Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, on International Women's Day, we celebrated women and girls around the globe for their tremendous contributions to our communities, our countries, and the world. From Albania to Zimbabwe, women face enormous risks to pursue progress in defiance of attitudes, policies, and actions that treat them as second- class citizens. Too often, these women are punished for their courage. As this year marks the 25th anniversary of the United Nations' adoption of the Beijing Declaration on the equal rights of women, we reaffirm our commitment to achieving women's empowerment and equal status throughout the world. Today, I want to highlight 25 women who have risked their lives, withstood torture, and been unjustly detained for fighting for human rights, democracy, a free and fair press, and the rights of vulnerable LGBT populations, as well as safeguarding their culture and the environment. The repressive responses of their respective governments speaks to the power these women command, the implications of their cause, and the movements they inspire. In Russia, President Putin's government utilizes politically motivated imprisonment to bolster its power by cracking down on journalists, human rights advocates, religious minorities, Ukrainian citizens, and civil society advocates. Yulia Tsetkova is the latest target of the authorities' long-running campaign against LGBT activists. Tsetkova has been placed on house arrest and faces years of imprisonment for her creative work at a youth amateur theater which the state has labeled ``homosexual propaganda,'' for drawings described as criminal ``pornography'' and for administrating two LGBT-themed groups on social media deemed'' gay propaganda.') The Chinese Communist Party has waged a powerful campaign to suppress vibrant ethnic minority communities and political dissent. The government has brutally cracked down in Xinjiang, where it has extrajudicially interned and subjected more than 1 million Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities to forced labor, torture, and abuse. Rahile Dawut, a Xinjiang University professor who researched and documented traditional Uyghur culture, disappeared in December 2017. Sanubar Tursun, a renowned Uyghur singer, disappeared in November 2018, shortly before she was scheduled to perform in France. We will not forget their names nor their work. The Chinese Communist party has also targeted Tibetans for celebrating their heritage. In late 2015, officials detained at least eight Tibetans accused of organizing observances of the Dalai Lama's 80th birthday. Those detained included Bonkho Kyi, who had organized a public picnic to celebrate the occasion. Kyi was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment, although details of the criminal charges remain unavailable. In Iran, human rights defenders have been steadfast in their advocacy despite repeated arrest and abuse by authorities. Nasrin Sotoudeh has devoted her life to advocating for human rights in Iran, speaking out against the death penalty and laws forcing women to wear hijabs. Sotoudeh was rearrested in June 2018 for defending women protestors against the forced hijab and faces 38 years in prison and 148 lashes. Atena Daemi, also a lifelong human rights activist, is serving a 7-year prison sentence for handing out anti-death penalty leaflets. She has been on hunger strike twice and is in dire need of medical attention due to dizziness and numbness. Narges Mohammadi, vice president of the Centre for Human Rights Defenders in Iran, has been imprisoned since May 2015 and is serving a 16-year sentence. Mohammadi is critically ill with pulmonary embolism and a neurological disorder resulting in seizures and temporary partial paralysis. Iranian authorities have also recently arrested and imprisoned environmentalists. Niloufar Bayani, a McGill University-graduate, worked for the United Nations Environment Programme and, most recently, the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation. She was arrested along with several coworkers, including Sepideh Kashami, on charges of espionage. Multiple government bodies have found no evidence suggesting the environmentalists detained were spies. While detained, Bayani has reportedly suffered from torture and threats of sexual assault. Governments around the world are also attacking the free press and targeting journalists, particularly those who speak truth to power and expose the failures of those very governments. Many women journalists have been targeted and unjustly detained. In particular, the escalating use of criminal charges of ``false news'' or ``fake news'' to imprison journalists and activists is alarming. Certainly, these incitements of ``fake news'' echo President Trump and his administration's regressive rhetoric and attacks on the press and democratic values. As of December 2019, Turkey was the world's second worst jailer of journalists with 47 in prison, coming in close second to China with 48. President Erdogan has cracked down on independent criticism by shuttering more than 100 news outlets and jailing dozens of journalists. Editor Hatice Duman was imprisoned in 2003 and is serving a life sentence based on charges of propaganda and being a member of a banned group. Duman was the owner and news editor of the socialist weekly ``Atilim,'' which had opposed President Erdogan's policies. She was convicted based on authorities' claim of her attendance at a Marxist-Leninist Communist Party demonstration and the testimony of confidential witnesses. Duman's husband later said the police threatened sexual violence against his family if he did not testify against his wife. Aysenur Parildak and Hanim Busra Erdal, two journalists for ``Zaman,'' are both serving sentences for terrorism- related offenses based on claims that ``Zaman'' had ties to Fethulaah Gulen. Sadiye Eser, a reporter for the pro-Kurdish ``Mezopotamya News Agency,'' has also been detained by police since November 2019 on politically motivated charges of membership of a terrorist organization. In Egypt, President Sisi has attempted to quash dissent and consolidate control by wrongfully imprisoning human rights defenders. Mahienour el-Masry, a human rights lawyer, has spent her career organizing peaceful protests, advocating for political prisoners, and denouncing human rights violations. She was arrested in September 2019 following a wave of protests calling for President Sisi's resignation and charged with collaborating with a terrorist organization, spreading ``false news,'' and using social media to publish false rumors. Esraa Abdel Fattah, a human rights activist and reporter for the banned ``Tahrir News,'' was arrested on charges of spreading ``false news,'' membership in a banned group, and abuse of social media networks in October 2019. Abdel Fattah was reportedly beaten, hung from handcuffs for hours, and choked with her clothes while interrogated. In Burundi, authorities have cracked down on free expression in anticipation of the country's 2020 elections. Christine Kamikazi and Agnes Ndirubusa, journalists at Burundi's last remaining independent newspaper ``Iwacu,'' were arrested and convicted on charges of attempting threat against state security by collaborating with the rebel group RED-Tabara. Kamikazi and Ndirubusa were traveling with two colleagues to report on in-fighting between Burundian security forces and RED-Tabara when they were arrested. They were convicted despite the fact that ``Iwacu'' had informed authorities of their plan to travel to the area for reporting and the fact that the RED-Tabara attack had already occurred before their travels to the region. Finally, a year ago today, I highlighted 14 women political prisoners in a statement marking International Women's Day. Of those 14, 8 remain in detention today. These include Saudi women's rights and human rights activists Loujain al-Hathloul, Nassima al-Sada, Samar Badawi, Nouf Abdulaziz, and Maya'a al-Zahrani; Senator Leila de Lima, detained for her criticism of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines; Guligeina Tashimaimaiti, a Uyghur PhD student detained in China; and Aster Fissehatsion, a political dissident held incommunicado without charge nor trial since 2001 in Eritrea. In Egypt, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Burundi, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, and Eritrea, these women threatened by a repressive government, abusive authorities, and critical risks to their health are advocating for the betterment of their entire communities. Sadly, these 25 women highlighted today only represent a small fraction of countless women and girls unjustly detained and imprisoned. On this International Women's Day, we reflect on the remarkable achievements of women and the work that remains to be done by all of us to reach gender parity. The women political prisoners we have highlighted today serve as role models championing human rights, democracy, cultural tolerance, and environmental preservation. Their detention should embolden the rest of us to take up their causes in their absence. I call on governments unjustly detaining women for exercising their fundamental rights to immediately release these political prisoners. We will not forget these women, what they have fought for, and what they have sacrificed for all of us as a result.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, on January 28, 2020, I submitted a statement for the Record on H. Con. Res. 83, which directs the President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces to engage in hostilities against Iran. H. Con. Res. 83 was passed by the House of Representatives on January 9, 2020, and received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations on January 13, 2020. Pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1546(c), H. Con. Res. 83 should have been treated as a privileged resolution and reported out of the committee on January 28. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee majority leadership opted not to hold a committee debate or vote on H. Con. Res. 83. As I explained in my statement of January 28, I understand that this decision was based primarily on the view that a concurrent resolution, under the War Powers Resolution, may be privileged only if it uses the word ``remove'' or the phrase ``removal of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities,'' rather than ``terminate'' or ``terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities,'' as used in H. Con. Res. 83. As I will explain, however, this view is not consistent with Senate precedent. On February 13, 2020, the Senate passed S.J. Res. 68. This resolution contains identical operative language to H. Con. Res. 83, directing the President to ``terminate'' the use of U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities against Iran. The very fact that S.J. Res. 68 was considered in the Senate on a privileged and expedited basis clarified that there are no magic words required for privilege under the War Powers Resolution, and that the use of ``terminate'' qualifies for such privilege. As a result, it is clear that H. Con. Res. 83 should have been accorded privileged status and, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1546(c), should have been reported out of committee and put up for a Senate vote. Fortunately, the Senate prerogatives under the War Powers Resolution were vindicated by the debate, privileged consideration, and vote on S.J. Res. 68. As such and in light of the identical purpose and operative texts of the Senate joint resolution and the House concurrent resolution, there is no need at this point for a second, identical debate to occur either in the committee or on the Senate floor. In other words, inaction on H. Con. Res. 83 is harmless. Both Chambers of Congress have made their views and the views of the American people with regard to U.S. hostilities against Iran quite clear. I hope President Trump and his national security staff abide by this message.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with a sense of urgency. Our next national election is a little more than 8 months away. We know from public reporting that Russia is back to its 2016 playbook and working to interfere again. What some called a political Pearl Harbor in 2016 is in the process of happening again. It is happening to us again. I notice that every Member of the Senate has Washington's Farewell Address. It is an annual ritual in which that address is read by Members. It is interesting, in the introduction, that one of the things Washington warned about is interference by foreign powers in the Nation's domestic affairs; George Washington, President, one of the Founders of our country, wrote back then about the interference of foreign powers in our domestic affairs. This isn't about the Kremlin helping Donald Trump, although we know that was their preference the last time. But it has become increasingly clear that at least at this point, chaos is the true goal. We haven't seen anything that may have changed what their preference was 4 years ago. Nothing that the President has done should be a reason for them not to want to see him be reelected again. But regardless of whether that is or is not the case, chaos is part of their goal. Rendering our democracy incapable of standing up to bullies abroad is their goal. What is this administration's response? Is it paralysis? No, it is anything but. This administration now appears to be engaged in a proactive strategy to deny this body access to information on this interference. With the appointment of Ric Grenell to serve as Acting Director of National Intelligence, the administration is sending a clear message to the American people, to the Congress, and to governments around the world that our intelligence services are now political commodities to be manipulated and used to gain electoral advantage. Amid all of the oversight challenges we face with this administration, we will likely look back on this decision as perhaps one of the most consequential and most damaging to our democratic institutions, and that is saying a lot about this White House. These reports of Russian interference do not come as a surprise. They should not find us flatfooted. Several of us have introduced sanctions legislation that would deter such Russian behavior from happening. The DASKA bill that I introduced with Senator Graham had broad bipartisan support and passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with a strong bipartisan vote and is waiting on the Senate floor for action. What are we waiting for? The election is 8 months away. What are we waiting for? We are waiting for responsible Senators to defend our democracy, waiting for a vote. Yet it sits here, and it is an outrage. Inaction at this very precarious stage in our democratic story violates the very oath that Members swore to uphold upon their election. Inaction by this body at this time is truly unimaginable. Yet here we are with this lack of will to stand up for our national security, this lack of will to defend our democratic institutions, this lack of will to fulfill the oath to our country. History will not judge well the Senate in this hour. Only Americans should decide American elections--no one else, no foreign power, no foreign player, no foreign individual. Only Americans should decide American elections. I think that is a pretty simple proposition, but it is a powerful one. Our legislation and others are not the only tools available to the President. If he decided to stand up for our democratic institutions, existing CAATSA legislation includes several sanction mandates already on the books that could be used. Obama and Trump era Executive orders are sitting on the shelf, gathering dust. Both could be employed right this minute to impose crippling sanctions on Russia to send a clear message: Do not mess with our elections or there are serious consequences. But what is the message from this White House in response to public reporting that Russia is again interfering? Is it following the laws that Congress has passed, full implementation of CAATSA, crippling sanctions on the Kremlin, full activation of all the powers involved and Executive orders? No, no. Instead, the President decided to fire the guy who delivered the news to Congress and replace him with a political sycophant. This would be like FDR dismissing the congressional declaration of war after Pearl Harbor and firing members of his staff who reported on the Japanese attack. It is pretty astounding. Never before have we had a President so transparently willing to bow down to a foreign foe, unwilling to challenge in the collective national interest and security of the United States, in the collective democracy of our country. The core of our democracy is citizen participation in casting a vote to decide who governs them, from the President to the Congress, to local States and mayors. When that is eroded by the engagement of a foreign government--a foreign government that is nefarious in its activities and consequential in its actions-- it undermines the very essence of our democracy. I don't care who they are helping. They are supposedly helping, according to the press reports, Senator Sanders as well. That is wrong. I don't want them helping anybody in our country. I don't want them engaged on behalf of anyone in our country. Never before have I seen a President unwilling to challenge Putin and Russia. Never before have I seen a President so willing to sacrifice national security for his own political gain. And every single Member in this body who does not stand up and hold him to account and try to make sure that we pass legislation and challenge the President to ultimately sign it and enact it and to pursue the law as it is already on the books in terms of CAATSA, to pursue the Executive order powers that exist today--which would send an incredibly powerful message if invoked--is complicit. We will have to bear the judgment of history. I expect the judgment will be rather harsh. For myself, I am going to do everything possible to ensure that our elections are sacrosanct and that they do not have the interference of a foreign power. I do not want to be among those whom history is going to judge very harshly for being silent in the face of an invasion of information and efforts to undermine our elections. In any other context, we would consider it a war. I consider it no less. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to elaborate on my statement of February 13 in support of S. J. Res. 68. This resolution puts the Senate on record with regard to war powers and Iran in the wake of the U.S. strike against Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Qasem Soleimani on January 2, 2020. The resolution, which directs the President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities against Iran, passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority. This bipartisan consensus is a testament to Senator Kaine's leadership, and I commend him for that. It is also a reflection of the Senate's deep concern about the risk of a broader military conflict between the United States and Iran. There is no dispute that Soleimani was an enemy of the United States, but this extraordinary killing of a high-ranking foreign military official nearly brought us to the brink of war. The strike would be justified if it had been necessary to defend against an imminent attack against the United States, but the administration has failed to provide any persuasive evidence of such a threat. Instead, the administration appears to be laying the foundation for further military action against Iran, without coming to Congress. Let's be clear: It is not just that there is no existing authorization. To the extent that the administration continues to confront Iran militarily, it is doing so in direct opposition to Congress--both the House and Senate have now passed bipartisan resolutions directing the President to terminate hostilities with Iran--and without the support of the American people. With that in mind, I would like to address some of the features of S.J. Res. 68, as well as the administration's legal rationale for the Soleimani strike and why that rationale is so problematic. Before doing so, I want to take a step back and make sure that everyone understands the real world impact. Today, over 100 service men and women are suffering from traumatic brain injuries incurred during an Iranian retaliatory attack over Soleimani. My heart goes out to them and their families. Thankfully there were no American casualties, but we will not be so lucky if President Trump stumbles into a broader conflict with Iran. So when I raise the alarm over this administration's actions, it is not academic. It is about our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and brothers and sisters serving in harm's way. It is about honoring their service with more than just words. It is about ensuring that they are not needlessly put in danger by an arrogant and lawless administration that refuses to recognize any limitation on its ability to drag our country into war. S.J. Res. 68 has a number of important features. I will highlight three of them briefly. First, this resolution established a new precedent in the Senate. The War Powers Resolution, as amended, provides for privileged consideration of joint resolutions that direct the President, in broad terms, to stop the use of U.S. forces in specified hostilities. The only such privileged resolutions in the Senate prior to S.J. Res. 68 mandated that the President ``remove'' U.S. forces from hostilities. The operative language of S.J. Res. 68 uses a variation of that language. Instead of ``remove,'' it directs the President to ``terminate'' the use of U.S. forces for hostilities. In a failed bid to prevent privileged consideration of S.J. Res. 68, the Republican majority asserted, in effect, that ``remove from hostilities'' was a term of art and that privilege was available only for resolutions that used that specific phrase. That rigid approach is inconsistent with the overarching purpose of the War Powers Resolution--for Congress to reconfirm and reassert its constitutional powers over the use of force--and contrary to the statutory framework and legislative history of the War Powers Resolution. The statute does not prescribe specific language, and the legislative record is full of examples of the interchangeable use of ``remove,'' ``terminate,'' and multiple other synonymous terms. Ultimately, the Senate moved forward with consideration of S.J. Res 68 on a privileged and expedited basis. This precedent is noteworthy for two reasons: First, it clarifies that there are no magic words required for privilege. This means that a resolution that requires the President to stop the use of U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities will not be deprived of expedited consideration in the Senate over semantics. Second, it provides a degree of flexibility for Senators who seek to stop such hostilities. For example, ``terminate'' or other synonyms may be more appropriate than ``remove'' for certain situations, like cyber operations, where implying a need for or requiring the physical removal of forces may not be practicable or desirable. Second, S. J. Res. 68 includes a rule of construction stating that it does not prevent the United States from defending itself against imminent attack. This is a critical feature. While we cannot abide by this President or any President usurping Congress' role and responsibility to authorize the use of force, the United States always has the right to defend itself against an ongoing or imminent attack. In tandem with this rule of construction, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator Risch that added the following finding: ``The President has a constitutional responsibility to take actions to defend the United States, its territories, possessions, citizens, service members, and diplomats from attack.'' The responsibility to ``take actions'' in defense of the United States and our people and interests is a core function of the Presidency. This responsibility includes the full range of resources available to the executive branch--diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence, military force, and beyond. Each type of action is subject to different legal and constitutional considerations, and the President never has a blank check. He or she is obligated to act consistently with the law and the Constitution at all times, even when in defense of the country. When using military force in self-defense, this means his or her actions must be in response to an attack or imminent attack unless Congress has explicitly authorized some other action. Against this backdrop, the Risch amendment is consistent with both the rule of construction in S.J. Res. 68 and the constitutional balance between Congress and the executive branch over the use of force. For these reasons, I voted in favor of the Risch amendment and am not surprised it passed overwhelmingly. While Senate passage of S. J. Res. 68 is a major step against an unnecessary and unauthorized war with Iran, I am concerned that the administration may not heed the message. At minimum, its legal rationale for the Soleimani strike suggests that it is attempting to lay the foundation for further military action against Iran. The administration has publicly asserted three legal bases for the Soleimani strike, but none of them add up. First, let me address the 2002 Iraq authorization to use military force, AUMF, a law that this administration has distorted beyond recognition. The administration has stated that the 2002 AUMF is a valid legal basis for the Soleimani strike because Soleimani was a threat ``emanating from Iraq.'' I am sorry to say that does not pass the laugh test. Congress passed the 2002 AUMF for a single purpose--to address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Nothing about the law, its text, or its legislative history suggests that it ever authorize or was intended to authorize the use of force against Iran. I know because I was there. I debated the AUMF, and I voted against it. But even the most staunch supporters would never have claimed that the authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002 extended to the killing of a senior Iranian commander 18 years later. The administration also cites article II of the Constitution as a legal basis for the Soleimani strike. Article II would be available to the extent the strike was necessary to defend against an imminent attack; however, as I noted earlier, nearly 2 months have passed, and Congress and the American people are still waiting for proof--proof that such an attack was, in fact, imminent and, if so, that killing Soleimani was required to prevent the attack. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the lack of supporting evidence, the administration does not limit its article II claim to self-defense. Like other recent administrations, it asserts that the Constitution empowers the President to use military force ``to protect important national interests.'' But what kind of legal standard is this? At best, ``protecting important national interests'' sets an incredibly low bar for the most consequential of actions. At worst, it is a self-serving power grab that the President can use to justify military action anywhere in the world without congressional authorization. We should not be surprised--this ``standard'' was concocted by and for the executive branch to maximize the President's ability to use military force without congressional authorization. It does not reflect a neutral analysis of the separation of power, it has not been tested in the courts, and it has not been approved by Congress. Just a few weeks ago, in this very Chamber, we listened as the President's defense lawyers argued during the impeachment trial that steps taken in support of the President's reelection are inherently in the national interest. That was a shocking and frightening claim in the impeachment context. But now consider it in the context of sending the men and women of our Armed Forces into harm's way. Surely the Constitution does not authorize the President to use force in support of his or her reelection. Surely, it does not. Then again, this administration has been unable or unwilling to identify any limits on its purported article II authority, any instance in which it would concede that it needs Congress to authorize the use of force. Finally, I refer you to Secretary Pompeo's January 17, 2020, appearance on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. While on air, Secretary Pompeo insinuated that the designation of the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, FTO, served as a legal basis to target IRGC members, presumably including Soleimani. FTO designations are administrative actions taken pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act; they are clearly not congressional authorizations for the use of military force. Now, I was hoping that Secretary Pompeo himself or a State Department official on his behalf would issue a simple clarification and acknowledge what we all know: An FTO designation has no bearing on whether this or any administration can use military force, period. I have written the Secretary on this question, and I have posed the same question to the State Department's Acting Legal Adviser. We continue to await a response, and I must say that the delay does not leave me with much confidence that we will receive the right answer. As so clearly demonstrated by the flimsy legal rationale advanced in relation to the Soleimani strike, we cannot rely on this administration or any administration to guard Congress' prerogatives over war powers. I am hopeful that the Soleimani strike and the Senate debate over S.J. Res. 68 will serve as a wake-up call. I am hopeful that all of our colleagues in this Chamber and in the House will work to reassert Congress' role over the use of force. We owe it to the Constitution, we owe it to the American people, and we owe it to the men and women who fight and die on our behalf.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 3 minutes in debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 68. Senator Kaine, a distinguished member of the Foreign Relations Committee, has done an extraordinary job here in riveting our attention to a congressional responsibility that is paramount. It calls for the removal of U.S. troops from hostilities against Iran that Congress has not authorized. One of the most consequential decisions we make as Members of Congress--I have been called on on more than one occasion between the House and the Senate--is whether to send our sons and daughters into battle. It is a decision that is about life and death and national security. The Constitution delegated that power to only one institution of the entire Federal Government--the Congress of the United States--to declare war, because of the severity of the consequences of the decision. It is up to the Congress to ensure that the executive branch, whoever sits there at any given time, utilizes all the tools of diplomacy it has to keep Americans safe and that there is an effective check on executive power before we send our children off to war. I stand in strong support of the resolution. This body must assert its congressional privilege. Of course, the President has the right to take action to defend against imminent threats to the homeland and to Americans abroad. No one disputes that. Senator Kaine doesn't dispute that. None of us do. But the President does not have the authority to engage in any military action he likes. We have been hearing from this administration that there is a redline--Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I agree. But if, at the end of the day, that means that to enforce your redline, you are going to take America to war, then you must come to the Congress of the United States and seek that authorization for war. What I hear from the administration: Oh, no, we have article II powers. Oh, no, the 2002 resolution--which had nothing to do with Iran. Never envisioned. It is so tortured to suggest that is authorization for us. Can we sit back and contemplate that possibility? We cannot. We cannot. So as someone who voted against the war in Iraq and served in Congress during the debate on whether to authorize military action, I can assure you that the 2002 resolution--that was not its intention, and it doesn't comport with the history, the use, or the plain reading of the text. I am gravely concerned about the administration's efforts to build a shaky legal foundation for the explicit purpose of carrying us into ever-longer wars, including potentially against Iran. Before we vote to ultimately decide that, it should be the Congress of the United States that should make that decision on behalf of the American people, looking our sons and daughters in the eyes and saying, yes, this is worthy of the national security of the United States. I will vote to send my son and daughter if the cause is right, but if the cause is not right, I will not vote to send my son and daughter or anyone else's sons and daughters. That is the debate that should be had here. That is what Senator Kaine is trying to do with this resolution. I am concerned that some of the amendments being offered are simply to undermine that. I look forward to joining with Senator Kaine to pass that resolution, as well as oppose some of the amendments. I will submit a longer statement for the Record on this resolution, S.J. Res. 68, and the War Powers Resolution more broadly when we return on Monday, February 24. I urge my colleagues to read that statement. With that, I yield back. Vote on Amendment No. 1301

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to express strong concern about the situation in South Sudan and to call on the administration to step up its diplomatic efforts to avert a return to conflict and help achieve a lasting peace. For 6 years, the people of South Sudan have suffered the effects of a brutal civil war. International efforts to find a diplomatic solution have failed, and the humanitarian situation in South Sudan remains one of the worst in the world. In September 2018, President Salva Kiir and his main political opponent, former Vice President Riek Machar, agreed to form a unity government in the capital, Juba, by March of 2019. Though this so called ``revitalized agreement'' is not perfect, it is what we have to work with. The ceasefire between Kiir and Machar that was part of it has largely held, sparing the South Sudanese from the violence and brutality so many experienced at the height of the civil war. I am also encouraged that the government and political opposition groups that had refused to sign the 2018 revitalized peace deal reached an accord last month. However, two successive delays in the establishment of the unity government have made me skeptical about the chances that the latest deadline, February 22, will be met. While both parties have stated their commitment to it, they have yet to effectively address two fundamental sticking points: the boundaries of South Sudan's states, and the formation of an inclusive national army. Absent an agreement on these two issues, lasting peace may prove elusive. At the end of the day, Kiir, Machar, and others who claim to represent the South Sudanese people are responsible for peace in their country. However, given our historical role in South Sudan, the United States has a significant role to play. I would like to remind my colleagues that the United States was heavily involved in brokering the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement which helped create the conditions for South Sudan's independence. Since independence, the United States has provided nearly $3.8 billion in emergency humanitarian assistance since the outbreak of civil war. We have supported the UN peacekeeping force in South Sudan, UNMISS, which is protecting 200,000 civilians sheltering in or near its bases, investing more than $342 million last fiscal year. These dollars are and have contributed to keeping thousands of people alive. But the South Sudanese deserve more than mere life support. They deserve to live in peace. We have influence with all of the key actors in the region, yet the administration has failed to use it. The administration must effectively use its influence to help the millions of South Sudanese who aspired to liberty but found misery instead. Previous administrations made South Sudan a priority in their foreign policy. The Bush administration helped negotiate the aforementioned Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The Obama administration help shepherd the country to independence and remained actively engaged as the security and humanitarian situation devolved. At his confirmation hearing, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Tibor Nagy promised that under his leadership, ``The South Sudanese will realize just how involved the United States is.'' However, administration engagement has been weak and inconsistent, and it is not guided by a clearly articulated strategy. In May 2018, the White House announced it was conducting a review of our assistance programs to South Sudan. In a statement, it expressed frustration that, ``the leaders of this country have squandered this partnership, pilfered the wealth of South Sudan, killed their own people, and repeatedly demonstrated their inability and unwillingness to live up to their commitments to end the country's civil war''--a bold statement but it has been more than a year and a half since the review was announced, and it remains incomplete. Since that time, what has the administration done? Well, 3 years into the administration, it has finally designated a special envoy, something for which I have been advocating for years, but the envoy will not answer directly to the President or the Secretary of State, which I fear may limit his stature and, therefore, his effectiveness. Additionally, the administration has imposed targeted sanctions. Last year, the Treasury Department sanctioned two Cabinet ministers, Elia Lomuro and Kuol Manyang Juuk. Last month, they also sanctioned South Sudan's First Vice President Taban Deng Gai. Deng is credibly accused of influencing the government to execute to dissidents; he should be sanctioned for human rights abuses. But, as I have said many times before, sanctions are not a strategy. Sanctions are a tool to be used selectively to apply pressure towards a specific political goal. In this case, support for a comprehensive and durable peace agreement. Last month, a year and a half since his confirmation, Ambassador Nagy visited Juba. While I applaud Ambassador Nagy's trip--I believe that the U.S. should be increasing its diplomatic engagement--one visit does not a policy make. It is unclear what the trip was meant to accomplish in the absence of a comprehensive strategy. At this critical juncture, I am still hard pressed to understand the administration's approach towards South Sudan, and I am worried that we do not have a plan of action should this latest deadline not be met. Time is of the essence; I urge the administration to take several actions. First, ensure that Special Envoy Symington has the appropriate staff and resources to effectively undertake his responsibilities. The administration has moved from no envoys for Sudan and South Sudan to two envoys. While the challenges in the two countries are different, the fates of the two countries remain intertwined. Coordination is critical, as is support for both of their offices. Second, we must have a sound strategy for supporting a viable peace agreement. I call upon Special Envoy Symington to take immediate steps to develop an interagency strategy, in consultation with our Ambassadors in the region, aimed at uniting the region to apply pressure to the parties to address outstanding obstacles to the formation of a unity government. In the short term, the strategy should focus on developing benchmarks and milestones towards formation of a unity government, and steps--to include punitive measures--the United States will take to encourage regional partners to apply consistent pressure on the parties to the conflict to move towards peace. Longer term, it should lead towards supporting conditions that support a sustainable peace and credible elections. The strategy should also include actions to support grassroots reconciliation and restorative justice, as well as accountability for war crimes and human rights abuses. Finally, the administration must conclude its review of assistance to South Sudan and be transparent to the South Sudanese, members of the diplomatic community, and the American people about exactly what the next steps will be relative to its findings and how those steps fit into a broader strategy. Whatever these steps are, they should be aimed towards cementing peace, and continuing strong support for development and humanitarian assistance to the people of South Sudan. If past is prologue, South Sudan's leaders may well once again fail their people. The stakes for the formation of a unity government--one that can implement a durable peace--are perilously high. If the current negotiations collapse, millions will suffer. We must do all we can to ensure that the South Sudanese are able to move forward with this agreement, flawed though it may well be, and we must be prepared to help it succeed.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize and congratulate Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ on the 150th anniversary of its founding. On February 15, 1870, Stevens Institute of Technology was founded as the first college of mechanical engineering in the United States, with a bequest from Edwin A. Stevens, a member of ``America's first family of inventors.'' Over the past 150 years, the university has expanded to include comprehensive academic offerings in a wide array of engineering and science discipline, and has an accredited School of Business and a College of Arts and Letters. From its earliest days, Stevens has honored its mission to inspire, nurture, and educate leaders in the technology-centric environment of the future, while equipping them with the tools to find innovative solutions to the most challenging problems of our time. Today Stevens is among the fastest growing universities in the Nation, attracting top students and faculty from New Jersey, the Nation, and across the globe. Stevens is also one of the largest producers of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, degree recipients in New Jersey and ranks first in the State and 15th in the Nation in the production of engineering graduate degrees. Students at Stevens benefit from the university's technology-centric education, which provides a unique and entrepreneurial approach to learning that encourages problem-solving and is a passport to success. Stevens has an outstanding 96 percent placement rate for its graduates, and its alumni have launched and led numerous companies and organizations. Stevens faculty, student, and alumni have pioneered research and innovations in many diverse fields, including transportation, telecommunications, resiliency, sustainability, artificial intelligence, machine learning, healthcare, biomedicine, cybersecurity, maritime security, and systems engineering. It is no exaggeration to say that Stevens has changed and improved the way we live, work, and communicate, greatly benefiting society. Stevens has also contributed significantly to the community and local, State, and national economy. It is my great honor to recognize Stevens for this significant milestone in the history of the university and to thank its leadership, faculty, students, and alumni for their profound and farreaching contributions to the communities of Hoboken, Hudson County, the State of New Jersey, and to the United States.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today as an unwavering believer in the system of checks and balances laid out by our Framers in the Constitution, with three coequal branches of government at times working with each other and at times working as a check against each other. It is this system of checks and balances that safeguards our Republic against tyranny and ensures that our government by the people, for the people, as Abraham Lincoln said, does not perish from the Earth. My colleagues, what the facts of this trial have shown and what every Member of this body knows is that President Trump did exactly what the House has accused him of in these two Articles of Impeachment: abusing his power and obstructing Congress. These articles strike at the very heart of a republic ruled not by men but by laws and the very notion of a government elected by and for the people. I took my constitutional oath to do impartial justice seriously. I came to the trial with an open mind. I listened to both sides. I waited for the facts to persuade me. But in all the many hours I sat through this trial, not once did I hear the President's team make a compelling defense. Instead, I heard a damning case from the House managers detailing how President Trump subverted our national security and solicited foreign interference in our election for his own personal political benefit. The facts show that the President used U.S. security assistance and an official White House meeting--two of Ukraine's highest priorities-- not to advance our national security but, rather, his own 2020 reelection effort. In so doing, he violated the law known has the Impoundment Control Act and undermined Congress's constitutional authority. As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I want to make something clear. When a foreign adversary like Russia interferes in our elections, it is not for the benefit of the United States; it is for the benefit of Russia. The United States provides foreign assistance to countries all over the world because it benefits America's interests. We help Ukraine in their fight against Russian aggression because it is the right thing to do for our national security. But when U.S. officials tell Ukraine that in order to get the Oval Office meeting their President wants and the security assistance it urgently needs, their government must first announce investigation into President Trump's political opponents, that is not advancing our national security. That is corrupting it. That is forcing a foreign country to choose between their own security and getting perversely involved in another country's elections. When we use U.S. foreign assistance as a political pawn, we weaken our standing and credibility in the world. Ukraine needed our help. Yet, when it sought our military assistance, instead of sending it right away, the President of the United States said: Well, I would like you to do us a favor, though. The damage of that message cannot be undone. And if we don't hold this President accountable, then we are saying it is OK to do it again. I fear the consequences of the President's actions, and I fear the consequences of our own inaction--not just for today or this year but for years to come when we have to explain to our allies ``Trust us; we will be there'' or when we tell the American people ``Trust us; we are doing this in the name of U.S. national security'' or when we press other countries about strengthening the rule of law and holding free and fair elections. If we do not rein in this conduct, if we do not call it the abuse of power that it is, then we have failed to live up to the ideals of our Republic. I fear we have already let the American people and our Constitution down by failing to hold a fair trial. There is no American across this country who would call a trial without witnesses and documents a fair trial. They would call it a sham. And by refusing witnesses and documents, the Senate is complicit in the President's obstruction of Congress--the essence of the House's second Article of Impeachment. The House had a constitutional prerogative to conduct an impeachment and oversight investigation. Yet President Trump engaged in unprecedented obstruction in order to cover up his misconduct by blocking witnesses with firsthand knowledge, by denying access to any documents, by publicly disparaging and threatening--threatening--those with the courage to defy his orders and testify publicly, by casting aside a coequal branch of government, as if he can really do, as he himself has said, whatever he wants. When a President tries to extort a foreign government for his own political aims and in doing so ignores the law and the Constitution, the only remedy can be that which our Framers gave us: impeachment and removal. The Framers knew this day would come. They knew the threat of an Executive who welcomed or solicited foreign interference in our elections is real. What the Framers of our Constitution never could have imagined is that there would come a day when the U.S. Senate would shrink in the face of a President who would behave like a King, not out of principle but out of willful ignorance and blind party loyalty. Our failure to conduct a fair trial casts doubt on the very verdict rendered by this body. This is not an exoneration of a President; it is a coronation of a King. I believe that the day we fail to remove this President will go down in history as a day of constitutional infamy. It will be remembered as a dark day for our democracy, for our national security, and for our constitutional order. I ask my colleagues, what future damage will we enable if this body says that it is OK for a President to subvert our national security interests and solicit foreign interference in our elections? What will be left of our system of checks and balances if there are no consequences for obstructing investigations, blocking witnesses, and withholding evidence from Congress? If we do not remove this President, can we pull ourselves back to a place where the rule of law matters? How much more shredding of the Constitution as a nation can we possibly endure? We already know President Trump thinks he can go to war without congressional authorization. He believes he can misuse congressionally appropriated funds for whatever he wants, like taking billions from the Department of Defense to spend on a border wall that every day proves to be a colossal waste. And through it all, the compliant and complicit Republican majority has further emboldened this President by eliminating the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominations, by refusing to call witnesses in this trial, by further stripping the Senate of its David versus Goliath role in which we serve as a check on vast executive power. If the Senate is prepared to say that this President and all future Presidents of either party can misuse congressionally appropriated funding to extract political favors from a foreign power, can deny all witnesses, can withhold all relevant documents, can openly threaten Ambassadors, career public servants, and Members of Congress--if a President can commit all of these gross abuses of power as if he were above the law, then the very essence of our democracy is broken, and what we must ask ourselves is, What is left? What is left of our Constitution if we are not prepared to defend it? What is left other than lawlessness? We need Republicans of conscience and courage to say more than just ``Yes, the President did it, and it was wrong.'' We need our Republican colleagues to be intellectually honest. We need them to speak the truth and say it is impeachable so we can mount a bipartisan defense of the Constitution and all that America stands for. I, for one, am prepared to defend our Constitution. I will vote guilty on the Articles of Impeachment, not because of loyalty to any party, not because of how it will or won't play in any upcoming election. I will vote for impeachment and removal not because I hate this President, because I don't, but because I love our country more. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and with this vote, I intend to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a question, which I send to the desk and ask the House managers to respond to it.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk and refer it to the House managers.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, H. Con. Res. 83 directs the President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces to engage in hostilities against Iran, unless Congress has authorized the use of military force against Iran or such use is necessary to defend against an imminent armed attack. H. Con. Res. 83 was agreed to in the House of Representatives on January 9, 2020 and received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on January 13, 2020. The War Powers Resolution, PL 93-148, has special procedures underscoring the privileged nature of a concurrent resolution like H. Con. Res. 83. Section 1546(c) of the War Powers Resolution requires that once a privileged concurrent resolution such as H. Con. Res. 83 has been passed by the House, it must be referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and ``shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days.'' Fifteen calendar days from January 13 is today, January 28, 2020. Under the law, the concurrent resolution may be reported out with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or no recommendation at all, but it must be reported out. Unfortunately, it appears that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee majority leadership has decided to allow the 15 calendar days to lapse without taking action on H. Con. Res. 83. This failure to act leaves a statutory obligation unfulfilled. I understand that the chairman is basing this inaction primarily on the contention that a concurrent resolution under 50 U.S.C. 1544(c) may be privileged only if it uses the word ``remove'' or the phrase ``removal of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities,'' rather than ``terminate'' or ``terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities'' as used in H. Con. Res. 83. The argument appears to be that the use of ``removed'' in 1544(c) of the War Powers Resolution eliminates the possibility of privilege if any other terminology is used, regardless of functional equivalency. This argument suggests that ``removal'' is a term of art required for privilege. The approach is unjustifiably restrictive. Treating ``removal'' as a term of art required for privilege is inconsistent with the overarching purpose of the War Powers Resolution and without support in either the statutory framework or legislative history. It also undermines Senate and congressional prerogatives. The purpose of the War Powers Resolution was for Congress to reconfirm and reassert its constitutional powers over ``undeclared'' wars. The availability of a privileged and binding resolution to force a President to stop using U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities is central to that purpose. Limiting such privilege to a single phrase or word is inconsistent with this reassertion of congressional powers and is neither a feature of the statute nor its legislative history. The statutory framework of the War Powers Resolution does not support the assertion that ``removal'' or ``removal from hostilities'' are terms of art that are required for and exclusive to the availability of privilege. To the contrary, those terms are not defined in law; nor is there any reference in the statute to a military or other usage of those phrases to suggest that they are terms of art. The absence of statutorily mandated language for privilege in the War Powers Resolution directly contrasts with many other statutes in which Congress expressly requires specific language for privilege to attach. For example, in contrast to the War Powers Resolution, section 130(f) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, PL 83-703, section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act, PL 90-629, and section 216(c) of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, PL 115-44 all require specific text for privileged resolutions and provide that text in quotations in the statute. Clearly, as evidenced by laws enacted before and after the War Powers Resolution, Congress knows how to require the use of unique, statutorily mandated language for privilege to apply. The fact that it did not do so in the War Powers Resolution demonstrates that there was no intent to limit privilege to use of a single word or phrase. Further, the legislative record of the War Powers Resolution does not support the assertion that there is an exclusive connection between the use of ``removal'' and the availability of privilege. To the contrary, the record indicates that ``remove'' and ``terminate'' were used synonymously. The record is replete with the interchangeable usage of synonymous terms consistent with a cessation of the use of U.S. forces in hostilities. For example, House Report 93-287 uses no less than seven terms in this regard, including ``conclude,'' ``disengage,'' ``remove,'' ``terminate,'' ``abandon such action,'' and ``stop.'' In fact, the conferees even used ``terminate'' to describe the privileged resolution envisioned in 1544(c), clearly demonstrating that these terms were considered to be functionally equivalent for purposes of War Powers. ``The House joint resolution provided that use of United States Armed Forces by the President without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization could be terminated by Congress through the use of a concurrent resolution. The Senate amendment provided for such termination by a bill or joint resolution.'' H. Rept. 93-547, Conference Report to H.J. Res. 542. This legislative history, in tandem with a statutory construct that does not require a term of art, demonstrates that the insistence on such a term for privilege is misguided. Finally, strictly limiting privilege to a resolution that uses ``remove'' is inconsistent with Senate and congressional perogatives. The purpose of the War Powers Resolution--reasserting the power of Congress over undeclared wars--can be vindicated only if the executive branch and its supporters in the Senate cannot use committee or floor procedure to bottle up a resolution consistent with both the purpose and construct of the War Powers Resolution. Reading into the statute a requirement for specific terminology where no such requirement exists unjustifiably restricts Senate action and limits the reassertion of congressional authority over War Powers. For the reasons stated above, I urge the chairman to immediately take the necessary steps to ensure full compliance with the law.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to join Senators Whitehouse and Sullivan on the floor today to thank our colleagues for passing the legislation that we have all coauthored to combat the environmental crisis of plastic waste in our oceans. Our partnership represents both the geographic and political urgency behind this growing crisis. Save Our Seas 2.0 is a multifaceted effort that will help the United States to better prevent plastic pollution, respond to marine debris emergencies, and leverage U.S. foreign policy and international engagement to prevent and clean up foreign sources of plastic pollution. We have a responsibility to protect the health of the world's oceans, which regulate our climate, produce half of the Earth's oxygen supply, and provide food to 2.6 billion people worldwide. The environmental health of our world depends on healthy oceans, and plastic pollution and marine debris are like cholesterol clogging global ecosystems in countless ways. The reality is that plastic waste in our ocean knows no borders. What may be a plastic wrapper floating down a river in China today could be microplastic in your tuna salad tomorrow. Let me thank Senator Whitehouse, who has been so much engaged in our oceans since his coming to the Senate--well, even before that, but, certainly, as a leader in the Senate--and Senator Sullivan for their longstanding bipartisan leadership on this issue and cooperation on the bill. I was happy to have supported the original Save Our Seas Act in the 115th Congress. Last year, when several international news stories exposed the tragic environmental impact of plastic on our marine environment, I began working on legislation to enhance U.S. international engagement on this truly global crisis, which served as the basis for title II of our bill. At the time, I was not immediately aware that Senators Sullivan and Whitehouse were planning a second act, so to speak, and I dearly appreciate being a part of the Save Our Seas team. I also want to thank Chairman Risch for supporting and advancing the international components of this bill through the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as all of the chairs and rankings who have already been mentioned. I think that advancing three component parts of the bill through all of these respective committees, which is no small feat, and the 20 bipartisan cosponsors shows the Senate's broad support for action on plastic waste. New Jerseyans know all too well the threat of plastic pollution. Our pristine beaches attract millions of people to the Jersey Shore each year, and our coastal waters support everything from fishing and recreation to the flow of trade, to our ports and harbors. No one wants to swim in plastic or eat fish that fed on microplastic. That is why 25 New Jersey townships have passed local ordinances banning or phasing down disposable plastic products, and another 26 may soon join them. There is also legislation pending in the New Jersey State Legislature to limit the proliferation of disposal plastics in New Jersey's economy. With 40 percent of Americans living in coastal communities, my constituents back home are far from the only ones grappling with the hazards of plastic pollution in our oceans. There is no question we still have work to do. As our bill heads to the House, I look forward to continuing these efforts with Senators Whitehouse and Sullivan and our cosponsors as we engage House leaders to act on the bill this year. Again, thank you to my colleagues. It is good. I know it doesn't always get the headlines. The essence of a good story seems to be conflict not cooperation, but I am thrilled to be a part of cooperation that could make a difference in the lives not just of our oceans but of our families. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, for over 3 years now, everyday Americans, Members of this body, our diplomatic corps, and our allies and adversaries alike have wondered whether there is any sort of coherent strategy guiding the national security and foreign policy of President Donald Trump. If the events of recent days are any indication, the answer is a resounding no. The Trump administration has no vision for how we might build a world that is more stable, peaceful, and prosperous for future generations. To be sure, the administration has some serious reports outlining global challenges and nicely drafted statements proclaiming their ``America First'' strategy. In practice, the President's erratic leadership and failure to invest in the very institutions we need to promote American national security have sowed chaos and increasingly left America alone. Our Nation has faced great challenges before. Yet, having served nearly three decades in Congress, I cannot recall a time when so many of them were of our own making and as predictable as they were avoidable. Simply put, President Trump's foreign policy, like President Trump himself, is completely shortsighted, self-interested, and transactional. The President's abandonment of our core values has already eroded America's standing abroad. Near the end of the last administration, the Gallup organization found that 48 percent of respondents in more than 100 countries worldwide had confidence in the United States. Today, it has gone from 48 percent to--it hovers around 31 percent. Furthermore, more people around the world likely trust--according to the poll--China or Russia rather than the United States. I know that national security is not a popularity contest, but the erosion of America's standing in the world matters because it makes it less safe for Americans. It undermines our diplomacy. It hinders economic opportunity. It undercuts our ability to promote our values, betraying our centuries-long vision of our Nation as a city on a hill. Our Nation was founded on noble ideals. It is those ideals more than our unrivaled economic strength and more than our unparalleled military might that have rallied the world to our side--from the defeat of fascism in Europe, to the rise of international institutions and security partnerships, and to the fall of the Berlin Wall and beyond. President Trump has squandered this precious resource of our values-- our ``soft power''--through actions that betray our ideals, abandon our allies, and appease our enemies. Far from America First, this administration is leaving America isolated, corrupted, and behind. We see it again and again--from Ukraine, to Syria, to Iran and beyond. Consider Russia. Even as our intelligence community and bipartisan congressional reports point to ``incontrovertible'' proof of Russia's interference in our 2016 elections and plans to do so this year in 2020, to this day, the President's own fragile ego still prevents him from even acknowledging the threat, let alone standing up to continued Russian aggression. Turn to North Korea. Two years ago, the President said that he had achieved a breakthrough and that we didn't have to worry about North Korea anymore and we could sleep well at home. Yet, despite all the made-for-TV moments, his poorly conceived and poorly executed effort has left North Korea a greater threat in 2020. Under President Trump's watch, North Korea has expanded its nuclear arsenal, successfully tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile, and conducted its most powerful nuclear testing. His administration has undercut our critical defensive alliance with South Korea and Japan and walked away from serious sanctions enforcement. Nearby in China, the administration's efforts have failed to change China's actions in the South China Sea, resolve the structural issues at play in our trade relationship, or address its worsening human rights and governance behavior--from the crackdown in Hong Kong, to the oppression of the Uighurs, to China's growing economic and technological influence, used to spy and oppress. Turning to the Western Hemisphere, a year ago, the President rightly denounced Maduro but misleadingly declared the success of his Venezuela policy. Today, the President sits silently as millions of Venezuelans fleeing a massive humanitarian crisis and the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans already in the United States remain in desperate need of temporary protected status. President Trump says he wants to confront the root causes of migration. He says he wants to combat drug trafficking and the opioid epidemic. Yet he has repeatedly weakened our counternarcotics, law enforcement, and development operations in the Northern Triangle and Mexico, while continuing to push for a border wall he promised the American people Mexico would pay for. The administration's abhorrent treatment of asylum seekers--from separating children from their parents to placing people in cruel and inhuman conditions--has only further weakened America's moral standard. Likewise, President Trump's functional destruction of our Refugee Resettlement Program and the slashing of refugee admissions to the United States not only damage America's reputation as a beacon of hope for vulnerable people around the world but deprive us of the contributions refugees have always brought to our economy and our communities. We also face immense challenges like climate change. Yet, even as our close ally Australia faces the most deadly conflagration, this administration continues to deny a threat that is already costing American taxpayers billions of dollars in the wake of increasingly severe storms, fires, and floods. Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement was a gross abdication of American leadership, one that has allowed China--yes, China--to position itself as the world leader on clean energy. The Trump administration has also ceded ground at the United Nations to China and Russia. Recently, China beat us out for a leadership seat at the Food and Agriculture Organization, while Russia won out support for its cyber crime treaty. While the administration may seek to explain away these losses on an individual basis, this is, in fact, the steady drip, drip, drip of the loss of American power and influence due to President Trump's abject mismanagement. Turn now to Africa. At a time when our allies, as well as adversaries like Russia and China, are ramping up their engagement, the United States is pulling back. Indeed, Secretary Pompeo has visited Kansas on multiple occasions during his tenure, but he has yet to visit a single sub-Saharan country. Likewise, we see a complete absence of diplomatic strategies for challenges across Africa, from preventing a return to conflict in South Sudan, to supporting the democratic transition in Ethiopia, to curbing terrorism in the Sahel. The recent tragic deaths of Americans in Kenya demonstrate a lack of progress in weakening terrorist organizations like al-Shabaab and Boko Haram. Likewise, for a year, the administration failed to waive human trafficking sanctions so that USAID could adequately respond to the deadly Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo. On human rights, the Trump administration's approach is, in one word, abysmal. The administration supported the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen amid credible reports of despicable war crimes. It stood silent on the killing of Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi at MBS's direction. It has downplayed human rights and democratic backsliding in Honduras, Guatemala, the Philippines, Burma, Turkey, and beyond. Likewise, the Trump administration has rolled back the rights of women and girls worldwide, from cutting off funding for lifesaving maternal care they falsely claim promotes abortions to reinstating the global gag rule. It has also set back the clock on equality and protection for LGBTQ citizens in international instruments at the U.N. and elsewhere. I want to remind my colleagues why America must champion human rights--not just because it is right, although it certainly is right, but because democracy and respect for human freedom are the foundation of a safer, better world for the American people to thrive in. As the President abdicates our leadership and undermines the institutions we worked decades to help build, we have witnessed attacks on some of America's closest friends. President Trump's verbal broadside against the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and South Korea, just to mention a few--the latter during the ongoing nuclear standoff with North Korea--are deeply regrettable and completely counterproductive. This is not how America leads the world; this is how America finds itself alone, isolated, and more vulnerable. This administration has attacked the very idea of diplomacy. They proposed enormous cuts to the State Department's budget, removed senior diplomatic leaders with no replacements, and marginalized the State Department's input on key decisions. Finally, nowhere in the world is President Trump's reckless foreign policy and total lack of strategy more painfully obvious than the Middle East. Let me be clear: I do not shed a tear for Qasem Soleimani. As a commander of the IRGC Quds Force, he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and supporting terrorism throughout the Middle East. Previous administrations kept tabs on Soleimani's whereabouts, both Republican and Democratic alike, but they always chose not to act against him because the decision was that the action against him--the value of that was of less value than the consequences of retaliation and long-term military action. The President must come to Congress and present clear and compelling intelligence as to why this strike against Soleimani was absolutely necessary. What was the imminent threat Soleimani uniquely possessed? We need to know if the threats we face have materially changed. In the wake of all of its misleading statements, we must make clear to the administration that the President by himself does not--does not--have the authority to launch a war against Iran. Let me send the President a message. Attack on cultural sites are war crimes. They are war crimes. We observe international law not only because it is right but because then we can demand other countries to observe international law as well. The consequences of President Trump's strike on Iranian Commander Qasem Soleimani are unfolding as we speak. Already, the Iraqi Parliament has called for an expulsion of American forces. Now there is confusion about what U.S. policy is. Are we keeping troops to fight ISIS? Are we going to start sanctions on Iraq? Confusion. Contradiction. Chaos. Amid such confusion, the one thing that has taken place for sure is that instead of our mission there to fight ISIS, we are now having to recalibrate to use that mission to protect our own forces there. What a reprieve ISIS gets. Despite what the President may say, Iran is not a different country than it was 2 years ago. Iranian-backed protesters just stormed our Embassy. Previously, they were storming Iranian Embassies. The Iraqi people were storming Iranian Embassies because of Iran's influence in Iraq. Now they are out massively protesting against us. A regime that continues to oppress its own people and its proxies now has a solidified populous behind it. Soleimani's legacy, ultimately, is that what he could not achieve in life, he may very well have achieved in death--pushing the United States out of Iraq. It is no secret that I did not support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, but let's be clear: Today, Iran is closer to a nuclear breakout than when President Trump took office, and we have isolated ourselves from the international alliance that we have built to constrain Iran's ambitions. Meanwhile, in Syria, the President's greenlight for Turkey's incursion has weakened American interest in the region, allowed Russia to grow its influence, and opened the door for ISIS to reconstitute. By turning our backs on the Kurds, we signaled to the world that we will abandon our allies on the battlefield. And while the President promised to stop endless wars in the Middle East, over the weekend, thousands of military family members are unexpectedly saying goodbye as their loved ones receive orders to do just the opposite. President Trump has not brought the American people a more peaceful, a more stable, and a more prosperous world. On the contrary, the President has brought us closer to war, closer to facing a nuclear- armed Iran, closer to facing an existential threat to Israel, and closer to witnessing a destabilizing arms race and greater conflict in the entire Middle East region, fueled by emboldened Iranian proxy forces. A show of strength with no strategy in place is no show of strength at all. President Trump spent the better part of 3 years on the golf course, eviscerating the clear lines between a President's responsibilities to the American people and his devotion to his own wallet. The President and his family continue to put their business interests over America's interests. The President has flouted the Constitution's emoluments clause and shredded decades of ethical norms by refusing to divest himself from the Trump Organization. He and his family maintain unprecedented business interests in real estate projects in about 20 foreign countries that undoubtedly entangle him with foreign governments whenever local cooperation or financing is needed. It is clear that that creates a conflict that does not put the Nation's interests first. He operates with no moral compass. Indeed, the President's pursuit of his own personal profit at the expense of America's national security interests in Ukraine led to his impeachment by the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to remember why America's conduct on the world stage matters, why our values matter, and why our leadership matters. We strive to create a more peaceful and a more stable world so that we can protect the security of Americans at home, so that we can create greater prosperity and economic opportunity for our people, and, at the end of the day, avoid at all costs a need to send our sons and daughters to war. Every President faces new threats that challenge our quest for this brighter future. We have worked hard to create institutions and provide resources to help every administration navigate this increasingly complex world. We pray that the moral character of every President provides them with the foresight and judgment necessary to protect American security and our strategic interests when it matters the most. Instead, President Trump has taken difficult security challenges and made them even harder to resolve. That is why Congress's role in shaping and advancing U.S. foreign policy has never mattered more. That is why I will continue to advance strategic legislation from Turkey to climate change, to new Ukraine support to conduct oversight, and to speak on behalf of the American people and the values and norms that define us and our place in this complicated world. Here in the Senate, we have an obligation. We cannot cynically look the other way or be silent or enable that which we know to be wrong, risky, and morally reprehensible. History will not judge us kindly if we do. I, for one, will not stand idly by and be judged that way. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 150 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I further ask that the resolution be agreed to; the preamble be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, we have just passed the Armenian genocide resolution recognition. It is fitting and appropriate that the Senate stands on the right side of history in doing so. It commemorates the truth of the Armenian genocide. On Monday, we commemorated the International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the victims of the crime of genocide and of the prevention of this crime. The UN General Assembly established this day of remembrance to commemorate and honor the victims of genocide and highlight efforts to combat and prevent genocide. Passing this resolution is a fitting tribute to this day of remembrance. I have come to the floor on various occasions to talk about the history of the Armenian genocide. An Armenian priest, Krikoris Balakian, recorded some of the massacres against the Armenians. He said: In Ankara and its surroundings, only a couple hundred miles east of Constantinople, the killing was done with ``axes, cleavers, shovels, and pitchforks.'' It was like a slaughterhouse; Armenians were hacked to pieces . . . infants were dashed on rocks before the eyes of their mothers. It was indescribable horror. Even when Armenians were supposedly deported, the conditions they were forced to live in made clear that Turkey's ultimate goal was to eliminate the Armenian people. A visitor to one Turkish city in October of 1915 wrote: ``The 16,000 deported Armenians who were living in the tents have been sent to Konia in cattle trucks. At night, while thousands of these unfortunate people, without food or shelter, shiver with cold, those brutes who are supposed to be their guardians attack them with clubs. And push them towards the station. Women, children, and old men are packed together in the trucks. The men have to climb on to the top of the trucks, in spite of the dreadful cold. Their cries are heart-breaking, but all is in vain. Hunger, cold, and fatigue, together with the Government's deeds of violence, will soon achieve the extermination of the last remnant of the Armenian people.'' Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador for Turkey, from 1913 to 1916, understood full well what was transpiring. He left his post in early 1916 because, as he later recalled, ``My failure to stop the destruction of the Armenians had made Turkey for me a place of horror.'' American diplomats like Henry Morgenthau were on the ground in Turkey, and they made heroic efforts to help the Armenian people, but here in Washington at the time, no one did anything in the face of this heinous crime. As former UN Ambassador Samantha Power wrote in her Pulitzer Prize- winning book, ``A Problem from Hell,'' ``America's nonresponse to the Turkish horrors established patterns that would be repeated.'' As my colleague from Texas, my cosponsor who has been such a stalwart advocate with me, has very often noted, this is the first genocide to be recorded in this century. We know all too well the horrors in the 20th century with the Holocaust and other genocides around the world. So here in the Senate today, we break those patterns. We join the House and voted to do so by passing a resolution affirming the facts of the genocide, 405 to 11. Today, the Senate shows the same resolve. I am deeply grateful to Senator Cruz for his stalwart leadership on this issue and to the 27 other Senators from both parties who have cosponsored the resolution and demonstrated their commitment to the truth, and the truth finally will set us free. I am thankful that this resolution has passed in a time in which there are still survivors of the genocide. We will be able to see that the Senate acknowledges what they left. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor again to seek unanimous consent for a resolution that commemorates the Armenian genocide. In October, the House of Representatives passed a version of this resolution by a vote of 405 to 11--405 to 11. This vote was historic, and I applaud the bipartisan courage of those in the House to stand up for what is right. For those here in the Senate who would consider objecting to this request, I urge you to think long and hard about what it means for your reputation, what it means for history, and what it means for the Senate as an institution. History is watching, and it will not look kindly on those who object to recognizing genocide. In recent speeches before the Senate, I have laid out the case for why we must move forward on this resolution. The simple threshold question for this body comes to this: Do we recognize a clear case of genocide when it happens, or do we let a country like Turkey determine our own views, determine our own sense of history, determine our own moral obligation, and determine the public record--a Turkey that today is committing atrocities against the Kurds in Syria, a Turkey that has teamed up with Russia and the Kremlin in purchasing the S-400 air defense system and just recently used it against an American F-16 to see if it works, and a Turkey that works to block forward movement in NATO on key national security objectives of the United States? At what point do we say enough is enough? At what point do we simply move forward and acknowledge the truth? The truth is that the Armenian genocide happened. It is a fact. To deny that is to deny one of the monstrous acts of history. This denial is a stain on the Senate and our country. We have an opportunity to right that wrong and put the U.S. Senate on the right side of history. Let's again review some of that history here today. More than 104 years ago, the Ottoman Empire launched a systemic campaign to exterminate the Armenian population through killings, forced deportations, starvation, and other brutal matters. How do we know this? How do we know this? Because U.S. diplomats were there. They wrote it down and sent it back to the State Department in Washington. Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, wrote this in his memoir: When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal this fact. . . . I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915. That is what Henry Morgenthau said. On June 5, 1915, the U.S. consul in Aleppo, Jesse Jackson, wrote to Ambassador Morgenthau, saying: There is a living stream of Armenians pouring into Aleppo from the surrounding towns and villages. The [Ottoman] Government has been appealed to by various prominent people and even by those in authority to put an end to these conditions, under the representations that it can only lead to the greatest blame and reproach, but all to no avail. It is without doubt a carefully planned scheme to thoroughly extinguish the Armenian race. On July 24, 1915, in a report to Ambassador Morgenthau, the U.S. consul in Harput, Leslie Davis, stated: ``Any doubt that may have been expressed in previous reports as to the Government's intention in sending away the Armenians have been removed. . . . It has been no secret that the plan was to destroy the Armenian race as a race. . . . Everything was apparently planned months ago. In an October 1, 1916 telegram to Secretary of State Robert Lansing, U.S. Charge d'Affaires Hoffman Philip wrote, ``The Department is in receipt of ample details demonstrating the horrors of the anti-Armenian campaign. For many months past I have felt that the most efficacious method of dealing with the situation from an international standpoint would be to flatly threaten to withdraw our Diplomatic Representative from a country where such barbarous methods are not only tolerated but actually carried out by order of the existing government.'' And finally, Abram I. Elkus, who served as the United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1916-17, telegrammed the Secretary of State on October 17, 1916, stating ``In order to avoid opprobrium of the civilized world, which the continuation of massacres [of the Armenians] would arouse, Turkish officials have now adopted and are executing the unchecked policy of extermination through starvation, exhaustion, and brutality of treatment hardly surpassed even in Turkish history.'' That continues to verify that these diplomats saw the truth with their own eyes and communicated back to their superiors in Washington. They did their job, and the historical record proves it. Now it is up to individual U.S. Senators to do your job. The Government of Turkey has funded lobbyists willing to trumpet lies and make excuses for these atrocities. The Turkish Government and its sympathizers have advocated for restrictive laws on expression and against legislation that recognizes the Armenian genocide. They will stop at nothing to bury the truth. I hope that individual Senators will not once again fall for it. Any apprehension, any trepidation on the part of Senators who believe this resolution will somehow do irreparable harm to our relationship with Turkey is simply unfounded. Twenty-seven countries have recognized the genocide in one form or another. Some saw trade increases in Turkey following their recognition. Twelve members of NATO have recognized the genocide. They still work with Turkey on defense issues. They still have embassies in Ankara. Their relationships were not irreparably harmed. Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, and the Slovak Republic all did the right thing. I say to my friends and colleagues that genocide is genocide. Senators in this body should have the simple courage to say it plainly, say it clearly, and say it without reservation. In every session of Congress since 2006, I have introduced or cosponsored resolutions affirming the facts of the Armenian genocide. When I was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was proud to preside over the passage of an Armenian genocide resolution out of the committee. The work continues here today. If we are not successful this afternoon, I know we are not going to stop until we are. I am not going to stop until I go through every single Senator who is willing to come to the floor and issue an objection on behalf of the administration because I think Armenian Americans need to know who stands in support of recognizing the genocide and who opposes it. I thank Senator Cruz for joining me in this effort. He has been stalwart with me in this bipartisan resolution. I thank the 27 additional Senators who have been willing to stand up for a true, clear-eyed vision: Senators Van Hollen, Rubio, Stabenow, Gardner, Markey, Cornyn, Warren, Romney, Peters, Portman, Feinstein, Wyden, Duckworth, Reed, Schumer, Udall, Harris, Whitehouse, Sanders, Klobuchar, Cardin, Booker, Casey, Bennet, Rosen, Brown, and Cortez Masto. I thank them all. Before I ask unanimous consent, I yield to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas for his eloquent statement and for his forthrightness on this issue. As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 150 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, once again, I am deeply disappointed. This is the third time a Republican Senator has come to the floor to object to the genocide resolution--the recognition of the genocide resolution. There is never a good time. There is never a good time. In my view, there is always the right time, however, to recognize genocide as genocide. My colleague from North Dakota actually sponsored H. Res. 220, the Armenian genocide resolution, affirming ``the proper commemoration and consistent condemnation of the Armenian Genocide will strengthen our international standing in preventing modern-day genocides'' when he was a Member of the House of Representatives. He was right then. He was right then. The time was right then, and the time is right now. President Erdogan was here in the United States a couple of weeks ago. There was a meeting at the White House. A few of my colleagues had the privilege of joining the President expressing their discontent. Erdogan was given options--a way out of the dilemma that Turkey has put themselves in with the S-400. Basically, they were told either return to Russia and destroy them in our presence and/or give them to us, which, of course, Russia will never allow that to happen, for us to have their technology. There was a deadline. It was yesterday. I waited until today to make sure that in fact we wouldn't intercede in any way with that possibility. Turkey, in the interim, while this is going on, they used the S-400 to fire at an F-16 to see if they could take it down. Really? Really? So this premise that there was a meeting in NATO--well, there was a meeting in Washington, and then there was a meeting in NATO. They still haven't done anything on the S-400. They still haven't exercised any of the options that have been given to them. I just want my colleagues to know that I intend to come once a week to the Senate floor, and all those who want to be listed on the wrong side of history, they have the option of doing so. I am not going to cease until we do what is morally and principally right, and that is to recognize the Armenian genocide as a host of other nations have done as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor again with respect to S. Res. 150, which I introduced with Senator Cruz, to recognize the Armenian Genocide. I am glad that he is with me today in a call for unanimous consent on this resolution. We are proud to report that we have 28 sponsors on this important resolution. Last month, the House of Representatives passed a version of this resolution by a vote of 405-11--405-11. That sent a strong bipartisan message of dedication to the truth--dedication to historical fact, dedication to a principle held by so many in Congress--that genocide is genocide. As a country, we should do whatever we can to prevent future genocides, but when it happens, we have an obligation as a country to call it what it is. If not, we operate without the facts outside of reality. We aren't being honest to ourselves and to the world. This resolution gives us that reckoning and sets the record straight, a record that so many administrations over the years have sought to obscure. These administrations, Republican and Democrat, have dug their heads into the sand, despite the words of U.S. diplomats who were there at the time, who saw the genocide with their own eyes. Let me just share a couple of examples. Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, from 1913 to 1916, wrote in his memoir that, ``When the Turkish authorities gave the order for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal this fact. I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.'' This was Henry Morgenthau Ambassador's quote. On June 5, 1915, the United States Consul in Aleppo, Jesse Jackson, wrote, ``There is a living stream of Armenians pouring into Aleppo from the surrounding towns and villages, the principal ones being Marash, Zeitoun, Hasanbeyli, Osmania, Baghtche, Adana, Dortyol, Hadjin. ``The Ottoman Government has been appealed to by various prominent people and even those in authority to put an end to these conditions, under the representations that it can only lead to the greatest blame and reproach, but all to no avail. It is without doubt a carefully planned scheme to thoroughly extinguish the Armenian race.'' On July 24, 1915, in a report to Ambassador Morgenthau, the U.S. Consul in Harput, Leslie Davis, stated, ``Any doubt that may have been expressed in previous reports as to the Government's intention in sending away the Armenians have been removed. It has been no secret that the plan was to destroy the Armenian race as a race. Everything was apparently planned months ago.'' And, finally, on October 1, 1916, a telegram to the Secretary of State Robert Lansing, the U.S. Charge d'Affaires Hoffman Philip wrote, ``The department is in receipt of ample details demonstrating the horrors of the anti-Armenian campaign. For many months past I felt that the most efficacious method for dealing with the situation from an international standpoint would be to flatly threaten to withdraw our Diplomatic Representative from a country where such barbarous methods are not only tolerated but actually carried out by order of the existing Government.'' Finally, Abram Elkus, who served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1916 to 1917, telegrammed the Secretary of State at the time on October 17, 1916, stating ``In order to avoid opprobrium of the civilized world, which the continuation of massacres [of the Armenians] would arouse, Turkish officials have now adopted and are executing the unchecked policy of extermination through starvation, exhaustion, and brutality of treatment hardly surpassed even in Turkish history.'' American officials, those with the most credible and legitimate understanding of what took place, made these statements. They are part of the historical record, and they mark one of the prouder moments in the history of the State Department and our diplomacy. Finally, there are 27 countries in the world that have already recognized the Armenian genocide. Eleven of them are NATO countries: Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, and Slovakia. None of them have ruptured their relationship with Turkey. None of them have ended their relationship with Turkey as it relates to recognizing the Armenian genocide as a historical fact. Why is the greatest country on the face of the earth, the United States of America, incapable--incapable--of doing this when these 11 NATO countries haven't? So I want to thank the many individuals over the years, particularly the Armenian National Committee of America, the Armenian Assembly, and so many others, who have worked so hard alongside me to ensure the U.S. abides by its commitment to the truth and to a world where genocide truly never happens again. I have had a good friend and colleague who has been engaged with me in this latest effort, and I want to yield to him at this time, Senator Cruz.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Therefore, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 150 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask that the resolution be agreed to; the preamble be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am not new to this issue. I have been pursuing recognition of the Armenian genocide for the greater part of a decade, and there always seems to be some reason why, in fact, it is not a good moment. Well, it is like a rope-a-dope. It is like a rope-a- dope. There is always another reason. There is always another excuse. The 11 NATO allies have done this, and they are still in NATO and still working with Turkey and still have diplomatic relationships with Turkey. It is amazing to me the greatest power on the face of this earth can't just speak truth of history. It amazes me. And so there never seems to be a good moment. Now, I have been here in the Senate long enough to know that objections to unanimous consent work both ways, so I am going to continue to bring this issue to the floor. I think Armenian Americans, the world, and history should record who stands on the side of recognizing genocide for what it is and who is not, and so I am not going to relax. If necessary, I am sure there will be moments in which those will seek consent on issues, and if the only way is to get a vote on this through the actual process on the floor, then I will force that issue because history demands it. Our conscience should call for it, and a decade of waiting to make this happen is enough. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in support of the motion that shortly will be made by our colleague, the Senator from Florida. I want to congratulate Senator Cardin and him for their leadership in this regard. I appreciate the chairman and myself having joined them and moving this expeditiously through the committee, and I am looking forward to its critical passage on the floor. Time is of the essence. The people of Hong Kong are fighting for their lives. Six months ago, millions of Hong Kong citizens took to the streets to peacefully protest the erosion of their democracy and their rights. Now, half a year later, we find mounting anger and unrest, with the violence against students and protesters--most dramatically, in the crackdown on Hong Kong Polytechnic University--only getting worse. People are being shot. Universities are being burned. The violence perpetrated by the authorities in Hong Kong and, by extension, Beijing are turning the city into a battlefield. This is not the Hong Kong that any of us want to see. The special character of Hong Kong is one of the world's great success stories. The vibrancy of the people of Hong Kong, especially its young people and the rising generation of leaders standing up for democracy and self- governance, should inspire all of us. We admire Hong Kong's success as a burgeoning economic powerhouse, and we admire the vibrant and autonomous civil society and civic life that has flourished under the ``one country, two systems'' principle. Hong Kong is one of the remarkable success stories of the Indo- Pacific--one of the most remarkable success stories of China and the Chinese people--and it is a success worth protecting. I call on the police to act professionally and to treat its fellow citizens with respect and restraint. We call for Beijing and the Hong Kong authorities to address the noble and legitimate aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. In these turbulent times, the Congress of the United States must lead with our values. We must stand on the side of freedom and human dignity, and we must send a clear and uncompromising statement that America stands with the people of Hong Kong in their quest to maintain their self-governance and autonomy, to safeguard their human rights, to exercise their democratic freedom, and to determine their own future. The House of Representatives already passed their version of this bill, and the situation in Hong Kong grows more tenuous by the day. That is why the United States should and must act today. I look forward to the passage of this bill without delay. Let us work to hold China accountable for the erosion of democracy in Hong Kong, and let us together send a message to the people of Hong Kong that their cries for democracy and freedom have been heard through both Chambers of the U.S. Congress, and that America stands with them in their call for justice and self-determination. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I want to take a moment to congratulate my colleague from Oregon and a distinguished member of the Foreign Relations Committee who has worked on this issue, alongside of Senator Cornyn, with great skill in a way that allowed the legislation we just passed to take place, which he strongly supports, and to make his legislation, along with Senator Cornyn, a reality shortly. He has been very adept about it and very constructive. It is going to be a great moment when we send a message that U.S. weaponry isn't going to be part of the oppression in Hong Kong. I salute him, and I join him in his effort. Additional Cosponsor Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be included as an original cosponsor of the legislation.