seriously wounding her husband Mark Anderl. Unfortunately, this tragedy is not the first attack on a Federal judge. There was the 1979 murder of Judge John Wood in San Antonio, TX; the 1988 murder of Judge Richard Daronco in Pelham, NY; the 1989 murder of Judge Robert Vance in Mountain Brook, AL; the 2005 murder of the husband and mother of Judge Joan Lefkow in Illinois. And there have been other attacks as well. In June, 2013, Chief Judge Timothy Corrigan was targeted by a gunman who purchased the address of his Florida home on the internet for a mere $1.95--$1.95. The gunshot missed his ear by less than 2 inches. Just last month, a judge's address was circulated on social media, urging people to gather outside his home while the judge was hearing a high-profile case. According to the U.S. Marshals Service, threats against Federal judges rose by 500 percent between fiscal years 2015 and 2019. This trend should worry all of us who care about our Constitution. An independent judiciary in which judges can render decisions without fear of retribution and violence is essential to the integrity of our democracy. Indeed, the idea that any judge at any level of government could be intimidated undermines the very concept of the rule of law. We expect all Americans to have respect for the rule of law, even when they disagree with the outcome of a case or a particular ruling. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Some individuals delude themselves into believing that violence is the answer. We may not be able to eliminate hatred from someone's heart, but what we can do is make sure that the men and women who serve on our Federal bench do not make for such easy targets. That is why, after Daniel's murder, I made a personal commitment to Judge Salas. I told her that I would develop legislation, along with my colleague Senator Booker, to better protect the men and women who sit on our Federal judiciary, to ensure their independence in the face of increased personal threats on judges, and to help prevent this unthinkable tragedy--unthinkable tragedy--from ever happening again to anyone else. The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2020 is a bipartisan, bicameral, and commonsense plan to safeguard the personal information of Federal judges and their families. And I want to thank my colleague Senator Booker, who has been there every step of the way, a member of the Judiciary, and Chairman Graham--Senator Lindsey Graham--for leading this effort with me. Our legislation makes it unlawful for data brokers to knowingly sell, trade, license, purchase, or otherwise provide personally identifiable information of a Federal judge or their family. Since its introduction, we have worked with several stakeholders, including the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the U.S. Marshals Office, the American Civil Liberties Union, among others. Together, we carefully updated legislative language in order to uphold the First Amendment right of the press to report on matters of public concern and balance that right with our urgent need to better protect the safety of Federal judges and their families. Federal judges and their families will continue to be able to seek relief through the courts for the knowing and willful publication of their personal information, and the party responsible for the violation will have to pay the cost and reasonable attorney's fees. The bill enjoys widespread support among judicial and attorney organizations, including the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Judicial Conference, the Federal Judges Association, the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, the American Bar Association, the National Hispanic Bar Association, the National Bar Association, and several others. America's Federal judges must be able to render rulings without fearing for their lives or the lives of their loved ones. We must better protect Federal judges' personal information from those who would seek to do them harm. That is exactly what the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2020 will do. This legislation will not bring Judge Salas's son back. But we must ensure, as Judge Salas said, that his death not be in vain. As she recently wrote in the New York Times, ``Daniel's death is speaking to us, but will we listen? For the sake of my brothers and sisters on the bench, Congress must act now. Every day that goes by without action leaves our federal judges, our justice system and our very democracy in danger.'' We must protect the independence of our courts, the safety of our judges, and prevent this sort of tragedy from ever happening again. This is a commonsense bill. It will save lives, and I urge my colleagues to approve it without delay. Before I ask for consent, I want to turn to my distinguished colleague, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Cory Booker.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I just say to my colleague that I certainly am concerned about his safety and security and, for that fact, the safety and security of all of our colleagues. I appreciate his concern and understand it and look forward to working with him on that. I will say that the other elements that Senator Lee had incorporated into his amendment just renders the security--whether for a Member of Congress or for the judiciary--useless, in which case, I don't want to give false security to anybody that they are being protected if, in fact, they don't have the wherewithal to do so. I look forward to that opportunity. I promised Judge Salas that her son's death will not be in vain. We may not have achieved this tonight with Senator Booker, but we are going to make this happen, hopefully, sooner rather than later. But we will make this happen. I yield the floor

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4711 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further that the Menendez substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object to the modification, I appreciate the Senator's concern to expand the universe of people covered by this bill, including Members of Congress. While that is a laudable goal, I personally think it would be more appropriate to legislate that in another bill. This bill is for the Federal judiciary because of the special threats they face and the importance of ensuring their independence in terms of being able to make judgments based on the law and the facts, not upon some fear that lurks outside of their home or outside of their chambers. I also understand that the amendment would strip out--and if I am wrong, I would be happy to be corrected--would strip out the ability to seek redressing the court as it relates to the provision that we provide for judges. Without a threat of some damages, there is little incentive for a data broker to remove the personal identifiable information of a judge and his or her family. This is not about frivolous suits. This is about protecting the Federal judiciary. In addition to that, we had made several good-faith efforts before we got to this point to address the concerns of my colleagues across the aisle. We actually had the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts engage in conversations directly with our colleagues. My colleagues had concerns about a new grant program to States. Well, we changed that language to a report. Senator Lee was part of those concerns. To better understand the proper Federal role, we changed it to a report. They don't want to deal with some of the questions that we had for the U.S. marshals. Again, this is about protecting the Federal judiciary. Guess what branch protects the Federal judiciary. The U.S. marshals. We changed that. It never seems to be enough. It never seems to be enough. It is unfortunate that the Federal judiciary will pay the price of this recalcitrance, but I cannot, at this time, agree to the modification. Therefore, I object to it.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to call attention to the rapidly burgeoning Islamist insurgency in northern Mozambique, which is dragging that country into ever-increasing violence and chaos. In the past decade, Mozambique has taken steps to resolve a decades-long civil war and while peace remains elusive, with longstanding support from the United States, there has been progress. This progress, when coupled with the 2010 discovery of enormous natural gas reserves in the remote northern province of Cabo Delgado, could have changed the development course of the country. But a new conflict has emerged in Mozambique that threatens all of the potential gains for the citizens of the province and the entire country. The origins of this extremist insurgency share traits with many others globally: a marginalized community's grievance against corrupt and distant rulers, fueled and brutally exploited by radical Islamist ideologues, has allowed extremism to take root and gain traction, while the innocent majority of the local population bears the cost. The extremists have proclaimed allegiance to ISIS and have rapidly developed increasingly sophisticated military capabilities; Mozambique's poorly trained security forces have proven unable to vanquish the group. It is an insurgency on the advance. It has seized seizing entire towns and now controls considerable territory. The insurgents, who have attracted foreign fighters and recently launched attacks into neighboring Tanzania, have used horrific acts of terror--including systematic use of arson, murder, often including beheadings, and kidnapping--to force compliance with their aims. Their acts have effectively displaced more than 500,000 people in Cabo Delgado, creating a severe humanitarian crises. In 1 week in November alone, more than 10,000 people fled to the port city of Pemba, many in rickety, unsafe boats. A significant of these internally displaced persons now languish in crowded, unsanitary conditions. What can be done to solve this crisis? And what should be the role of the United States, which today appears to be retreating from Africa? This year has perhaps taught us more than any in recent memory that stability and security around the world can directly impact the stability and security of the United States. We have a sustained interest in helping to support innocent, suffering people and promoting stability. The security aspect of the threat requires a security solution. However, the Mozambican security forces have demonstrated that they cannot effectively respond to this threat without assistance. It is clear that they lack proper training and equipment, and a substantial body of reporting has established that elements of these forces have frequently committed serious human rights abuses, as well as engaged in petty corruption targeting the local impoverished population. The Mozambican Government must take steps to ensure that state security forces are not only effective, but that they also engage in such a manner that earns the trust of the population they are charged with protecting The good news is that the international community has begun to respond. The U.S.'s counterterrorism coordinator recently visited Maputo to offer our assistance to the government. European countries have also pledged to assist with building Mozambique's security capacities. Any such counterterrorism support must include rigorous human rights training, as well as improvements in civil-military relations and effective intelligence-gathering. The government should also be pressed to reduce its reliance on local militias, who have even less training and accountability than government troops. The humanitarian crisis also demands immediate action. Of the half million people who have been displaced, 41 percent are children. The provinces of northern Mozambique that host most of these newly displaced people are among the poorest in one of the world's least- developed countries and have little capacity to assist those affected by the crisis. In total, more than 1.3 million people in northern Mozambique are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance and protection, according to the U.N. The international community must step up and fully fund the modest request of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which has said that it requires $254 million to provide humanitarian assistance through 2021. Counterterrorism training and humanitarian assistance alone, however, are not enough to defeat ISIS in Mozambique. They are only tools to respond to the immediate crisis. To effectively address the root causes of the conflict--the social and economic inequalities that have allowed extremism to take hold and flourish--the Mozambican Government and international partners must assist in reaching the country's increasingly-alienated northern communities. The government must engage with its northern citizens and deliver what the majority of the population wants and expects: better governance and critical social services. The international community can help by collaborating and coordinating their engagement with the government on a package of development aid that helps to address poor governance, increases transparency and fights corruption, effectively delivers health and education services, and fosters job opportunities and local entrepreneurship. Mozambique and its international partners also must scale up programs aimed at countering extremist ideology and promoting defections from the insurgency. Donors must also hold the government's feet to the fire on its obligation to invest it its own citizenry, including by insisting that the government develop its natural resources--notably the gas reserves in Cabo Delgado--in an equitable, transparent, manner that results in that a significant portion of prospective natural gas revenues being invested in the provinces that host Mozambique's gas resources. As the conflict grows in scope and intensity, the United States will need to further develop a coordinated, interagency strategy, one which uses all the levers of American power--diplomatic, development, and defense--to address Cabo Delgado's military, humanitarian, and development crisis and to work with regional partners on to both inform and implement such a strategy. The situation in Mozambique is dire, and unfortunately it has not attracted an appropriate level of attention from policymakers. It is tragic to see a country that seemed to be on the cusp of transformation dragged back into conflict. The situation is not hopeless. The United States and its partners can together effectively help Mozambique defeat this insurgency and support the Mozambican people's aspirations for a more hopeful future, but the situation is urgent. We must act now.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, let me thank Senator Sullivan for his introduction of our efforts here today and to really commend him for working in such a bipartisan spirit to drive an important piece of legislation, to really address the future of future generations of Alaskans, of Rhode Islanders, and New Jerseyans--and Americans, as well as other people across the world. I agree with Senator Sullivan that Senator Whitehouse's name is synonymous with the oceans and his focus on this is singular and his perspective is of the utmost importance. I want to rise to join my colleagues from Alaska and Rhode Island to celebrate the enactment of Save Our Seas 2.0 and to thank our colleagues, both in the House and the Senate, for their votes in support of the most comprehensive piece of legislation to address the growing global environmental threat of plastic waste in our oceans. I want to thank Representatives Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon and Don Young of Alaska for their commitment and leadership in shepherding the bill through the House. To my colleagues, Senator Sullivan and Senator Whitehouse, it has been a great pleasure working with you on these issues. The passion, the knowledge, the persistence you have brought to solving the problem of plastic waste in the world's oceans is incredible, and it was essential to our shared success. Plastic pollution in our oceans is truly a global problem that literally washes up on New Jersey shores, impacting businesses and communities across our State. This calamity is yet another reminder that Americans are directly impacted by the policies and practices of countries around the world. Plastic debris in our oceans does not respect international borders. The abundance of plastic waste in our ocean requires comprehensive action alongside the fight against climate change. Save Our Seas 2.0 will bolster U.S. leadership and global engagement to combat plastic waste and marine debris, improve plastic waste management, and enhance marine debris response and innovation. As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I take special pride in the international title of this bipartisan legislation, which formalizes U.S. foreign policy to address this issue, supports USAID's work to curb ocean plastic, and encourages the United States to explore the development of an international agreement to foster cooperation on addressing plastic waste globally. I think this legislation can be the catalyst for that. The Earth's oceans are a global resource that sustains life everywhere, whether it is your country, State, or district that has a coastline or is landlocked. Eighty percent of New Jerseyans live in a coastal area, and our economy is heavily dependent on these vibrant communities. Families who depend on our fishing, their real estate, hospitality, tourism, and outdoor recreation industries rely upon clean and safe oceans. These families know that beyond their daily livlihoods, plastic pollution also threatens human health on a global scale. Once in the environment, plastics accumulate in and contaminate both human and animal food chains leading to an array of health risks. Save Our Seas 2.0 calls on various agencies to research and assess the effects of microplastics and food supplies and sources of drinking water so that we can better understand the way plastic is dangerous to use. Even at a time--this is where I will close--when Washington seems more politically divided than ever before, SOS 2.0 represents a significant bipartisan environmental victory that I sincerely hope will serve as a stepping stone toward more progress to tackle this growing global problem. There is no single solution to the marine debris crisis. Ocean stewardship is critical to preventing the collapse of marine ecosystems that support global fisheries that feed billions of people around the world. Addressing plastic waste of the ocean supports economic growth and trade, public health, and safe recreation. I look forward to building upon the bipartisan support we have achieved with this bill and working with the next administration on ensuring the dutiful execution of the programs we established in SOS 2.0 and securing appropriations in support of the bill's goals and objectives. Again, with my congratulations to my colleagues and my thanks for the work they have done together, I will yield the floor to our colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today and will shortly ask for unanimous consent on H.R. 2420, the National Museum for the American Latino Act. Let me just thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, who has been a great partner throughout this entire process, a strong advocate who helped us navigate some of the challenges we have had along the way. I am also thrilled to be on the floor with Senator Collins, who will shortly make a motion on the Women's History Museum, which I strongly support, and I appreciate her support for the American Latino Museum. Today the Senate stands at the precipice of history. We have before us an opportunity to set in motion a process that will eventually culminate in the establishment of a national museum devoted to the history, struggles, and achievements of Latinos and Latinas in the United States. This is long overdue. Some colleagues say: Well, why do we need another museum? Well, it was in 1994 when the Smithsonian Task Force on Latino Issues published its report entitled ``Willful Neglect''--a report acknowledging the Institution's own glaring omission of Hispanic history and culture. This is what the report found: The Smithsonian Institution, the largest museum complex in the world, displays a pattern of willful neglect towards . . . Latinos in the United States. Because of both indigenous roots and Spanish heritage, Latinos predate the British in the [United States]. They have contributed significantly to every phase and aspect of American history and culture. Yet the institution almost entirely excludes and ignores Latinos in nearly every aspect of its operations. Latinos are absent from positions of power and authority within the institution, which helps to perpetuate the exclusion of Latino history and culture from the museum's collections, exhibitions, and programs. The report also acknowledges how the Smithsonian's exclusion of Latinos and Latinas has not only harmed Hispanic Americans but all Americans. The report says: The failure of the Smithsonian to reflect and represent Hispanic contributions is twice damaging. It denies Latinos their right to feel recognized and valued as part of the country's heritage. At the same time, it perpetuates among the general population the inaccurate belief that Latinos have contributed little to our country's development or culture, rather than reflecting the multicultural history . . . of the United States. Without treading into politics, I think it is important we acknowledge that this misconception is alive and well today. In recent years, we have heard Hispanic Americans, immigrants, and their families used as scapegoats for every economic ill facing our Nation. We have witnessed the rise of nativism and xenophobia. We have seen these hateful statements propel acts of horrific violence like the tragic El Paso shooting. But we Latinos and Latinas are not invaders. We have been here from the beginning. The oldest city in America, well before Pilgrims and Jamestown, is St. Augustine, FL, over 500 years ago founded by a gentleman named Pedro Aviles de Menendez. And our stories must be told. Who here does not emerge from the Smithsonian Museum of American History more informed about the many movements that have shaped our country? Who does not emerge from the Museum of the American Indian more aware of Native American history and more appreciative of their cultures? Who does not emerge from the Museum of African American History inspired by the perseverance and the power of our Black community? We all do. The Smithsonian Institution is truly a national treasure. But I am not White or Black or Native American. I am Latino. I am one in five Americans today. My grandchildren are one in four schoolchildren today. But when we walk through the National Mall--or should I say when anyone walks through the National Mall, no one is inspired by the story of Latinos and Latinas in this country because that story is not being told. Walk outside these halls and ask someone who Bernardo de Galvez was, the former Governor of Louisiana before Louisiana was a State, who led an all-Spanish division against the British as they were approaching Washington and helped in the Revolutionary War? The Congress gave him U.S. citizenship. His portrait was supposed to be hung in the Congress of the United States, so much was the battle that he led. His portrait finally hangs in the Senate Foreign Relations room. Go to Farragut metro station and ask a rider who it was named for. David Farragut, the Spanish captain who led during the Civil War on behalf of the Union. Visit a school and ask a child where the first settlers to this country hailed from. They won't say St. Augustine, FL. I guarantee these questions will go unanswered because the history of the American Latino remains unknown. It has been nearly 30 years since the Smithsonian Task Force on Latino Issues recommended that the Institution immediately begin laying ``the groundwork needed to assure the establishment of one or more museums portraying the historical, cultural, and artistic achievements of U.S. Hispanics.'' Thirty years. For nearly 30 years, those words have echoed on empty ears. My friends, that silence and inaction must end today. We Hispanics are not a monolithic community. Our families are as diverse as they come. We are Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, Colombian, Spanish, Salvadoran, and more. We are Brown, Black, and White, left and right, and everywhere in between. Some of our ancestors settled here long before the dawn of our Republic; others arrived alongside generations of immigrants around the world searching for freedom and opportunity. Some of us grew up along our southern border in cities and communities born out of blended cultures. Some of us, myself included, are first-generation Americans. Our parents courageously uprooted their lives and came to this country with no connection at all in order to give their children a brighter future. Indeed, that story of hard work and boundless optimism is the common thread that runs throughout our Latino community--all 60 million of us living in the United States. And I would argue that story is as American as they come. So let us ensure that the story is told right here in the Nation's Capital, where it belongs. Let us pass H.R. 2420. Let us ensure that someday in the near future, Latino and Latina children and other children who walk through our National Mall will no longer wonder why the story of their families are missing. I know I cannot wait for the day that I can take my granddaughters to the National Museum of the American Latino. So it has been a long and winding road for this bill, one which I hope will complete its path today in Congress. This has already been passed by the House of Representatives by voice vote--no opposition. This passed the Rules Committee in a unanimous voice vote. Now, we have been asked to make some changes to accommodate my colleague, the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and while I personally do not believe that these changes are fair to the Latino community or required or necessary for the bill, I am committed to making them to pass this bill and finally moving one step closer to the construction of the museum. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 600, H.R. 2420. I ask unanimous consent that the Murkowski amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, 60 million Latinos in this country are watching tonight because this is a much expected moment--Univision, Telemundo, affiliates across the country, national organizations, and others. They have been waiting for this moment, a moment that everybody in the Congress of the United States agrees to except for one colleague. The House of Representatives passed this on voice. The Rules Committee passed it on voice in a bipartisan manner. And tonight, one colleague stands in the way--one Republican colleague from Utah stands in the way of the hopes and dreams and aspirations of seeing Americans of Latino descent having their dreams fulfilled in being recognized--just being recognized. Now, the Smithsonian is a collection of museums. Let's be honest with that. Did we need an Air and Space Museum? Do we need a museum of the Native Americans? Did we need an African-American Museum? I would say yes to all of them because they are part of the mosaic. They are brought together under the rubric of the single most significant cultural institution in the Nation, which is the Smithsonian. I don't know if these arguments were made against the Native Americans. I don't know if these arguments were made against African Americans, but I don't see them as being separate and apart. I see them as part of the collective history mosaic that is coming together under the Smithsonian. More than half of the Nation's population are women. Are we to deny them that their history in our country is not being told? It is not. It is beyond Betsy Ross, who I appreciate very much. And, talk about funding, this bill requires that 50 percent of all the funding be coming from private sources. So we will fuel the development of programming, as well as the physical structure, as well as the other elements by the community and communities who want to see this become a reality. It is 30 years of willful neglect. Nobody cared, nobody made any effort, and nobody did anything about it. And in the one chance we have, since this has been a 20-plus year journey to try to make this museum possible, one Republican colleague stands in the way. One Republican colleague stands in the way. It is pretty outrageous. It is pretty outrageous. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I just have to say: We have been systemically excluded. We, who founded the oldest city in America before there was a United States of America; we, who ultimately were used as farm workers and discriminated against in the Bracero program; we, who were discriminated against when we voluntarily joined the Armed Forces of the United States to defend the Nation--we have been systematically excluded, not because this Senator said so but because the Smithsonian itself said so. And yet we are supposed to entrust the willful neglect that has taken place for more than three decades--taken place longer but acknowledged for three decades. Oh, no, we are somehow not systemically excluded. Believe me, we have been, and the only righteous way to end that exclusion is to pass this bill.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support these two resolutions of disapproval. I appreciate my distinguished colleague from Kentucky and his support and advocacy here in these particular arms sales to the United Arab Emirates. Simply put, many aspects of this proposed sale remain conceptual-- conceptual. We are being asked to support a significant transfer of advanced U.S. technology without clarity on a number of key details regarding the sale or sufficient answers to critical national security questions. There are simply too many outstanding questions about the protection of critical U.S. military technology and the broader implications of these sales to U.S. national security regarding the UAE's relationships, for example, with Russia and China as they exist today-- as they exist today. I have heard some of my colleagues say: Well, aren't we concerned that they will go to Russia--they have relationships with Russia and China as it exists today in a military purchase context--and about the long-term implications, of course, to the United States and to our ally, the State of Israel, in terms of national security? Now, it is disappointing that we are forced to discuss these issues in such a public way through a formal congressional expression of disapproval. That is not normally how we do this. However, the administration left us no choice because of the way that it attempted to rush through these sales by completely subverting congressional oversight, and, it appears, increasingly, the need for greater interagency review. Now, the U.S. Congress has a unique legislative responsibility to oversee U.S. arms sales abroad. This process allows Congress to engage privately with relevant national security agencies and the intended recipient countries in order to better understand the intricacies and security implications of any proposed sale. But as it has done before, the administration decided to ignore the congressional responsibilities here and rush through with this sale. They blew right through that period of review that the Congress has had normally for about 40 days. Let me just say, the United Arab Emirates, from my view, has been an important partner in the fight against terrorism and for other U.S. national security priorities, and I will suspect it will continue to be so after this. It is unfortunate, however, that we find ourselves in this situation. Following the historic Abraham accords, we started hearing that the administration was planning to grant the UAE a longstanding request-- the sale of the most advanced U.S. stealth fighter jets. Both the Emiratis--and I have spoken to their Foreign Minister and to their Ambassador--and the U.S. administration continued to insist, however, that there is no connection--none--between the Abraham accords and this sale. So that is a red herring for those who are concerned that somehow we are going to disrupt the Abraham accords. While I join just about all of my colleagues in applauding the advancement of diplomatic relations that builds upon years already of Israeli and Emirati engagement, there is absolutely no reason to rush through an arms sale of this magnitude, especially when we are being told there is no connection. Interagency review of such sales usually takes many months of careful deliberation. The Departments of State, Defense, and others must assess what capabilities are safe to sell, what technology security measures are appropriate and necessary, what restrictions on use are imposed, and how the sale will affect the national security of our friends and allies in the region and elsewhere. Once these deliberations have concluded, a sale of this magnitude usually sits with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for an informal review process that, by the State Department's own requirement--the State Department's own requirement--would last 40 days. Then, for reasons the administration has concealed, it completely subverted this review process and officially started a statutory 30-day review--all before any briefings were even given to staff, let alone Senators and members of the committees of jurisdiction. To date, we have yet to get a clear answer as to why the President and the Secretary of State are trying to, again, circumvent the congressional arms sales oversight process by rushing the sale of 50 of the most advanced fighter jets in the world--technology that gives Israel and the United State a critical military advantage over any adversary. Moreover, the administration wants to push through without any congressional oversight the second largest ever sale of armed Reaper drones to the UAE and over 14,000 additional aircraft munitions on top of the 60,000 already sold to Abu Dhabi as part of the nonemergency last year. I say ``nonemergency'' because they declared an emergency, but there was no emergency to be justified. Delivery of the most advanced features could take years. I say that because, therefore, there is no reason that giving us a timeframe to do what we normally do to determine whether this is the right sale in the national security interests of the United States, not starting an arms race in the Middle East, also dealing with Israel--is that too much to answer when you are not even going to get any of this equipment for years? These are major sales by any measure. Part of this conversation is also, as my colleague has said, about Israel's qualitative military edge that it currently has over its neighbors and was expected to maintain with its own purchase of 50 F- 35s that are still in the process of being built and delivered. Let me make it clear. I take a backseat to no one when it comes to advancing U.S. policies to protect Israel's national security. I have proven that time and again. But this sale is fundamentally about U.S. national security, about the U.S. qualitative military edge, and about our long-term national security. It is also about not wanting to start and thinking about, at least, what does it mean in terms of an advanced arms race in the region. Unfortunately, particularly for Members who do not serve on national security committees, there is much we cannot discuss in an open setting, but let me assure all of my colleagues that these sales have very real implications for their own technology security. On October 9 of this year, Armed Services ranking member Senator Reed and I sent a letter to former Secretary of Defense Esper and Secretary of State Pompeo with 16 detailed questions about the F-35 sale. To date, we have not received satisfactory answers to any or all of those questions. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Congressional Record

Mr. MENENDEZ. I am not opposed to these sales if they make sense and pose no threat to U.S. or Israel security in the short and the long term. But these sales require and deserve careful and deliberate consideration within the interagency process and by this Congress. However, that simply has not happened. A little while ago, my distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator Blunt, asked on the floor: Well, what do you have to do to be a trusted partner? Let me try to answer that question. Following a classified briefing with the administration--the details of which I will not discuss here--there are a whole host of issues that a trusted partner would ultimately have to agree to. One, the United Arab Emirates has been building its military relations with Russia and China. Just a few years ago, the Emiratis and Russia signed an agreement to develop a fifth-generation fighter jet and to purchase Russian Sukhois. Our own Department of Defense inspector general recently indicated that they may be funding the malicious Russian Wagner mercenary forces in Libya. So what is the status of and what specific efforts are we taking to address the UAE's current and future military relationship with China--where they are talking about building an airbase outside the UAE's waters, on artificial land--and Russia? There are no answers to that. Do we not deserve, if we are going to send the most sophisticated equipment in the world to the UAE, to make sure that there is a written commitment that they are going to phase out those military engagements? What specific steps and assurances are the United States taking to safeguard U.S. military technology against sophisticated espionage, and what specific commitments do we have from the Emiratis? There is no answer to that question. A trusted partner would agree to those safeguards. Three, the UAE last year transferred U.S.-origin weapons to a terrorist organization in Yemen that has a history of targeting civilians. The Emiratis have been repeatedly accused, along with others, of violating the U.N. arms embargo on Libya. Well, what assurances do we have about how and where these new sophisticated weapons would be used? There is no answer. A trusted partner would agree to those limits. Four, the long-term threat of a highly lethal arms race and the great power competition implication this could set off across the region and implications for future gulf cooperation--the Qataris have already asked for their own F-35s. Is that what is next? Saudi Arabia--well, they may say: We like the United Arab Emirates, but we can't be inferior for our own national security. What security threats would be posed when the entire region is armed with the most sophisticated weapon we have to offer? There are no satisfactory answers, if any, to these questions. What guarantees do we have that these weapons will not be used against the United States or Israel's national security in the future? How will that be determined? What might Israel need in the future to secure its qualitative military edge? There is no clear answer to that. What specific military threat have the Emiratis articulated that they need the F-35s to address right now? If they have specific needs, then we need to know that because if these aren't going to come online for some time, maybe their needs are more consequential and they need to be dealt with in a different way. How might the Iranians react to the increase of stealth fighter aircraft in their neighborhood? We have no analysis of that. Finally, the timeline. When will the letters of offer and acceptance be concluded? Why was there an initial artificial deadline? Why the rush to cut short the normal, monthslong interagency review process by the Congress and national security professionals? Why? Why? Are they trying to lock in the sale before President-Elect Biden is inaugurated, regardless of the possible cost to U.S. and Israeli national security? We have no answer to that. As I have said before, the United Arab Emirates has been an important partner for critical U.S. interests, including the fight against terrorism and in our efforts in Afghanistan. But according to the United Nations and to the Department of Defense's own inspector general, at the same time, the UAE also seems to be working against our stated interests in other areas. A trusted partner would be in collaboration and in cooperation with us. Look, I wish we could have had these discussions in more appropriate settings. That is what we normally would have done. This is, of course, not the first time the administration has subverted Congress's important oversight role in arms sales. Last May, the administration notified more than $8 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It cited a bogus ``immediate'' threat from Iran, despite the fact that most of the sales, like these F-35s, would take years--years--to reach their intended recipients. So, colleagues, at the end of the day, we must assert our congressional prerogative, not for the sake of prerogative in and of itself but to safeguard the U.S. national security interests that we are all collectively and individually entrusted to do. We must demand answers to the very serious and very reasonable questions many have of this sale. Perhaps with due diligence, we will find that this sale will indeed bolster U.S. national security, but right now, the truth is, we do not have clarity on that most fundamental question. Colleagues, do you really want a sale of this magnitude to go through without the appropriate vetting measures? Voting against these resolutions sends a message to the executive branch--I don't care who is sitting there; the present occupant, a future occupant--whoever is sitting in the White House, that we are willing to give up our congressional responsibilities. It is hard to bring that back once you let it go. It says that we will not stop arms sales in the future that have not gone through the appropriate review process. For that reason, I urge all of our colleagues to support these resolutions of disapproval so that we may have more time to assess for ourselves the nuances of these sales and the repercussions they may have in the region for decades to come, to ensure technology transfer doesn't take place, and to ensure that the national security interests of the United States are preserved. I urge you to support these resolutions to stand up for those propositions. Both are critical to protecting U.S. national security interests. Vote on Motion to Discharge--S.J. Res. 77 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all debate time on S.J. Res. 77 and S.J. Res. 78 be yielded back.

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

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I am asking our colleagues to stand up for two very important principles. One is the congressional oversight over arms sales abroad and, secondly, to ensure that these sales, in fact, promote and protect the long-term national security of the United States. Colleagues, I wish we didn't find ourselves in the position of having to discuss our concerns with this sale in this kind of forum. The United Arab Emirates has, indeed, been an important partner in the fight against terrorism and across the region and, I believe, will continue to do so. However, a sale of this magnitude requires the appropriate due diligence. For the past few decades, the executive branch has respected the congressional oversight of the arms sales process, a critical piece of which is an informal review period during which we get answers to pressing questions. We have an opportunity to review sensitive information so that, when sales come up for the formal notification, which is what we have before us now, we have a clearer path forward. Unfortunately, in this case, the Trump administration decided to simply ignore congressional rights here and the review process, formally notifying the sales of these complex weapons systems, along with other weaponry, totaling $23 billion. Beyond obliterating the congressional review process, the administration also seems to have rushed through the interagency review of a sale of this magnitude. Whereas, a sale of this scope would normally merit months and months of detailed deliberations between the Departments of Defense and State, this sale was announced with more missing than a few dotted i's and crossed t's. I will go into more detail later before we vote, but the bottom line is that there are many outstanding issues that are critical to U.S. national security that have not been addressed, including, by way of example, the United Arab Emirates' present and future military relationships with Russia and China. My understanding is that there are negotiations to have with China regarding an airstrip for the Chinese military off of the UAE. Is that in the national interest and security of the United States? Should we not have a definitive commitment from the UAE that it will not move forward if these arms sales move forward, including with the most sophisticated stealth jet fighter that we have? How do we work to safeguard U.S. technology? the guarantees we will have in place about how U.S.-origin weapons will be used given the Emirates' history of transferring weapons to a terrorist organization and violating the U.N. arms embargo in Libya? the longer term implications of an arms race in the region? and then, yes, the impact that it could have on both our and Israel's qualitative military edge? If we aren't going to be willing to ask these questions, then we have to think about the magnitude of the sale without caring about the consequences. I have heard a number of my colleagues advocate in support of these sales because they believe it will help our like-minded partners better posture against Iran. Now, no one is more clear-eyed in this Chamber or has pursued Iran and its threat of nuclear weapons more than I, and we are clear-eyed about the threat Iran continues to pose to national security interests, but we have yet to understand exactly what military threat the F-35s or armed drones will be addressing vis-a-vis Iran. Furthermore, according to the Trump administration, as recently as last year, the UAE continued to host a number of companies that facilitated Iranian financial transactions in violation of various U.S. sanctions. So Iran is a threat, but you are helping it facilitate U.S. financial transactions. It is not that I have said so but that the Trump administration has said so. Meanwhile, over the past year, Iran has ramped up its nuclear capabilities amidst American diplomatic fallout. So, if we really want to talk about countering Iran, we need a comprehensive, diplomatic strategy. Arming partners with complex weapons systems that could take years to come online is not a serious strategy with which to confront the very real and timely threats from Iran. I have also heard some of our colleagues argue that, if we do not sell these weapons, the UAE will turn to China and Russia. Well, let's be clear: They already do. They already do. Our own Department of Defense's inspector general recently reported that the UAE may be funding the Russian mercenary Wagner Group in Libya. U.N. reporting implicates the UAE's use of Chinese-manufactured drones, in violation of the U.N. arms embargo, also in Libya. So, while I absolutely agree that we have to counter Chinese and Russian influence in the region, again, this requires a real strategy, not simply more arms. Isn't this a conversation and a commitment that we should get in writing from the UAE as part of such an arms sale? We don't have that. Furthermore, if we go forward with these sales, yet deny similar requests to countries like Qatar or Saudi Arabia, where will they go for their advanced weaponry to keep pace, and what reaction will Iran have to them? Do we really think we can sell this just to the UAE and not have those other countries come knocking on our door, starting a very sophisticated arms race in a tinder box of the world? Finally, let me be very clear: I applaud the Abraham accords as a historical turning point for Israel and the Arab world. These new, formal relationships have the possibility of transforming the region much more broadly and bringing peace, stability, and prosperity to people who desperately want and deserve it. Yet, as the administration and the Emirates have continued to stress, these sales are neither a reward nor are they part of these accords. So why can't we take a little more time to really assess the best way forward? We are in the midst of promoting a sale--this is the administration--that has some of the most significant transfers of advanced U.S. technology without clarity of a number of key details regarding the sale or sufficient answers to critical national security questions. This is far more than about congressional prerogative, although I would argue that it is a critical element of our policies on arms sales; this is about national security concerns to which we should have an answer before those arms sales move forward. Again, colleagues, the bottom line is this: There are far too many outstanding questions and very serious questions about long-term U.S. national security interests. Perhaps, after considerable engagement with the executive, we would assess that all of these sales do, in fact, advance our national security. Given the length of time it will take for the delivery of these systems, it would seem quite reasonable to expect to have 40 days to evaluate these questions. So I urge my colleagues to stand up for Congress's role in the process of determining arms sales as well as for having clear answers to the critical questions that are posed to long-term U.S. national security interests. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration of S.J. Res. 77, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and services.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today on Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, veterans and their families will participate in remembrance events at the Pearl Harbor National Memorial. The attack on December 7, 1941, killed 2,403 and injured 1,178. This date of infamy as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt described it, was one of America's most consequential. It launched the United States into World War II and unleashed the courage, bravery, and resolve of thousands of servicemembers who changed the course of history. In Europe and Asia, they crushed the forces of fascism, Nazism, and oppression and brought freedom to much of the world. The price they paid was immense. Many made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Those who returned built the world we know today. We call them the Greatest Generation. Now in the twilight of their lives, we have a chance to say, thank you, once more. I have introduced S. 3812, the WWII Veterans Hospital and Medical Eligibility Act, and I am pleased to have the bipartisan support of Senators Cramer, Daines, Booker, Tester, Coons, Collins, Young, Rubio, Sinema, Rounds, Wicker, Hassan, and Klobuchar, and Tillis. In 1996, the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Act opened the VA healthcare system to all veterans of the Spanish-American War and World War I. My bill will provide the same benefits for World War II veterans. It will exempt World War II veterans who are not enrolled in VA healthcare from means testing requirements. This is one final opportunity to honor their heroism and afford them with dignity in their final years. I have been honored to work with the American Legion on this legislation. I thank the Legion for its tireless advocacy on behalf of our Nation's veterans. On October 31, 2019, the American Legion National Commander, Bill Oxford called on the Veterans Administration to expand the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Act of 1996 for World War II veterans. This bill does just that. As we reflect on National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, it is time for us to answer the call and provide VA healthcare to all those who answered the call of our Nation during its hour of need in World War II.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to call upon the administration to take urgent diplomatic action to address the escalating conflict in Ethiopia, a country in the midst of what many in the international community, including myself, had hoped would be a historic political transition to democracy. Instead the country is sliding into civil war. Unless the international community acts quickly to forestall further violence, I fear that bloody and protracted conflict is unavoidable. Ethiopians have long aspired to participate in a democratic system of government. For years, their leaders let them down, but in 2018, things appeared to change when in response to peaceful popular protests centered in Ethiopia's Oromo and Amhara regions, Ethiopia's ruling party elevated Abiy Ahmed to Prime Minister. Prime Minister Abiy undertook dramatic political reform in the first year of his administration, releasing thousands of political prisoners, inviting exiled opposition groups back home, and allowing the press to freely operate. Repressive laws like the Charities and Societies and Anti- Terrorism proclamations, which had long been used to stifle political dissent, were revised and replaced. The new government committed itself to free and fair elections and, for the first time in Ethiopia's history, introduced a gender-balanced Cabinet. Many Ethiopians and much of the international community rightly celebrated these achievements and looked to further democratic progress. Abiy himself was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019. Yet transitions from autocratic rule to democracy are rarely seamless, and Ethiopia's transition is no exception. The journey to democracy has been beset by the proliferation of ethnically motivated violence across the country. In 2018, IOM reported that Ethiopia recorded the third highest number of new ID P's anywhere in the world, fueled by ethnic violence and displacement in Gedeo and West Guji zones, and violence has continued. In June 2019, rogue regional security forces assassinated the president of Amhara region and the head of the Ethiopian National Defense Forces, and in June 2020, the murder of popular Oromo singer Hachalu Hundessa triggered violence that killed at least 239 people. Sadly, Ethiopians of all ethnic and religious backgrounds have been victims of this endless cycle of senseless violence. To be clear, there are some who have taken advantage of new-found freedoms to threaten or use violence to achieve political ends, engage in hate speech, and incite broader conflict. Such behavior is inconsistent with democratic practice and has further exacerbated the country's ethnic and political divisions in a profoundly damaging way. Ethiopian authorities have a responsibility to protect their citizens by holding the perpetrators and purveyors of such actions accountable through a transparent, credible legal process. Yet the government's response to these challenges has only complicated matters. In May 2020, a report from Amnesty International chronicled a long list of abuses committed by Ethiopia's security forces since the transition began, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and arbitrary arrest. The government has engaged in a troubling crackdown on political opposition, media organizations, and civil society, particularly in the wake of Hachalu Hundessa's death. There are growing fears that state institutions are being leveraged by the ruling party to unfairly consolidate the current government's power, including through weaponizing law enforcement and the judicial process to attack government critics. Under these conditions, it is unlikely that Ethiopia's next general elections can be anything approaching credible, exacerbating an already volatile political situation. Against the backdrop of a transition in jeopardy, violence between the federal government and political leaders of the Tigray region is escalating. Reports suggest that hundreds have already died in clashes between government and regional forces. I am particularly horrified by evidence of a civilian massacre in Mai-Kadra. I condemn this act and all attacks on civilians in the strongest term, and call for a thorough and transparent investigation by a credible, neutral, independent body. Those who attack civilians must be held accountable in accordance with the rule of law. I am also concerned by reports of civilian deaths as a result of federal government airstrikes, mass displacement, and discrimination and arrests based on ethnic profiling. Authorities in Tigray have confirmed that their forces fired rockets into the capital of a neighboring country, Eritrea. These rocket attacks constitute a significant escalation, are counterproductive, and should cease. They further underscore fears that the conflict will expand beyond Ethiopia's borders. If left to continue, the conflict in Tigray will not only lead to a catastrophic loss of life and worsening humanitarian conditions, but will breed further enmity that will derail Ethiopia's democratic progress and destabilize the entire subregion. We cannot afford to let that happen. Ethiopia is the second most populous African country, home to the African Union, and one of the world's top contributors to UN peacekeeping missions a tradition that dates back to the Korean war. It has been a pillar of U.S. engagement in the Horn of Africa for decades, partnering with the U.S. on counterterrorism and with the U.S. and international community to stabilize protracted conflicts in neighboring Somalia and South Sudan. The Ethiopian people need peace, not war; and the world needs a stable, democratic and prosperous Ethiopia. I urge the federal government and the leaders of Tigray region to choose the path of peace. While it is tempting to assign blame for the outbreak of hostilities, our collective focus must be on how to restore order. Make no mistake, a full accounting must take place. Right now, however, both sides must agree to an immediate ceasefire and begin a sustained dialogue to settle political differences. I also call on Prime Minister Abiy to take a series of actions to facilitate a successful democratic transition. First, barring immediate and incontrovertible evidence of serious crimes, he should release all members of the political opposition. Their continued detention is unacceptable, and I am troubled by reports that their judicial proceedings are being politicized. Second, media and digital rights must be respected. Arresting journalists and imposing internet blackouts harkens back to the dark days of the previous regime. Mr. Prime Minister, such practices must end. You and your colleagues have taken bold action to chart a new course for the country, and I urge you to continue along the difficult path of reform. Third, the Prime Minister should empower an independent and impartial body to investigate and ascertain responsibility for past acts of violence beyond those related to current hostilities in Tigray. Finally, I call on the Prime Minister to engage in an inclusive dialogue with relevant stakeholders in advance of elections to ensure there is a level playing field and buy-in to the electoral process from all stakeholders. Although resolving the current crisis requires Ethiopian commitment and action, the United States, along with others in the international community, have a critical role to play. I therefore urge the administration to do the following: Lead international diplomatic efforts-the administration must reach out to multilateral institutions, allies and partners in the region, the Gulf, and elsewhere to ensure unity around a single message to the federal government and officials in Tigray, there is no military solution to the conflict between the federal government and the Tigray People's Liberation Front. Dialogue is the only path forward. A joint delegation should demarche the Prime Minister with this message and reach out to leaders in Tigray with the same. Increase support for Ethiopia's democratic transition--the administration should redouble its efforts to support the transition by providing the Embassy and USAID mission with more staff to provide increased monitoring in the areas of democracy and human rights and increased technical assistance in the area of election administration. Funding for grassroots conflict mitigation and reconciliation is critical given ongoing tensions. The United States must also engage all Ethiopian stakeholders, including traditionally marginalized populations, without favor or bias, with the goal of encouraging dialogue between the country's rival political forces. Political disagreements must be settled through peaceful means. Take an informed, organized, and holistic approach. Civil war in Ethiopia will destabilize the Horn of Africa and has implications for U.S. geostrategic interests in the Horn of Africa and Red Sea corridor writ large. It is critical that the U.S. approach diplomatic engagement in a holistic manner, recognizing the potential ripple effects of prolonged conflict. Negotiations between Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt relative to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam--GERD--are only one example of how the conflict could impact stability in the subregion. Progress on the GERD talks is highly unlikely in the face of civil war, since Ethiopia is likely to remain focused on its domestic problems. Unfortunately, the U.S. approach is currently fractured. The administration has engaged in GERD negotiations as though they are unfolding in a vacuum, divorced from our interests in a strong bilateral partnership with Ethiopia and absent a broader strategy for the Horn of Africa and Red Sea corridor. Even in the parochial context in which we have engaged in GERD negotiations, the administration's actions have, quite frankly, been unhelpful. Having Treasury Department lead the talks was never wise. Treasury lacks the deep regional knowledge and expertise to lead such sensitive negotiations, and there is no evidence that its actions were developed as part of an interagency strategy or policy approach informed by such expertise. It is imperative that a sound strategy be developed and that the State Department take the lead on an integrated diplomatic approach to both the country and the subregion. Ethiopia faces historic challenges. These challenges can only be met through diplomacy, dialogue, and compromise. The country has a once in a generation opportunity that we must not let slip away. I urge the administration to act while there is still time.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor today in solidarity with ethnic Armenians all over the world who have experienced terrible losses in recent weeks. This is a tragic moment for Armenians everywhere. Words cannot describe the devastation inflicted on the region by Azerbaijani President Aliyev with the full support of President Erdogan of Turkey. Thousands of ethnic Armenian civilians and soldiers have lost their lives due to Azerbaijan's aggression, with an unknown number more injured. More than half of the population has been driven from their longtime homes. Every day, more are forced to leave. Every day, more are forced to leave. Azerbaijan's aggression has created a massive humanitarian crisis that will require a significant response, especially in light of the worsening pandemic. The historically and religiously significant city of Shushi now sits in Azerbaijani hands, and the security of many sacred Christian sites falls to President Aliyev and his backer Erdogan. The world will be watching if these holy sites are desecrated. These are dark days, indeed, and it did not have to be this way. American leadership could have averted much of this tragedy. Unfortunately, after the conflict began in late September, the highest ranking Trump administration officials decided to remain largely absent and silent. Certainly, other world leaders engaged. President Macron made calls and actively tried to reduce tensions, as one would expect from one of the leaders of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Minsk Group cochair country. Unfortunately, others with less noble goals were also at the table. President Erdogan fueled Azerbaijan's aggression, fanning the flames by providing devastating drone technology and Syrian mercenaries. President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov worked the phones from the early days of the conflict. The result? Russia has a new foothold in the southern Caucasus. Evidently, Russia was never fully committed to the Minsk goals and now has what they wanted since the 1990s. All of this happened while Donald Trump slept--yet another example of diplomatic malpractice at the highest levels of an administration which will, thankfully, conclude in January. President Trump's departure is little solace for the ethnic Armenians who have been driven from their homes and seen their livelihoods go up in flames. So what is the region left with at the end of the day? The security of the Armenian people, who have already suffered brutal violence at the hands of Presidents Aliyev and Erdogan, now rests with peacekeepers sent by Vladimir Putin--a flawed agreement that does nothing about the jihadis sent there by Turkey, who, if allowed to remain, could commit further atrocities against Christian Armenians. Without any commitments to the status of Artsakh, there is no incentive for Azerbaijan to make peace with Armenia. Will we see another case of ethnic cleansing in the future? Do we sit silent? We now have a trio of authoritarians running the show in the southern Caucasus. It should alarm anyone dedicated to a peaceful solution for this long-outstanding conflict. It should alarm anyone dedicated to democratic reform in the region. It should alarm anyone concerned about basic human rights and respect for international law. We in the United States should be concerned about national security issues that would affect us in the Caucasus. So, my colleagues, we are witnessing the return of great power politics in this critical region. Yet the world's sole superpower is conspicuously absent. This needs to change. First and most urgently, the United States must lead a response to the humanitarian needs created by this violence, particularly for the tens of thousands of ethnic Armenians forcibly displaced from their homes by the 6-week war. Winter is fast approaching. The COVID-19 pandemic is raging. There is no time to waste. Congress and the Trump administration must act quickly to save these families. The United States must make a substantial investment in humanitarian and development assistance, along the lines of $100 million, to make a difference for those on the ground. This includes funding for efforts to demine the affected area. In April, I sent a letter cosigned by 30 other Senators calling for the Senate to appropriate $1.5 million in fiscal year 2021 funds for demining, robust funding for rehabilitation services in Nagorno- Karabakh, and money for an independent assessment of remaining mine contamination to help inform future efforts. Given the widespread use by Azerbaijan of cluster munitions, rockets, and other such weapons in this conflict, I again urge this body to include those provisions in the final appropriations bill. Second, the United States must immediately--immediately--suspend the provision of defense articles to Turkey and Azerbaijan. We cannot and must not enable any future atrocities by either of those authoritarian countries. Either we had a tremendous intelligence failure or the State Department lied when it issued the waiver to section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act. Either way, we should be gravely concerned about reports that Azerbaijan has utilized U.S.-origin defense equipment in this conflict. The administration must fully investigate these reports and respond appropriately to any violations of U.S. law. Indeed, Canada suspended arms sales to Turkey in response to the conflict for this very reason, and I applaud Prime Minister Trudeau for doing so. The United States must do the same and work diplomatically to encourage others to join us in common cause. To that end, I have introduced two resolutions that will require the State Department to report on human rights abuses by Azerbaijan and Turkey and on the role that U.S. security assistance and arms transfers may be playing in those abuses. I urge my colleagues to support those resolutions. Third, the administration must follow the law. It should not waive section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act, which states that Azerbaijan should ``cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force'' against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh as a condition to receive U.S. assistance. The facts tell us that the Government of Azerbaijan has done the exact opposite. America has no business rewarding this kind of aggressive behavior. I call on the administration to terminate the waiver of section 907. Congress can also address this injustice in the fiscal year 2021 appropriations bill by stripping the existing waiver authority so that this security relationship stops. It needs to stop, once and for all. In addition, at my request, the Government Accountability Office is currently reviewing the impact of U.S. security assistance to Azerbaijan, which has skyrocketed under the Trump administration. The Pentagon alone has provided more than $120 million in equipment to the Aliyev regime in recent years. This is simply unacceptable and must change. The GAO review will shed light on the impact of the repeated waivers of section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act. Fourth and finally, Turkey's aggression in this conflict must be addressed. President Erdogan clearly aspires to be a modern-day Ottoman Sultan, putting down stakes in Libya, in Syria, across the Eastern Mediterranean, and now in the southern Caucasus. Under Erdogan, Turkey has engaged in unbridled aggression outside of its borders, in violation of NATO's founding principles and international norms. Here is what we know: This Turkey is proving to be an unreliable ally in NATO. It is not a democracy, and it is not a responsible actor on the world stage. The aggression unfolding in Azerbaijan should make crystal clear what we have long known: Erdogan is, without a doubt, trying to claim the title of most destructive actor in the region today. Without a strong response, he will continue these advances and aggression. I urge the incoming Biden administration to stop him, and Congress has a role to play as well. We must finally sanction Turkey for its purchase of the S-400 from Russia, which is a clear violation of the CAATSA law. I expect that the fiscal year 2021 NDAA will take this long overdue step and result in S-400 sanctions on Turkey. I would also urge the incoming Biden administration to reassert American leadership in the region. The United States must join with Europe in solidarity against Turkey's violations of the sovereignty of Greece and Cyprus, which destabilize the Eastern Mediterranean region. Sanctions against those conducting illegal exploration activities on behalf of Turkey would be a strong show of support for our European allies, not to mention for the rule of law. Indeed, I have every confidence that President-Elect Biden and his team will live up to America's responsibilities on the world stage by actually engaging on all of these issues. And though the OSCE Minsk Group process appears to be on life support, we can and must reinvigorate it with senior-level engagement. We must send a clear message to Ankara, Baku, and Moscow that violence as a means to solve the conflict will not succeed and pressure on Armenia from its eastern and western borders will not be tolerated. I would like to close with this. Above the road between Yerevan and Stepanakert lies the ancient monastery of Dadivank. Father Hovhannes, a priest at the monastery, has vowed to stay even though the area has fallen under Azerbaijani control. His neighbors have mostly fled, on their way to Yerevan, displaced by weeks of horrific fighting. The courage of Father Hovhannes is hard for most of us to understand, to even comprehend. It comes from a place of deep connection to the land, deep connection to one's culture, and deep connection to one's faith. The world will be watching as to what happens to Father Hovhannes and the ancient monastery of Dadivank. A neighbor of Father Hovhannes who also committed to stay in the area said: We are here to stay until the end. This is our God. It's our church. Our cross bears a heavy weight. We are here to carry that weight. Throughout this war, Armenians across the region have carried that weight under relentless assault from Azerbaijan and Turkey. The Trump administration let them down. The horror of recent weeks will be very difficult to undo, but we must start the work. Yes, we must start the work. By taking the steps I have described here tonight, we can begin a new chapter of U.S. policy in the region and right past wrongs. And I am committed, as I have always been, alongside the Armenian-American community in New Jersey and across our country, to see this just work through to the end. With that, I yield the floor.