Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the confirmation of Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court. We should not be holding this vote. We are in the eleventh hour of a Presidential election, and 56 million Americans have already voted. The American people are sending a message, and we ought to hear what they have to say. Instead, what is happening in the Senate is an obscene power grab by my Republican colleagues to bypass democracy and force the least popular and most extreme views of their party onto the American people with no regard for the life-and-death consequences of their actions. So, my friends in the majority, you had a decade to create an alternative to the Affordable Care Act. You still have no viable plan. And after failing to repeal it in 2017 and suffering an unprecedented electoral rebuke in 2018, you are relying on the Supreme Court to do your dirty work. Oral arguments in California v. Texas, the legal challenge brought by Republican-led States with the Trump administration's support are on the Court's docket November 10. We know full well that a 6-to-3 conservative majority of the Supreme Court is likely to overturn it or maybe just gut the ACA so deeply it will effectively be dead, as if that is somehow any better. At least 20 million people are at risk of losing their healthcare coverage, and 135 million may lose protections for preexisting conditions. The fact that you are even willing to roll the dice with their healthcare in the middle of a global pandemic that has already affected more than 8 million Americans and killed over 224,000 of your countrymen is reckless and cruel. Don't you see you are playing with fire? And you don't seem to care that hundreds of millions of Americans, Americans you represent, are going to get burned. It is not as if you aren't hearing from people in your States who fear a future without access to healthcare; it is that you are not listening. Yesterday, I spent some time with New Jerseyans for whom the Affordable Care Act--in their words, not mine--is a matter of life or death. For several of them, going without quality healthcare coverage is, in their words, a death sentence. I wonder how many of you would have the courage to listen to their stories, look them in the eye, and tell them you have no plan to protect their care. I suspect not many. So I am going to share just a few of their stories. Stephanie Vigario is a 31-year-old essential worker, a pharmacy technician from Newark, NJ, who caught COVID-19. She spent 2 months--2 months--fighting for her life in a hospital, including 35 days on a ventilator. By the grace of God, she survived, but her life may never be the same. Even after all the intensive rehabilitation she went through, she is still working on her recovery. There are hundreds of thousands of COVID-19 survivors like her grappling with the long-term health consequences of a disease we don't yet fully understand--organ tissue damage, weakness and fatigue, chronic shortness of breath. These Americans now have a preexisting condition. Without the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies could once again begin pricing them out of coverage or denying it altogether. I also had the privilege of speaking with Scott Chesney of Verona, NJ. Scott is a married father of two who at the tender age of 15 was paralyzed from the waist down. He faces a lifetime of expensive medical needs. To quote him: Aging with a disability--a preexisting condition--is tough. Your body breaks down. Thankfully, my wife has health insurance because if I don't get the medications and therapy I need, I don't live. But without the Affordable Care Act, Scott will likely face annual caps and lifetime limits on his healthcare. Paying out of pocket for his care would likely lead to medical bankruptcy, and that burden weighs heavily on him every day as he thinks of his wife and children's future, as well as his own. Finally, I want to share the story of Daria Caldwell of Flemington, NJ, because her situation really speaks to the challenges that so many of our constituents across the Nation are going through right now. Daria lost her job and her health insurance as a result of the economic fallout of this pandemic, and this happened at the very time she was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a treatable but incurable type of blood cancer. Daria is 62 years old. She is not old enough to enroll in Medicare. She is paying for COBRA right now, but it will soon run out, and she will need to find new coverage. Before the Affordable Care Act, someone like Daria, with expensive preexisting conditions, would basically be blacklisted from the individual health insurance market. An insurer would take one look at her medical history, and the fact that some of her cancer drugs, like Revlimid, cost hundreds of thousands dollars a month, and they would simply turn her away. She said: Dissolving the ACA would cost me my life. She says: That sounds dramatic because it is. I don't want to die, but I feel like a price tag has been put on my head and the constant threat is beyond anything I thought I would ever have to endure. It's nearly as devastating as the diagnosis itself. Now, I am not telling this body these stories just to pull at your heartstrings, though, believe me, listening to these men and women as I did yesterday moved me beyond tears. I am sharing their stories, their incredibly personal struggles, to remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that to the American people this is not ideological. This is not abstract. It is personal. These are matters of life and death. Of course, the Affordable Care Act isn't the only issue at stake here. The very reason we are here considering a Supreme Court nominee in the final days of a Presidential election is, I believe, because my Republican colleagues fear the will of the American people. The number of Americans who support the most far-right positions of the Republican Party is shrinking, and so stacking the Supreme Court is their only path to advancing their unpopular agenda, and they know it. They know that most Americans--nearly 80 percent according to the last decade of Gallup polling--oppose criminalizing abortion. The overwhelming majority believe in the right of a woman to decide when she has children, and they know it is none of the government's damn business. They know that most Americans support action on climate change and limits on how much poisonous pollutants companies can pump into the air. They know that most Americans, including responsible gun owners, support lifesaving background checks and tougher gun safety laws. And they know that most Americans believe that their LGBTQ sons and daughters and friends and neighbors should be able to marry the people they love and live their lives free of discrimination. My colleagues seem to have forgotten that as elected representatives of the American people, they are supposed to reflect the will of the American people. And guess what. The will of the people changes. This isn't the 1950s anymore. But rather than adjust your sails to the winds of change, rather than meet the American people where they are on issues of life and death, you would instead prefer to sink the whole ship. Those of my colleagues who know me know that I try to see the best of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I really do. I pride myself on my working relationships with so many of you, and some of you, I even consider dear friends. But I was stunned--just stunned--by the hypocrisy. Where are your principles? When you blocked Merrick Garland's nomination, you didn't say it was because President Obama was a Democrat and the Senate was held by Republicans. You said very clearly at the time it was because a Supreme Court vacancy should not--not--be filled during a Presidential election year. You said the American people should have a voice. Now, it is clear you didn't even believe the words you were saying at that time. You were determined to deprive a democratically elected two-term President of his constitutional prerogative in order to fundamentally alter the makeup of the Supreme Court. You did it in order to tip the scales of justice against women, workers, voters, LGBTQ Americans, patients, consumers, and immigrants for generations to come. Judge Barrett is the culmination of a 30-year fever dreamed up and cooked up by the Federalist Society and its corporate benefit factors. They will finally have enough Justices to do their bidding, and the American people are the ones who will have to deal with the real-world consequences of this shameless hypocrisy. We have to remember what this is all about. This is about the right of an LGBTQ American to be by the bedside of their loved one as they take their last breath. This is about the ability of a rape or incest survivor to terminate an unwanted pregnancy without government intrusion. This is about the ability of a cancer patient to afford her treatment and a baby with a heart defect to get treated without a lifetime limit within weeks of being born. So I am urging you--no, I am pleading with you--to think long and hard about the consequences of your actions for both the American future and for the future comity of this body. You have twisted and distorted every rule and broken every norm to get your way just because you currently have the power to do so. That does not make it right. You are poisoning the well of the Senate and flooding our Nation with bad blood, and you have revealed yourselves to be so fearful of the democratic will of the American people that you will confirm a Justice to the Supreme Court whose views are far outside the mainstream just days before the conclusion of the Presidential election. I urge you not to go through with this vote. This is a craven abuse of power that will ultimately inflict great harm on the American people. History--history--is not going to forget it. And I think someday--probably sooner than you think--you are likely to regret it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today, I rise to urge my colleagues to take a stand for civil rights and basic financial fairness and join us in defense of the Community Reinvestment Act. I appreciate my distinguished colleagues from Delaware and the ranking Democrat on the Banking Committee, Senator Brown, for their remarks. For more than four decades now, this core civil rights law has helped ensure that banks that do business in our low- and moderate-income communities actually invest--invest--in those communities. Before the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, as it is called, banks often avoided lending to customers and businesses in the lower income neighborhoods where they opened branches. This practice was known as redlining because, back then, banks would draw literal red lines around the communities that they did not want to lend money to. Not surprisingly, the communities that were redlined were African American, Latino, and low-income communities. In essence, they were content to take the deposits from low- and moderate-income families, people of color, small businesses, and farms, but then they turned around and denied those very customers mortgages, loans, and other lines of credit. The Community Reinvestment Act was enacted to put an end to that redlining and spur greater investment in our minority communities and lower income neighborhoods. But even today, we are still grappling with the socioeconomic and racial consequences of this systemic financial discrimination. Many of our most impoverished neighborhoods are the same neighborhoods that were redlined decades ago. It is one of the reasons that the generational wealth of Black and Brown Americans remains drastically lesser than those of their White counterparts. That is why we have to reject the Trump administration's proposed rule changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's--the OCC--CRA new rule would result in significantly fewer loans, investments, and services to low- and moderate-income communities, and it would permit banks to avoid businesses and investments in these neighborhoods. In essence, it would lead to a new form of modern-day redlining, all with the Federal Government's blessing. It is no wonder why civil rights groups, including the NAACP and the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights, have fought so hard against this rule. They do not want banks to be given the green light to discriminate against minority and low-income consumers. Make no mistake--industry stakeholders and regulators are just as divided over the Trump administration's actions. That is why, in fact, neither the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation nor the Federal Reserve has joined in this effort. Neither of them has joined in this effort. That is why I urge our colleagues to do the right thing and repeal this harmful new CRA rule. In a year where the entrenched racial and economic disparities that have long plagued our Nation have been exacerbated and on full display, the last thing we need to do is to steer money away from Black and Brown families, homeowners, consumers, and businesses. As a matter of fact, in the midst of this pandemic, we can see the consequences to those communities that are often at the frontline of mortgage foreclosure and losing their homes. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this new CRA rule. This is about protecting civil rights. This is about protecting economic opportunity for all. And this is about continuing to do the hard work of reversing the discrimination, the financial disparities, and the socioeconomic injustices that have plagued our Nation for far too long. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the New York Times' latest reporting tells us everything we need to know about why President Trump has worked so hard to conceal his tax returns from the American people. The President is a liar, a cheat, and a fraud. For years he marketed himself as a self-made, successful businessman, but it is all an illusion. Like the Wizard of Oz, behind the curtain is just a small, petty fraud. He made millions playing a billionaire businessman on TV, but in real life, Donald Trump was racking up huge losses in debts that he then used to get out of paying his fair share of Federal taxes. Call it tax avoidance. Call it tax evasion. Call it whatever you want. The bottom line is that Trump is no business genius. He is a con artist who thinks that the rules don't apply to him. The President managed to avoid paying any Federal income tax for 11 of 18 years, from 2000 to 2017, and then only paid $750 in 2016 and 2017. When I first read that in the New York Times, I thought there must have been a typo. Surely there were zeros missing. I was wrong. The page read right. Our self-proclaimed billionaire President paid just $750 in Federal income taxes--$750. That is a heck of a lot less than what essential workers supporting America throughout this pandemic pay in taxes, like the grocery clerk in Newark, NJ, who makes $11 an hour but owes about $1,060 in Federal taxes--$300 more than Donald Trump. How about the nurse in Hackensack, NJ, working nights to save patients with COVID-19, making $60,000 a year. She owes about $6,200 in Federal income taxes--more than eight times what the President paid. Most people would agree that is a problem with our economy. Americans are working harder than ever for less. They are drowning in skyrocketing healthcare, housing, childcare, and tuition bills. At the end of the day, many middle-class New Jersey families still find themselves owing money to Uncle Sam. Meanwhile, for rich people like Donald Trump, the tax rate is the lowest it has been in decades, and you can write off fancy haircuts and consulting fees paid to your own daughter and all the losses you racked up running your business into the ground. I have to say, this is no surprise to most New Jerseyans. We watched in horror as Donald Trump ran his Atlantic City casinos into the ground, scamming hard-working contractors out of their pay and costing the local economy thousands of jobs. Donald Trump was like a reverse King Midas--everything he touched went bankrupt. Then after his string of bankruptcies and broken promises to workers, Trump turned around and got a $72.9 million bailout from the IRS--you heard me right, a $72.9 million bailout from the IRS. Most people I know think it is a good year when they get $400 or $500 back from the Federal Government; this scam artist got off with $72.9 million. Yet Donald Trump isn't swimming in cash; he is drowning in debt. The President is on the hook for approximately $421 million in loans, more than $300 million of that coming due in the next 4 years. To get out of the debt, the President is doing everything he can to profit off the Presidency. Over the last 4 years, he has continued to make money off foreign investments, rake in cash from special interests and foreign officials at his Washington hotel, and charge the Federal Government millions for the use of his properties. He could go anywhere. He could go to Camp David. No. He goes to his properties, where millions--Secret Service and other entities protect the President and help the President whenever he leaves Washington. But he is always at his properties. In spite of all this revenue, Trump is still badly in debt. It is no surprise that intelligence experts are concerned about who is holding it. They worry about the President's personal exposure to foreign creditors and what that might mean for national security. Anyone else in that much debt to foreign entities would have their security clearances immediately revoked. Is this why Trump refuses to punish Putin for putting bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers? Is this why he applauds dictators like Erdogan and sells out American allies like the Kurds? Is this why he applauds dictators like Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte for doing ``an unbelievable job''? The bottom line is this: Who does Donald Trump owe those hundreds of millions of dollars to, and how much do they know about him and how deep are they into him? For years, the President has fought to keep Americans in the dark. Well, now we know why. He is a liar, a fraud, and a failed businessman so deep in the red, he is a potential national security liability. Let me close by quoting President Donald Trump in his own book, ``The Art of the Deal.'' He said: You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on. I only hope the American people are catching on. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me first say that I want to be clear that my opposition that I will announce briefly to moving this resolution by UC today is not by any means because I disagree with the assessment of China's abhorrent human rights record or the importance of the Olympics living up to the highest standards of upholding human dignity. The Olympic Charter states that the goal of Olympism is to promote ``a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.'' Beijing has not, by a long shot, earned the honor of hosting the 2022 games. Now, my record is crystal clear when it comes to calling out and condemning China's horrific record on human rights and the threat it poses to the United States and the rest of the international community. As my colleagues know, during my years in Congress, I have introduced, advocated for, and helped pass legislation on behalf of the people of Xinjiang, Tibet, Chinese civil society dissidents, a democratic and autonomous Hong Kong, and supporting democracy across the Indo-Pacific region. Just recently, I introduced a comprehensive bill to strengthen the United States across various sectors to best confront and counter China's efforts. I also recently released a report about the necessity of standing up against China's dangerous new digital authoritarianism. There is no question that under Xi Jinping, China has taken a great leap backward on human rights, establishing concentration camps in Xinjiang, and instituting a surveillance state that not even George Orwell could have imagined and crushing any thoughts and ideas that deviate from the dictates of the party. China's rise, bringing hundreds of millions out of poverty during the last century, is something the Chinese people can be justly proud of. But Xi Jinping's dystopian totalitarian vision, currently crushing the Chinese people, is one of the century's great tragedies. So I am very sympathetic to the goals of the resolution and the sponsor of the legislation. However, I believe these issues merit serious discussion in drafting of the appropriate language before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have been urging Chairman Risch to hold a legislative markup for months to discuss the many pressing pieces of legislation that Members on both sides of the aisle have had pending for many months

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I would, in response to the Senator's request, say that there is a human rights crisis much closer to home that we have discussed before the committee. We have an opportunity to address people suffering from a dictatorship who are right here in the United States, many of whom live in Senator Scott's State of Florida. For the second time in 2 weeks, I would like to call upon this body to take up legislation the House has passed that would designate Venezuelans for temporary protected status. I am asking Republicans to remember that there was a time before President Trump when our Nation stood in solidarity with victims of dictatorship. Nicolas Maduro is a dictator, plain and simple. His regime is a cruel, criminal cabal that has destroyed Venezuela. Some 200,000 Venezuelans currently live in the United States without legal status. They are unable to safely return to their homeland, and they would benefit from temporary protected status. I believe we have to do the right thing. We have to uphold American values and offer them protection. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 549 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object to this modification, on these three amendments, I respect my colleague who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. We don't always agree, but I always respectfully listen to him. This effort that I am trying to bring to the floor, in line with Senator Scott's question about human rights in China, is human rights right here in our hemisphere. The amendments that the Senator proposes seeks to basically gut the existing statute for temporary protected status, and it distracts from other issues in our immigration system as a price for providing Venezuelans with temporary protection in our country. One of these amendments is aimed at making it nearly impossible to renew TPS for foreign nationals, no matter the country or the conditions in the country. I would also note that this is at a time in which we have 131,000 with temporary protected status from other countries helping to support the Nation as essential workers. So I object to the modification, and I object to Senator Scott's motion.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Florida. Let me just say, first, that we don't even need legislation for Venezuelans to get TPS. Let's not lose sight of that. President Trump, with a stroke of his pen, could give temporary-- temporary--protected status to the 200,000 Venezuelans who have fled the Maduro regime--a regime that President Trump himself has signaled out in every possible way as a regime that undermines the human rights of its people and that attacks them. So we don't even need legislation. The only reason the House of Representatives, with Democratic majorities, passed legislation is to try to instigate the President to go ahead and give TPS to Venezuelans. Unfortunately, every time Senator Scott has come to offer what he calls a reform of TPS, it is really basically the death of TPS. I don't know why we have to deny those who presently have TPS and whose country's status may not have changed--slaying their status in order to give it to Venezuelans. I am not that Solomonic. So that is why there has been an objection. Again, I remind us that we don't even need legislation. President Trump, with a stroke of his pen, could declare TPS for Venezuelans. That is the first thing. The second thing is, I would urge my colleagues and all my Republican colleagues--by the way, I know that you all know this, but just to remind us, you are in the majority. Chairman Risch is the chairman because there is a Republican majority. Chairman Risch gets to call when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee goes into a business meeting. So as I have said to many of my colleagues, if you want to see your legislation considered--and I certainly would agree to an agenda that includes Senator Scott's legislation--urge Senator Risch to hold a business meeting and a markup on legislation. That is the way this body is supposed to work. Otherwise, then, let's just meet here as 100 and make it the committee of the whole, where we can all opine and cast amendments on Appropriations, Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Energy and Commerce--the whole spectrum. But if the committee system is supposed to mean anything, which is the concentration of those who have dedicated their time to be on that committee and who have insights for which legislation passes through, then it has to hold meetings and markups to consider legislation. So it is not that you have to urge us; you have to urge your colleague, the chairman, to hold markups to consider your legislation. I am sure that with some modifications, I would be one of those who would support your legislation in committee. But we cannot have everybody bypass the committee, come to the floor, and think that is the way things are going to operate. Yes, there are some things we would love to see in a timely fashion. From the reading of several motions the majority leader made for nominations, it sounds like we are going to be here next week. Well, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee could call a business markup for next week. We could get your resolution on; we could get it passed; and then we could get it to the floor. Why not? Why not? Then, the last thing: I don't know what the Senator is referring to in terms of stopping moneys going to Maduro. My VERDAD Act, which became law--along with Senator Rubio and others--in essence tried to do exactly that. But I am certainly happy to join with the Senator in any efforts to continue to work on stopping any flow of money to the Maduro regime and, more importantly, to reclaim the money that has already-- the national patrimony of Venezuela that has been spent elsewhere. But let's be honest. TPS for Venezuelans could have happened already. It could have happened yesterday. It could happen today, could happen tomorrow if President Trump only wants to declare it so. I think he should. I don't think we should have to pass legislation, but that is where we are. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Has the Senator yielded the floor?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I won't stay the whole night debating my colleague, although I would enjoy that. But let me just say, No. 1, he has the power, as a colleague in the majority, to go to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and say: I really think this resolution is timely and needs to be done. We are going to be in session next week. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee can call a markup next week. For his resolution, I will give him my word that I will support asking the chairman to put his resolution on the business meeting, and, probably, with some modifications, I would support it. But he needs to ask the chairman to hold a markup, No. 1. No. 2, the reality is that the concern about TPS not being ``temporary''--well, that concern was vitiated. I don't know if it was the Ninth or Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that recently held a decision that said the President of the United States can give TPS, and he can end TPS, in his judgment. I don't necessarily agree with that judicial decision, but, nonetheless, that is, right now, the law of the land, so that concern is over. The suggestion that we have to end TPS as we know it in order to make sure that it only remains a temporary protected status--the courts have determined that. They have said that the President can give TPS and can take it away. So, as far as I learned in my civics lessons, the court is the final law of the land in interpreting what it is that the law is. Lastly, I am going to look at--I would like the gentleman to get in contact with--I don't know what legislation he keeps referring to that somehow we blocked, but before the gentleman even arrived here, I have been pursuing the Castro regime for 20-something years--since I was in the House of Representatives, passing the LIBERTAD Act and so many others--and, certainly, the Maduro regime as well. So I am happy to look at that. But let's get the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to hold a markup, and I think we can solve a lot of these problems. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, our Nation has suffered a historic loss in the passing of legal giant Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and I fear the rush to replace her with just 44 days left before the next Presidential election will have grave consequences for the lives of millions of Americans. As tempting as it is, I am not here to talk about the stunning hypocrisy of my Republican colleagues who once opposed filling any Supreme Court vacancy during a Presidential election year now changing the reasons for doing so like a willow in the wind. Well, make no mistake, their willingness to abandon their word in the naked pursuit of power and deny the American people a voice in this process is truly stunning. Today, I want to talk about the consequences of their hypocrisy, not for our process here in the Senate but, rather, for the lives and livelihoods of millions of families across this Nation. Everything Americans care about and depend on is on the line, starting first and foremost with their healthcare. President Trump has already declared that whoever his nominee is, his nominee to the Court will vote to ``terminate'' the Affordable Care Act and reverse Roe v. Wade. The Trump administration is closer than ever to tearing healthcare away from millions of people by overturning the law that gave it to them in the first place. It is especially outrageous to see the administration threaten the healthcare of millions of Americans at this perilous moment in our history--with nothing, by the way, to replace it. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, they have said they have a better plan. Well, now 11 years later or so, maybe almost 12 years, we have yet to see what that plan is. We are in the midst of a deadly, once-in-a-century pandemic. A staggering 200,000 Americans--fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers, dear friends and beloved grandparents--are gone forever. Meanwhile, millions of people nationwide are infected with the coronavirus. To this day, many survivors of COVID-19 are grappling with lasting healthcare challenges, from chronic shortness of breath to lifelong scar tissue in their lungs. We are still learning about the long-term health impacts of contracting COVID-19, but here is one thing we do know: Every single one of these survivors now has a preexisting condition that makes them vulnerable to insurance company discrimination without the protections guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. That is in addition to the estimated 135 million Americans who already live with common preexisting conditions like chronic asthma, diabetes, and high blood pressure, to mention a few. Remember what it was like before the Affordable Care Act? A health insurance company could refuse to cover you or provide your care or even kick you off your plan due to your medical history. A child born at birth with a birth defect couldn't get health insurance. The husband who had a heart attack couldn't get health insurance. A woman with cervical cancer couldn't get health insurance afterward--a preexisting condition. We don't want to go back to those days, but that is exactly where the Trump administration will take us should they prevail at the Supreme Court, as this case is pending before the Supreme Court. Now, despite what they say, the Republican mission has been clear for a decade: to kill the Affordable Care Act, to strip away healthcare from millions of Americans, all the while lying about how they will protect individuals with preexisting conditions. It is shameless. Just as dangerous is the prospect of a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade and roll back the reproductive rights of women. That is what is at stake with this Supreme Court seat--the basic principle that women have a right to make their own private medical decisions. The American people overwhelmingly believe that women, not the government, should be allowed to decide when they have children. There is no question that the right to choose is inseparable from the past half-century of progress achieved for women's equality in the United States. It is that progress that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg devoted her entire life's work to advancing--the right to pursue their own destinies with full equality under the law. It is not just healthcare that is on the line; it is our voting rights, our civil rights, workers' rights, immigrant rights, and LGBTQ rights as well. More than that, it is the right of the American people to see their elected representatives enact the kinds of policies they support, like bold action on climate change without corporate-backed challenges at the Supreme Court undoing their wishes. A Supreme Court nominee has never been confirmed this close to a Presidential election. Americans are already voting as we speak. Should my colleagues in the majority abandon all their prior commitments and deny the American people the opportunity to make their voices heard, I fear we could do lasting damage to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. This is an institution that rests on the trust and reverence of the American people. Losing that trust and reverence is dangerous. It is dangerous. It is dangerous for millions of people who will lose the Affordable Care Act's protections. It is dangerous for women who could lose their right to choose and all of us who do not want to turn back a half-century of progress. It is dangerous for our economy at a time when American workers and consumers find themselves at the mercy of corporations that have grown larger and more powerful than at any other time since the Gilded Age. It is dangerous for the future of our planet and safety of our climate at a time when the West is burning, seas are rising, and the Earth is warming faster than ever before. Quite frankly, it is dangerous for our democracy. We owe the American people a voice and a decision that will shape the course of history for generations. We owe the memory of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her seat on the Supreme Court more than just another political power grab With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there may be portions where I may say a few words in Spanish, and I will provide a translation for the clerk. I ask unanimous consent to be able to do that.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we are here today once again to join Senator Durbin, who has been on the floor with me or I with him I don't know how many times now as it relates to this issue. We are here to urge the Senate to immediately approve legislation that would designate Venezuelans for temporary protected status. There are some 200,000 Venezuelans who are currently living in the United States. They are unable to return home safely, and they would benefit from TPS. We should be doing the right thing. We should be upholding American values and offering them protection, but once again, our Republican colleagues have blocked our efforts. We know what is at stake. Venezuela continues to experience the worst humanitarian crisis in our hemisphere. Its people continue to suffer food and medicine shortages, levels of criminal violence akin to a conflict zone, and grave human rights abuses under the Maduro regime. As if that were not enough, Venezuelans face the alarming spread of COVID-19 with a public health system in ruins. For 7 years, Maduro's devastating abuses of the Venezuelan people have left them with little choice but to stay and suffer or flee and have a chance at survival--flee the political persecution, flee the oppression. In Maduro's Venezuela, families struggle to feed themselves and children tragically die of treatable diseases. More than half of all Venezuelan doctors have fled the country, and 40 percent of hospitals lack electricity and 70 percent lack regular access to water. Senate Republicans want to leave the Venezuelans who are in the United States at risk of deportation back to Maduro's nightmare rather than take action. Meanwhile, the Maduro regime is using the spread of COVID-19 to further tighten its control. Last month, Human Rights Watch reported that dozens of journalists, healthcare workers, human rights lawyers, and political opponents have been detained or prosecuted for merely criticizing or questioning the regime's official statistics on the pandemic. Take the case of Ivan Virguez, a 65-year-old human rights attorney who had expressed concern on Facebook about ``quarantine centers'' that had been set up by the regime. In response, police officers handcuffed him to a metal tube in a prison yard, under the Sun for 2 hours, and left him without access to a bathroom for over a day, causing him to become sick with bladder pain. Ivan remains under house arrest and without access to his criminal file and no due process. (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:) As Senator Durbin said, ``just today, the United Nations released a report finding that Maduro's yearslong campaign of extrajudicial killings and torture amounts to crimes against humanity.'' Yet President Trump and Senate Republicans refuse to provide humanitarian protection to Venezuelans in the United States. The extraordinary conditions in Venezuela have forced more than 5 million Venezuelans to flee their country in search of protection. Last year, I traveled to Cucuta, which is the border city between Colombia and Venezuela, and I saw for myself the thousands of refugees and migrants who cross every day. I will never forget their stories-- stories of heartbreak and suffering from people leaving everything they have ever known behind--their homes, their loved ones--in an attempt to survive. We have applauded Venezuela's neighbors, including Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Brazil, for welcoming Venezuelan refugees and migrants despite their having far fewer resources than the United States. Yet the Trump administration has failed to ensure that America lives up to its history as a beacon of freedom and hope around the world. Many Venezuelans in the United States today who would be eligible for TPS are stuck in immigration detention. The Trump administration and the Republican-led Senate have failed to grant them TPS, which leaves them facing uncertainty and the fear of deportation. Many others who have come from Venezuela to seek political asylum have been turned back and deported--back to countries like Mexico and with all of the risks that those border cities present. They have not even been given a chance to make their political asylum claims. So make no mistake: The Trump administration has all of the authority it needs to designate Venezuela immediately--it doesn't need this legislation--but the President has chosen not to. That is why we introduced legislation that would grant TPS to our Venezuelan brothers and sisters. The House has already passed a similar bill. Now, I have had other issues here in the Senate for which I have had to do this before, and I will do it again. I am not going to relent in our effort to grant Venezuelans the protections they deserve. Every time my Republican colleagues have wanted to stop our Nation from ultimately making progress, we have had to shame them into submission, and this is no different. I am not going to stop until the United States truly stands in solidarity with the Venezuelan people. If you don't want to give them TPS, let them make their claims for political asylum, but then you take them and turn them away before they can make cases for political asylum when we know--God--that there is a good case for political asylum coming out of Venezuela. Then we have had colleagues in the past, one being Senator Scott, of Florida, who came and objected to our TPS proposal for Venezuelans. He suggested that we have to change all of TPS because, in fact, it had become more than a temporary protected status. Well, guess what. The Ninth Circuit Court actually made a decision which I disagree with, but we call attention to the action that comes on the heels of a disappointing Ninth Circuit decision issued on Monday that says that the Trump administration's cruel efforts to strip protections of over 300,000 current TPS holders is permissible. So there goes the argument that, oh, well, TPS is permanent. No. The President could have granted it, and he can end it when he feels the conditions in Venezuela no longer should give the opportunity for Venezuelans to continue to have temporary protected status. So that argument is out of the way. As for debating this in the Committee on the Judiciary, well, you have had over a year to debate it since we started this. You are in the majority. You control the committee, and you control the subcommittee. You could have had the debates. We don't come to the floor lightly to seek unanimous consent. We do it after having waited a considerable time for the debates to have taken place--the debates you said you wanted--but they haven't come. There are people living, working, and raising families legally in the United States who have Venezuelan backgrounds. Yet the President is doing everything he can to line them up for deportation. Of those at risk, 130,000 essential workers are among them, who have sacrificed their health during this pandemic to ensure that all Americans have access to healthcare, food, and basic necessities. The administration's efforts are also endangering over 273,000 U.S. citizen children who call a TPS holder ``Mom'' or ``Dad.'' That is right. In the midst of a deadly pandemic, this administration wants to deport the parents of hundreds of thousands of American children or force these families to relocate their children to unstable, wholly unfamiliar countries. This callous disregard for TPS holders and the greater immigrant community has to stop. We shouldn't wait for the Ninth Circuit's decision to be appealed. We have to create a permanent solution for TPS holders who have become integral to our communities and deserve a pathway. The Senate should not only take up TPS but pass the American Dream and Promise Act, H.R. 6, which passed the House with bipartisan support more than a year ago. What are we waiting for? (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:) Venezuelans deserve TPS right now. We cannot wait I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my support for the resolution introduced by my colleagues, Senators Duckworth and Reed. I thank both of them, not only for acting swiftly to defend the honor of our servicemen and servicewomen but for their distinguished service to our country, both of them veterans themselves. By now, we are used to Donald Trump saying a lot of dishonorable, distasteful, and downright disgusting things, but there truly is no bottom when it come to this President, as is evident in the despicable comments he made about our fallen soldiers as reported last week by The Atlantic, comments that have since been confirmed by additional reporting from FOX News, which is normally very supportive of the President, and the Associated Press. He called these heroes, these fallen soldiers, ``suckers'' and ``losers''--``suckers'' and ``losers.'' The Atlantic reports that, while traveling in Europe to commemorate the end of World War I back in November of 2018, President Trump canceled a scheduled visit to honor those buried at Aisne-Marne American Cemetery. He didn't understand why he should bother visiting such a cemetery in the first place. ``It's filled with losers,'' he said. Can you imagine? Can you imagine? It was on that same trip that President Trump referred to our marines who died in battle at Belleau Wood as ``suckers'' for getting killed-- ``suckers'' for getting killed--``losers'' and ``suckers.'' Those words are hurtful words. They are damaging words. They are words that should never be spoken by a Commander in Chief. It is unthinkable, it is unforgivable, and I think it is un-American. The same story also recounts the President's visit to Arlington Cemetery with then-Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, himself a Gold Star father, who lost his son Robert in 2010 in Afghanistan. Standing over 1st Lt. Robert Kelly's grave, the President of the United States turned to his father and said, ``I don't get it. What was in it for them?'' ``What was in it for them?'' This question captures the very essence of what is so deeply wrong with this President. In other words, why would any American give their life in service to our country? Why would anyone do anything if not for fame or fortune? You see, Donald Trump cannot fathom the idea of serving a cause greater than yourself because Donald Trump only serves himself. He cannot understand why anyone would choose to live a life of service; why anyone would risk it all to carry our flag on the battlefield; why anyone would put their own life on the line to defend our country, our people, and all that we as Americans stand for. Since these despicable comments came to light, the White House has bent over backwards to deny them. Once again, too many of our Republican colleagues have stood silent, instead of forcefully and unequivocally condemning the President's words. They would rather cower to the cruelty of Donald Trump than stand up to those who have worn the uniform of the United States. The sad truth is that none of us have to stretch our imaginations to picture President Trump calling our fallen soldiers ``suckers'' and ``losers'' because he has repeatedly denigrated our men and women in uniform and the entire concept of military service. This is a man who, according to a New York Times investigation, had his wealthy father reportedly pay off a doctor in order to get a medical deferment from serving in Vietnam; a man who spoke out against disabled veterans selling goods on ritzy Fifth Avenue in New York City; a man who said that our late colleague, Senator John McCain, whom I was privileged to work with on so many national security issues, was no war hero--he is not someone who should be praised because he was caught, a prisoner of war--and resisted lowering U.S. flags in his honor; a man who has publicly attacked Gold Star families and failed to grasp the weight of their sacrifice; a man who, when asked about America's soldiers injured in the Iranian missile attack last January on Al Asad Airbase in Iraq, shrugged off traumatic brain injuries as nothing more than a mere headache; and, most recently, a man who, as Commander in Chief, has done nothing--absolutely nothing--in response to revelations that the Kremlin was awarding bounties to Taliban terrorists for killing U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan--the Kremlin, Russia, giving Taliban soldiers a bounty--a premium, a prize, a bonus--for killing U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. What message does it send to the children of fallen soldiers when they read that the President called their parents ``losers'' and ``suckers''? What message does it send to the young people I will speak with this weekend, whom I host an academy weekend with, who are considering applying to some of our Nation's most prestigious military academies? What message does it send to adversaries like Vladimir Putin to learn that the President of the United States thinks that our service men and women on the ground in Afghanistan are suckers for being assassinated by Taliban terrorists? Article II of the Constitution does not give much instruction when it says that the President shall serve as Commander in Chief; yet somehow, every President, until now, has carried out their responsibilities with a reverence for the men and women who serve our country and a sense of gratitude for those who give their lives in defense of our freedoms. Let me close with the words of a Gold Star mother from southern New Jersey. Camden County Freeholder Melinda Kane's son, Marine LCpl Jeremy Kane, died in Afghanistan more than a decade ago. She wrote: I am nauseated to think that the commander in chief of our military would even think to disparage individuals, like my son, who paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to every American. . . . For the parents raising children whose fathers and mothers have given everything to this country, how do they explain President Trump's words? These brave Americans served with honor, integrity and heroism doing the things that civilians could not and would not do. That said, here we are today, in a place we never thought we would be-- ensuring the world knows that those that serve our country are heroes. Today, I want to say to our service men and women--from the young recruit who just enlisted, to the soldier patrolling distant lands, to those who wore the uniform, to the loved ones of those who lost a loved one at war--you deserve an apology from our Commander in Chief. Because you are not likely to get one, I think it is important to say it here on the floor of the U.S. Senate: You are not suckers. You are not losers. You are heroes. Your families deserve our admiration and support for their sacrifices. The American people will always value you for bravely bearing our country's cause, even when the President of the United States will not. I yield the floor

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, first of all, I note that the customary path for bills and resolutions is for them to be considered by their committees of jurisdiction, marked up through regular process, and reported out to the Senate floor. I understand that many Members of this body have noble causes and good ideas that fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Unfortunately, the chairman has only held one real legislative markup this entire year--in May. That one meeting, which included multiple pieces of substantive, bipartisan efforts, was ended prematurely before many pieces of vital legislation could be acted upon and without having a vote on even a single amendment. While the minority was strongly supportive of more legislative activity, the chairman pulled down another legislative markup, without any explanation, in the first week of July and yet another one, just this week, without any explanation. Regardless of those facts, I can tell you that I don't believe the majority, which has the convening power--and, lately, when it does list a committee hearing or a markup unilaterally decides to do so--has ever sought committee activity for Senator Lankford's resolution. This is the first time--and I would assume for others--that many are seeing it. He mentions the 8 months. I am sure that he could speak to the chairman of the committee by virtue of his being of the majority party, the Republican Party, but the chairman hasn't brought his resolution forward. If he is chagrined that for 8 months it has been languishing in the committee, it is because Chairman Risch has neither asked for it to be included when there was a business markup nor asked for it now. It is true that, on occasion, a resolution gets released. I did one for Rob Portman regarding Otto Warmbier--it was the anniversary of the tragic moment--and it was released to the Senate floor. Yet there are many other critically important legislative items that have been marked up and are ready for action on the floor. Last December, the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act, or what we know as DASKA, passed out of the Committee on Foreign Relations, through regular order, with a strong bipartisan vote. It has been pending on the floor for nearly 8 months. Over the course of that time, Russian aggression has manifested itself in Syria, Libya, and on the streets of Europe, where opponents of the Putin regime have been assassinated. This past week, all Senators were briefed on the broader question of foreign interference in our elections, and we know it is a threat and that it is real and growing. If the Senate should dedicate any time to a foreign policy issue, it seems to me that this should be it. Our election is in 88 days. Yet the Senate trudges along, blind to the threat before our very eyes. DASKA should be the business of the Senate floor, and it should be passed. Similarly, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations passed a Saudi Arabia bill more than a year ago, and it has been waiting for floor action. I could go on and on. Now, I don't want to undermine the importance of the issue that Senator Lankford is trying to address. Around the world, we see autocratic rulers imposing blasphemy laws as a way of targeting the freedom of religion and speech of those who enjoy that or should enjoy that freedom of religion and speech. His resolution rightly condemns blasphemy laws for violating international human rights standards, and it raises serious concerns. Yet I would just say that we need to have a moment of self- reflection. This resolution doesn't say anything about this administration's disparaging attitudes and comments about certain religions and ethnicities. How can we have this conversation without addressing President Trump's reported expression of approval of concentration camps for Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang? Under the leadership of the President and Secretary Pompeo, the administration has downplayed human rights abuses in countries from North Korea to the Persian Gulf; has coddled a dictator who ordered the horrific murder of journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi; verbally attacked the principle of freedom of the press; instituted the Muslim ban that sent chills around the world about the U.S. commitment to freedom of religion; and slashed the admission of refugees, many of whom were persecuted religious minorities. Certainly, the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate should be saying something about that record as well. As a matter of fact, between fiscal year 2017 and 2018, the administration reduced the admission to the United States of Christian refugees by 36 percent and of Muslim refugees by 85 percent. We should also be discussing how the U.S. Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has been left vacant for over 3 years. In closing, I believe addressing blasphemy laws and standing up for the freedom of religion and the protection of religious minorities is urgent and warrants much further attention from both the Committee on Foreign Relations and of this body as a whole. I urge Senator Lankford to work with Chairman Risch to schedule a legislative markup so that this resolution, as well as other important initiatives, can be considered under regular order because, when his resolution or others are before it, there is an opportunity to amend them, to augment them, and to include other issues, even within the context of the issue of religious freedom. That is not provided here, and for those reasons I object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. The issues that were expressed in Senator Durbin's resolution had been issues before the committee on the issue of Belarus. As a matter of fact, even today, the nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador has been discussed. So that issue has been discussed. Unfortunately, although I think it has merit, the issue of religious freedom, as you have defined in your resolution, has not. So at least the substance of the issue has been the possibility of the debate. I would simply say that I know you are highlighting that one resolution. Yes, our colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman, brought to my attention the anniversary of Otto Warmbier, and it was happening before--and he said: I did not ask for it to come before the committee. I thought that it should, and it fell between the cracks. So we agreed. But that doesn't mean that everybody is going to come to the floor and not give the committee members the chance to work on resolutions and to have their views cast on that resolution for the full body to consider.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I take offense at the suggestion that nothing is good enough for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that nothing gets done. There are 160 ambassadorial employees--and of that rank--who have passed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. Every year, we get the State Department's budget. Every year, we have a budget that is decimated, including for the issues that my colleague cares about. It is because those of us on the committee who believe in the power of diplomacy in the State Department work feverishly to restore and enhance the budget of the State Department that it has been able to carry out its mission. But the budget that the Secretary of State comes before the committee to defend and advocate for is a huge, huge consequence. Look, we are constantly doing things to protect the lives of American citizens in the committee. I could enumerate a number both of resolutions as well as legislative language that would have far- reaching--I mean, I am in favor of resolutions. They are an expression of sentiment. But legislation that puts into action within our laws the ability of countries that conduct blasphemy and other types of crimes against people who simply want to pursue their religious views--that would be far more consequential. So there is a lot that goes on in the committee, and a lot of it has actually been bipartisan. By the same token, if our colleague is chagrined that not enough is moving through the committee, talk to the chairman because you can't move anything through the committee if you don't have committee business markups, and we haven't had one--I think except for one--and we are in August.

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, I come to the Senate floor to speak about a topic that is very close to my heart. As the son of Cuban refugees and as a first-generation American, the struggles of immigrant families are not something I read about in books or watched on television. I lived them. I saw with my own eyes what it meant to grow up in an immigrant family in a low-income tenement in Union City, NJ. My mother worked tirelessly as a seamstress and sacrificed everything to make sure that my siblings and I could have a better life and a better future, because that is the very essence of what we call the American dream. It is about ensuring that the next generation has it better than we do and that our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren have greater opportunities than we do to realize their full potential. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are from, or when your ancestors came to this country. We are a nation built by immigrants. Every single member of this great and storied body is a descendant of those who came to America, seeking better lives for themselves and their loved ones. The President is a second-generation American. His grandfather, Friedrich Trump, came here from Germany. Our First Lady is herself an immigrant. Yet this administration and President Trump have gone to painstaking lengths to deny, erase, and ignore the contributions of immigrants to American life and culture, innovation and ingenuity, economy and prosperity. They have worked overtime to deny the very fact that the immigrant story is America's story. As an old saying in Spanish goes, (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows): ``There is nothing worse than not wanting to see what is right in front of you.'' Donald Trump's endless lies and attacks on immigrants started long before he descended down that escalator in Trump Tower to announce his run for the Presidency. They haven't stopped since. The President recently took another aggressive step in his war to erase immigrants from the portrait of America when he issued an unconstitutional edict to exclude our undocumented brothers and sisters from being counted in the 2020 census for the purpose of determining representation in Congress. His message was loud and clear to immigrant communities across the country: You are not welcome here. You don't belong here. You don't count. His goal is to instill fear in immigrant communities, and that is shameful and un-American. Let's be clear. The U.S. Constitution is explicit on this particular point. Article I, section 2 clearly reads: ``Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons.'' The census requires an accurate count of all persons living in the country. It does not distinguish between status or citizenship. It could have read that it requires an account of all citizens of the then-United States, of the Union. It could have read that it is an account of all citizens and all legal permanent residents. It didn't read that either. It specifically recognized this because, as the Union was developing, there were people from different walks of life in the United States, and it purposely understood that not all of them would necessarily be citizens at the time of accounting, but who was in America at any given time from the creation of the Constitution was important--all persons. My friends, we have been sent here to serve all of our constituents in our home States, no matter the color of their skin, their gender, or their legal status. The history of America is intertwined with immigrant stories. In every State of our Union, immigrants work in every industry and contribute in all facets of American life--the most important parts of our lives. They work in our fields, picking our fruits and vegetables. They are checkers at grocery stores and construction workers, building our bridges and homes. They educate our children in our schools. They treat the sick in our hospitals as nurses, doctors, and mental health professionals. They wear the uniform and carry our flag in the U.S. armed services. In fact, during this pandemic, hundreds of thousands of immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, have put their lives on the line to serve as essential frontline workers and to keep businesses open, despite the administration actively seeking to deport them. Like many American citizens, they are risking their lives every day, while being disproportionately affected by COVID-19, to provide others with the services they need and to protect the health and safety of our fellow Americans. All the while, they are facing disproportionate infection and death rates from this horrible disease. They are the invisible heroes of this pandemic. They are the ones who make it possible for us to receive the essential goods and services so that we can stay home, which is what we are told by the Nation's public health officials. But the message from the President to these essential workers, who perform backbreaking work in our fields, care for our children, or treat you at the hospital is: You are not worthy. I ask every single one of my colleagues if, God forbid, you were infected with COVID-19, would you really care about the citizenship status of the doctor or nurse treating you? Would you ask for his or her legal papers before getting help? Would any of you refuse to eat fruit or vegetables in your homes picked by the calloused hands of an undocumented immigrant sweating in our fields? Would you rather not have a highway built in your State because the workers have a native language other than English? Now, many of you would tell me that is nonsense. But yet, the Trump Presidency has been marked by deafening silence in the face of this inflammatory, xenophobic, immoral campaign against immigrants. Just take the example of TPS and DACA beneficiaries. As my home State of New Jersey struggled in the early days of the pandemic--until recently, we had the second-most cases of COVID-19--temporary protective status holders like Madelia Cartagena in Newark and Dreamers like Daysi from Monmouth County rose to the challenge presented by the pandemic. As more than 131,000 temporary protective status holders across the Nation, and 7,500 in New Jersey alone, Madelia was considered an essential worker as the company she has worked for in the last 17 years had to respond to the increasing demand for sanitizer dispensers. For Daysi, the fact that she was brought to the United States from Central America at just 9 years old meant nothing to the patients whose lives she was helping to save. What mattered is that she showed up when she was needed, and that she did so despite the lingering threat that DACA, or deferred action for children arrivals, would be abruptly terminated, and with it her ability to remain in this country. She showed up every day, helping to save lives. Put simply, TPS holders like Madelia and DACA beneficiaries like Daysi help us heal and will also help our economy recover. They represent among the best of America. To give you some context, when I say they will help our economy recover, Dreamers bring in a net $3.4 billion annually to the U.S. Treasury and generate $42 billion in gross domestic product each year-- Dreamers. Yet the administration has fought tooth and nail to send Dreamers packing, despite the American flag being the only one they have ever pledged allegiance to and the national anthem being the only national anthem they have ever sung. Even after the Supreme Court's recent ruling--the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land--that the termination of DACA was unlawful, the administration has openly defied the Supreme Court's order by not reopening the full DACA Program. These Dreamers are battling the coronavirus and the Trump administration. Polls show that even a majority of Trump voters want to protect Dreamers from deportation, and wide swaths of registered voters support Dreamers, regardless of the voter's gender, education, income, ethnicity, religion, or ideology. That includes 68 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of conservatives, and 64 percent of those who approve of the job the President is doing. But instead of accepting the Supreme Court's decision and acknowledging the enormous contributions of Dreamers, this administration is planning new efforts to end DACA. It is no secret. They indicate as much in the latest Department of Homeland Security memo. And let's be honest. If it is not outright termination they seek, the administration will treat the protection of Dreamers as a bargaining chip in order to undo our legal immigration system. They want to cut legal family immigration in exchange for what they call a merit-based immigration system. That would be pretty shameful and offensive because there are many who are here who would never be here under a merit-based system. This administration and my Republican colleagues need to open their eyes and realize how we are treating immigrants in this country. We need them to do it now, in this moment, as we are pleading with our colleagues to do what is right, to give families a fighting chance to beat the virus and put the economy back on track. We can't turn a blind eye to the fact that immigrant families will likely be excluded from help desperately needed during this pandemic in the next COVID-19 package. So far, undocumented immigrants who pay their taxes and selflessly risk their lives as essential workers to save others have been deliberately excluded from the Federal pandemic assistance Congress has provided. Virtually all immigrants who use an individual taxpayer identification number--or as we call it, an ITIN--to file their Federal taxes under U.S. law, which is totally permissible, and their U.S. citizen spouses--U.S. citizen spouses--and children were left out from any economic impact payments in the CARES Act. In other words, we denied American citizens and their American citizen children badly needed assistance as a punishment--as a punishment--for being married to an undocumented immigrant or belonging to a mixed-status family during this economic emergency I grew up believing that an American citizen is an American citizen-- is an American citizen, regardless of whom I marry, regardless of whether my children are the offspring of one parent who is an American citizen and another one who is not. Thousands of American citizens were denied $1,200 individual stimulus checks to which other American citizens were entitled to just because of who they love. American citizen children were denied $500 in assistance to which other American citizen children were entitled. It is wrong. Are there two classes of American children in this country now? Are there two classes of American citizens now? As we consider the next COVID-19 relief package, Congress has to fix this injustice. If you work hard, follow the rules, and pay your taxes, you deserve tax relief, regardless of how you filed. At the very least, if you are an American citizen living in a mixed-status family or an American child who is the offspring of a mixed-status family, you should not be denied the cash benefit you are rightfully entitled to. It is just that simple. It is justice. It is what is right. In the face of this tremendous public health crisis, we should not let the insidious, cruel, and relentless scapegoating of immigrants prevent us from providing much needed relief to the very same families and workers who are helping us survive. All families deserve to be treated with dignity. It is the humane thing to do. But that is not all. As we expanded access to free COVID-19 testing, undocumented immigrants were left behind. Now, that makes no sense. The coronavirus doesn't check your status before it infects you. An undocumented immigrant living in America with COVID-19 is no less a threat to become a seriously ill individual or spread the virus than an American citizen who has been infected. The virus does not discriminate on race, gender, ethnicity, borders, or legal status. As a public health proposition, you want everybody to be tested. Given the pandemic's disproportionate impact on low-income and communities of color and the fact that those communities of color are serving in essential industries, I would argue that they are more likely to be infected. What good is it to any one of us if someone, regardless of who or where they are, is walking around with an undiagnosed case of COVID-19 because they weren't eligible for a test? That person can unwittingly infect their relatives, their neighbors, and their coworkers. If we ever want to see our economy and lives return to some semblance of normal, there must be access to free COVID-19 testing, treatment, and vaccines for everyone living in the United States--everyone living in the United States, and that includes regardless of immigration status. America has to do better to acknowledge the hard work, sacrifice, and contribution of immigrants. Sadly, these past 4 years have seen a rise in hate crimes and hateful rhetoric targeting immigrants. Led by the President, immigrants are continuously scapegoated for every problem. One of my Senate colleagues even suggested recently that Hispanics were to blame for the rise in COVID cases across our own country, instead of the epic failure of the administration to develop and implement a national pandemic response plan or one that includes culturally competent outreach to minority-majority communities. As elected officials and leaders in our communities, we have a moral responsibility to rise above the immigrant fearmongering and the President's hateful rhetoric to reunite our country. Not only must we include immigrant families in the upcoming relief package, but to truly address these injustices, we must reform our immigration laws once and for all. We have to come together as we did before here in the Senate--I was part of that Gang of 8--to restart these long overdue discussions and find a path forward to achieving real immigration reform. I have always believed and still believe that reforming our immigration laws is the civil rights issue of this community and of this time. It is time to treat immigrants fairly and to recognize their hard work and contributions to this Nation--immigrants like my mother, Evangelina, who came here with nothing but the conviction that everything in America was possible. She refused to let not speaking English or her modest wages as a seamstress stop her from giving us the best life she could. And here I am, one of 100 U.S. Senators, in a country of over 320 million people. I am the embodiment of that American dream, and my story is no less meaningful than that of any other immigrant coming to this country or in this country to build a better future for their family and this Nation. That is our past; that is our history; that is our present; and it will be our future. It is past time that due acknowledgment and respect be given. It is now time for action. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to join my Republican colleagues from Louisiana and Maine to make a plea for us to break any partisan logjam and support bipartisan, commonsense solutions. I want to especially commend Senator Cassidy, who from the beginning has joined me in this effort and has been true to his commitment to the issue and to his work. We have engaged in a series of conferences with major national organizations in support of the legislation, and I appreciate his leadership in this regard. I also appreciate Senator Collins, who joined us from the very beginning in this effort. Exactly 76 days ago--yes, 2.5 months ago--Senator Cassidy and I stood here on the floor of the Senate with our colleagues Senator Collins and Booker to talk about the challenges facing our State and local governments and the need for Congress to deliver robust, flexible assistance to help them deal with the pandemic and economic fallout. In 76 days, we have seen COVID-19 sweep across our land. The virus is surging in States coast to coast. From the Deep South to the Upper Midwest, no community has been spared. America is no stranger to tough times. In just the past 100 years, we have fought two World Wars. We have faced a Great Depression. We have confronted a nuclear-armed Soviet Union. We have faced calamitous disasters, both natural and manmade, from Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. We have lived through many dark days of our history, but no matter how steep the challenge, no matter how hopeless things appeared at the moment, we always came together as a country, and we saw ourselves as Americans above all else. I am proud to be a New Jerseyan. I am proud to be from a State that invests in its people, has a great educational system, and has an innovative economy. But when my parents fled tyranny in Cuba, their dream wasn't to move to any one State. No, they dreamed of moving to the United States of America to give me and my siblings the opportunity they never had. We are not a collection of 50 separate States. No, we are one Nation, indivisible. When hurricanes hit the gulf coast, flooding inundated communities along the Mississippi River, or wildfires raged in the West, I have never hesitated to act and cast my vote to help my fellow Americans. I have never asked how many New Jerseyans were affected or how this would impact my State. But some in this body have chosen to undermine that unity and to, instead, pit Americans in one State versus their fellow citizens in another. They have derided Senator Cassidy's and my efforts to avoid millions of layoffs of essential workers as a ``Blue State Bailout.'' For example, the junior Senator from Florida has said he refuses to support assistance because it will go to progressive States like New Jersey, New York, and California. He spreads falsehoods about States carrying over large annual budget deficits, even though he must be well aware that States, unlike the Federal Government, must balance their budgets according to their State Constitution. He has the gall to chide other States about taking from Florida, even as his own State is the second largest ``taker'' State in the entire country. Indeed, according to the latest estimates, Florida receives about $45 billion more from the Federal Government than it pays each and every year. By comparison, New Jersey actually pays about $21 billion more each year to the Federal Government than it receives. Let me say that again. Florida takes $45 billion more per year out of the Federal coffers than they put in. New Jersey puts $21 billion back in. To my colleague from Florida: You are welcome. Why is New Jersey a donor or ``maker'' State while Florida is a ``taker'' State? Quite simply, it is because we invest in our people and in our communities. New Jersey has the best public schools in the country, ranking No. 1 in Education Week's 2019 report. Florida, well, it ranked in the bottom half of the States. A better education leads to a better economy with higher paying jobs, so it is no surprise that New Jersey also has the highest per capita income among States at over $110,000 per year. By comparison, Florida's per capita income is almost $35,000 less, which puts it, once again, in the bottom half of States. So if you want your children to have a quality education, if you want to work in a vibrant economy that creates high-paying jobs, you should live in a State like New Jersey. But New Jersey, like all States--and through no fault of our own--is facing a health and fiscal crisis of historic magnitude. And because here in Washington we have failed to implement a national response to a national emergency, our local towns, cities, counties, and States have to deal with this crisis alone rather than united as a nation, and they are running out of money. They are running out of money to combat this deadly disease. They are running out of money to maintain the services our residents and businesses depend upon. They are running out of money to pay our first responders: police, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency personnel. They are running out of money to make sure that there are teachers in the classrooms when our kids can safely head back to school and nurses in our hospitals when a sick patient is brought in. They are running out of money to make sure the trash gets picked up, the buses and trains run on time, and the lights stay on at City Hall. They have been squeezed on both sides of the ledger, spending billions of dollars in unforeseen costs on emergency response while watching revenues dry up due to the slowing economy and necessary orders to contain the virus. Without help from Washington, our States, counties, and municipalities will have to swallow a toxic cocktail of tax hikes, service cuts, and layoffs that will only poison our economic recovery. It would be the height of irony--and a horrible one at that--for the men and women we have needed the most to be the ones fired as a result of the economic distress that the virus has created. We need our essential workers on the job dealing with the pandemic, not on the unemployment line. Already, nearly 1.5 million State and local workers have been furloughed or laid off--and that is only since February--and double the total local public sector jobs we lost during the entire great recession of a decade ago. If we fail to deliver the robust, flexible funding our States and communities need, we will effectively be sending pink slips to millions of Americans. We will be saying to all of them: You are fired. That will be millions more who aren't collecting a paycheck, millions who can't afford to shop at our stores, eat at our restaurants, pay their rent, or their mortgage. Leading economists respected by both parties predict it would decimate our economy and send us on the path to another Great Depression. We can't allow that to happen. That is why Senator Cassidy, Senator Collins, Senator Hyde-Smith, and I came together. We saw early on the impact COVID-19 was having on our home States and constituents, so we came up with the State and Municipal Assistance for Recovery and Transition, or the SMART Act. As Senator Cassidy says, it delivers $500 billion in flexible funding to frontline States, counties, and municipalities. It targets areas with the greatest need based on infection rate and lost revenues. Unfortunately, from when we started this, that is a growing reality across the country. Every single town, city, and county, regardless of its size, would qualify for direct funding. No one is left out. We immediately built a bipartisan coalition with Senators Collins, Booker, Hyde-Smith, Manchin, and Sinema--Republicans and Democrats from all walks of life, cutting across the political and geographic spectrum. We knew the assistance Congress provided our State and local governments in the CARES Act wasn't enough to deal with the growing need, and we warned our colleagues--each and every one--that what was happening in New Jersey, Louisiana, and elsewhere would eventually come to their State if we didn't get this pandemic under control. Well, we haven't, and it is raging. Our fellow Americans are suffering, and too many of them are dying. We have waited for 76 days. What is now being offered is wholly inadequate to address the needs of the American people. In Colorado, for example, the estimated State and local shortfall due to the pandemic is $10 billion, and counting, through 2022. In Alaska, it is expected to exceed $4 billion. In Georgia, it will be $2.5 billion in 2021 alone. Kentucky could see nearly a 20-percent drop in its revenues in 2021, at a time when the State's fiscal house is already in disorder. But we are being offered not a dime--zero--to help our cities, counties, and States confront this challenge--zero, nothing. That is not something that is acceptable. That is the problem when we ignore regular order and let leadership hijack the legislative process: We lose our voice, and the needs of our constituents are left out. I, for one, didn't come to Washington to sit on the sidelines and wait for a handful of people to reach a deal behind closed doors, forced to vote on a 1,000-page bill within an hour of seeing it. But that is exactly what we have been doing here for far too long. We need to end this high-stakes game of closed-door posturing and restore the Senate back to the foundation as the greatest deliberative body in the world. It would have been easier for me just to embrace the $900 billion for fiscal relief in the Heroes Act. It would have been easier for Senators Cassidy, Collins, and Hyde-Smith to just toe the party line, but we all knew that sticking to our respective corners wasn't going to help a single one of our constituents. It is not too late for the Senate to get back on track. Let's do our jobs. Let's work together on a bipartisan solution that delivers the Federal support our States, counties, and cities on the frontlines of this pandemic need to defeat COVID-19 and serve the American people. Let's bring the SMART Act up in committee, allow Members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments to make the legislation even better. You all know what our State and local governments will get if we leave it up to the present status--absolutely nothing. Good luck explaining that to the people back at home. I hear some of my colleagues speak from this floor, calling not for unity but for division. They callously ignore the pleas for help from the fellow Americans, comforted by the selfish but mistaken belief their communities are immune to the fiscal Armageddon facing our communities. Let me be clear. It doesn't really matter how fiscally responsible or conservative your State budget has been when your revenue drops 30 percent overnight. It is not a random blue State issue; it is an American priority. I believe that history will look kindly upon those who stood up for some unity and compromise over demagoguery and obstinacy, those who put the well-being of the country over scoring partisan points, those who stuck their necks out and took a political risk for no reason other than it was the right thing to do. That is what I believe we are doing on the floor right now--the right thing. With that, I am happy to turn to my friend Senator Collins.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the campaign currently underway to select the next president of the Inter-American Development Bank in September of this year. The IDB has served as the preeminent development bank in the Americas since 1959. For more than six decades, it has brought together the United States, Canada, and our partners from Latin America and the Caribbean to advance an agenda for development and inclusive economic growth in our hemisphere. The United States has proudly been a leading voice to strengthen the IDB's critical mission in the Americas, and donors from the European Union to Japan and South Korea, have provided enduring support to the institution. In September, the IDB will hold elections to select its next president. Last month, the United States announced it would nominate Mauricio Claver Carone, the current National Security Council senior director for the Western Hemisphere, as our candidate to be the next president of the IDB. Since Mr. Claver Carone's nomination was announced, more than 15 governments in the region have offered their support for his candidacy. These governments represent a wide range of ideological perspectives, levels of economic development, and different historic relationships with the IDB. In recent weeks, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, our hemisphere's other premier multilateral institution, offered words of support for Mr. Claver Carone's candidacy. I have known Mr. Claver Carone for over two decades. During this time, Mr. Claver Carone has demonstrated a commitment to inclusive economic development in Latin America and the Caribbean, and he has been an outspoken advocate for democracy and human rights in our hemisphere. In his more recent roles at the National Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, and the Treasury Department, he has worked with governments across the region and across the ideological spectrum to advance United States' partnerships in the Americas. He has also worked to address the political, economic, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, and counter the agendas of governments that seek to counter U.S. interests in the region, from Cuba's authoritarian regime to Putin's Russia to China's Government. Of equal importance, he has shown the ability to work in a bipartisan manner with Democrats and Republicans in the United States, including in the U.S. Congress. While I have been and remain an ardent critic of many aspects of the Trump administration's foreign policy towards Latin America and the Caribbean and I have not always agreed with every policy decision that Mr. Claver Carone has made during his service to our government, I recognize his consistent commitment to advancing U.S. national security, our foreign policy interests, and an agenda of shared priorities with our partners in the hemisphere. For these reasons, I support Mr. Claver Carone's candidacy and would welcome the opportunity to continue working with him as the next president of the Inter-American Development Bank. I recognize that selection of the next IDB president is taking place 2 months before the United States holds general elections and that some have concerns about the implications of this timing. Given that the United States is the IDB's largest shareholder, the next IDB president must commit to working in a bipartisan manner with the next U.S. President and their administration, regardless of party. This is an essential task for the success of the IDB. As the senior Democrat in the Foreign Relations Committee, I would look forward to working with Mr. Claver Carone to ensure that this happens. As COVID-19 continues to spread across the Americas and severe economic impacts follow, the IDB will play an absolutely essential role in the recovery of countries across the region. This makes the selection of the IDB's next president of the utmost importance. The IDB needs leadership that can achieve consensus across the Western hemisphere and set the stage for a decade-long recovery effort. The task is formidable, but I remain confident that the United States can and will play an integral part in supporting the IDB's efforts and our partners in the region.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, look, there are nuggets in the Senator's resolution--certainly recognizing that, overwhelmingly, law enforcement does an honorable and valuable job in our society. It is a tough job. The bad ones make it difficult for all the good ones. I would agree with that. But I have to be honest with you. There are also elements of this resolution that are not as straightforward as the gentleman would have you believe. First of all, the very first paragraph says that we were founded on universal principles of freedom, justice, and human equality. Of course, slavery existed at the time. There is no mention of America's original sin, which is slavery. Certainly we cannot think of slavery as human equality. Then, to go on to suggest in his third paragraph that we are morally committed to justice ``across all such differences, and protecting the God-given rights of all Americans under the law,'' well, I can tell you, in my home State of New Jersey and across the Nation, there are many Americans who clearly do not believe that we are morally committed to justice across all such differences. As a matter of fact, we saw that in how the majority responded to the George Floyd death and others across the Nation--a lot of rhetoric; very little reform. So we would be hard-pressed to believe that paragraph has legitimacy as well. Then the resolution reeks of supremacy, self-righteous illiberalism, manifest ignorance, and historical illiteracy. It reeks of a supremacist view: We know better. Even with all of those problems and even with the fact that it has come at the last moment, there was no effort to work with anybody to offer maybe a bipartisan resolution that would capture all of this. Even though it seeks to mischaracterize overwhelmingly what has been the peaceful protests of people in the Nation, I would consider not objecting to the Senator's request if he also recognized and added to his resolution the fact that we have a President of the United States who ultimately provokes inciteful language and inciteful violence. I mean, we have a President who retweets a video of people saying ``White power. White power.'' We have a President who retweets a video of White citizens with arms, pointing them at peaceful protesters who--at the end of the day, it is their right to peacefully protest. We have a President who said that there were good people on all sides, including the White supremacists, in Charleston. We have a President who used violence--the armed force of the State and violence against peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park, who were doing none of what the Senator suggests in his resolution. Despite all of that, if the Senator would modify his request to include the following language: Insert at the end of his last line, line 15, section--make a new section (5): ``Our elected officials, especially the President of the United States, should not incite violence or legitimize those who engage in hate-fueled acts,'' I would consider allowing the Senator's resolution to move forward and not objecting to it.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, it is especially the President of the United States--the person who leads our Nation--who should be a unifying force, not one who incites violence; therefore, I object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is this line not in direct violation of rule XIX?