Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute and to recognize a New Jersey organization celebrating its 25th anniversary, the New Jersey Community Development Corporation, NJCDC. I wish to take a moment now to honor NJCDC for the important work it is doing in the State of New Jersey and the accomplishments it has achieved over the past 25 years. The NJCDC provides hope for a rewarding future through urban revitalization efforts, financial support, education initiatives, and job creation. The work done by NJCDC has directly transformed the lives of many, especially in the city of Paterson. In honor of the accomplishments of this organization, I ask that a proclamation honoring the 25th anniversary of the NJCDC be printed in the Record. The material follows: Whereas, the New Jersey Community Development Corporation is a non- profit community development and social service agency based in the City of Paterson, New Jersey; Whereas, the New Jersey Community Development Corporation and its dedicated staff empowers individuals to transform their lives and offers a variety of programs and services to assist economically disadvantaged individuals, at-risk youth, and people with disabilities; Whereas, the New Jersey Community Development Corporation has contributed to the revitalization of the City of Paterson and the Great Falls Historic District, helping to ensure a vibrant future for the City and its residents; and Whereas, now as the New Jersey Community Development Corporation celebrates its 25th Anniversary, I congratulate its staff and volunteers on this milestone. Therefore, in presenting this citation to the New Jersey Community Development Corporation, I, on behalf of the People of the State of New Jersey hereby congratulate the New Jersey Community Development Corporation and its contribution to the community, the City of Paterson, and the State of New Jersey.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, earlier this week, I sat in the Supreme Court and listened to the oral arguments in the case challenging President Trump's decision to shut down the deferred action for childhood arrivals program, or DACA. DACA is the program we fought so hard for. It is what has allowed nearly 700,000 undocumented youth across America--the bright young people we call Dreamers--to come out of the shadows and to pursue their dreams without fear of deportation. That includes nearly 17,000 Dreamers in my home State of New Jersey. We all remember the heart-wrenching stories before DACA--kids applying for driver's licenses on their birthdays only to discover they weren't citizens; students opening college acceptance letters with pride, only to learn they couldn't receive financial aid; young people trying to enlist in the military, only to find out their undocumented status disqualified them. These are the stories that I shared with President Obama during a meeting several years ago when I made the case for DACA with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. I thought back to that meeting as I sat in the Supreme Court earlier this week. I remembered bringing along a legal memo that made clear the Federal Government had the authority to use prosecutorial discretion to protect Dreamers from deportation. After years of pushing the administration and fearless advocacy by thousands of Dreamers nationwide, President Obama eventually saw the light, and the program we now know as DACA was born. DACA offered law-abiding young people who were brought to this country as children through no decision of their own the opportunity to come out of the shadows and step into the light to fulfill their God- given potential. And that is exactly what they did. Dreamers put their faith in our government. They registered with the Department of Homeland Security, paid fees, passed criminal background checks, and handed over personal details about themselves and their families to authorities they have been hiding from their entire lives. They did this all to qualify for DACA's promise of a 2-year renewable work permit and protection from deportation. Dreamers put their trust in the U.S. Government, but as we all know by now, President Trump betrayed that trust. He betrayed young people like Manny Sanchez, one of the many Dreamers from New Jersey who traveled to Washington, DC, this week to make their voices heard. Manny was brought to the United States at just 1 month old. Today he is 20, attending Brookdale Community College in Middletown, NJ, where he studies nursing and volunteers with local emergency medical services. Without DACA, he risks being deported to Mexico, a country he doesn't even know. ``I wouldn't know what to do, where to go, what my future would be like,'' Manny said. ``This is really my home.'' These kids are as American as apple pie. Dreamers grew up pledging allegiance to our flag, singing our national anthem, loving our country. They are American in every way except for a piece of paper. Dreamers are succeeding in our schools, playing on our sports teams, attending our colleges, serving in our military, and loving our country because it is their country too. Their home is here. So I refuse to let their lives be ruined in the name of White nationalist fear mongering. And I refuse to let them be used as bargaining chips for this administration's anti-immigrant agenda which seeks to tie protections for Dreamers to radical cuts to legal family-based immigration and billions of dollars for the President's hateful, ineffective border wall. Should the Supreme Court strike down DACA, we will have a national emergency on our hands. It will shatter families. It will strike fear into our communities. And it will cost our economy dearly. In New Jersey alone, ending DACA would shrink our economy by nearly $1.6 billion a year and reduce U.S. GDP by $460 billion over the next decade. This is not what I call law and order. This is what I call fear and chaos. There is no way to spin this. When President Trump said he wanted to ``treat these young people with love,'' I say, ``Love like this we don't need!'' Ending DACA and threatening to deport hundreds of thousands of upstanding young Dreamers, that is not love. That is hate. That is why now, more than ever, we in the U.S. Senate must show real love for our Dreamers. The House of Representatives passed a bill, the American Dream and Promise Act, a bill that would protect Dreamers and offer them the path to citizenship they deserve, a bill that would honor the service of our men and women in uniform, harness the potential of talented young students across our Nation, and help create a brighter future for all Americans. For years, I have heard my Republican colleagues talk glowingly about America's Dreamers, talk about how they are incredible kids, talk about how we must protect them from deportation, and talk about how they deserve a path to citizenship. Well, our Dreamers deserve to know whether it was all just talk. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell must pull this bill out of his legislative graveyard and hold a vote the American Dream and Promise Act. Let's find out exactly who in the U.S. Senate wants to keep the dream alive and who wants to snuff it out. There is no excuse for decrying the President's decision to end DACA but doing absolutely nothing about it. This is the U.S. Senate. We don't have to leave the future of America's Dreamers in the hands of the Supreme Court. We don't have to sit on our hands and wait for this ruling to come out. And we certainly don't have to let one reckless decision by President Trump ruin the lives of nearly 700,000 Dreamers and the millions of Americans who know them, love them, work with them, serve with them, and depend on them. Only Congress can provide a permanent pathway to citizenship for Dreamers. It has never been more urgent that we do so.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak up for those who serve our country all around the world, courageously, selflessly, with great sacrifice. I rise on behalf of our diplomatic corps, our Foreign Service Officers, civil servants, and State Department personnel. I rise on behalf of patriotic Americans serving our country on the front lines of war zones and devastating conflicts, in countries with oppressive governments and societies hostile to our own. Our national security is stronger because of them. American people are safer because of them. Our children's futures will be more secure, more prosperous, because of them. And because of them and their hard work and sacrifice, our grandchildren may know a world with less pain, less strife, less conflict. And yet they have come under attack, simply for serving their country. This week, three State Department witnesses are testifying during the House of Representatives' impeachment hearings on the Trump-Ukraine scandal. These individuals have, in many cases, spent their entire careers serving our Nation with distinction, on behalf of both Republican and Democratic administrations. Some have even worn the uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces. These men and women are not partisans. They are patriots, patriots who put our country first. And for putting country first, for being willing to tell the truth, they have come under attack--not by a foreign regime bristling at their efforts to promote democracy, not by oligarchs and criminals who fear their effectiveness--though that has happened as well. No. They have come under attack in our own country, by our own President, by the head of our government that they so bravely and selflessly serve. It pains me, and so I am standing before you today to speak up on their behalf, on behalf of each voice that has come forward in this time of need and tumult for our country. This is a time when we need truth--truth above party, truth above political loyalties and expediency, truth above self-interest. These diplomats, these professionals, these proud public servants are putting the country before themselves--if only this President could do the same, if only he--just once--could put the interests of others ahead of his own. But frankly, I am not the one who should be standing up on behalf of our diplomatic corps, nor should it be only the Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee. There is a job post that actually entails standing up for the men and women of our State Department each and every day. The job is called Secretary of State. It is a job held by Secretary Mike Pompeo. Yet under Secretary Pompeo's watch, the dedicated Americans who serve in the State Department have been thrown to the wolves. Our Secretary of State should be the No. 1 defender of our diplomatic corps. He should come forward and tell the American people what he saw, what he heard, and what he did about it. He should defend the officials who serve in his own Department. And he could start by uttering just one word of support for Ambassador Taylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent, and Ambassador Yovanovitch. But he has had plenty of time for that. We have seen very clearly where he stands. So instead, I, along with my Democratic colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are calling on other senior officials at the State Department to step up and do the right thing. This week, we sent a letter to the Deputy Secretary of State, John Sullivan, and the Undersecretary for Management, Brian Bulatao, calling on them to do what Pompeo has not: to publicly support the brave officials who are putting their careers, their reputations, and terribly, even their personal finances on the line--all to serve their country. I hope that they do, even in the face of vicious and unfounded attacks unleashed by the President, his allies, and those who refuse to stand up for the truth. Some have been called ``disloyal,'' ``unpatriotic,'' and ``Never Trumpers.'' In fact, yesterday morning, as State officials were about to begin testifying, the President tweeted, in all caps, ``NEVER TRUMPERS!'' These false attacks misunderstand the entire premise of public service. To be a career public servant means to work every day on behalf of the public, our government, our country, our Constitution, to check politics at the door. To argue otherwise demonstrates this President's warped view of how our government works. Our career Federal employees do not serve him. They serve our country. They serve the American people. The only ``loyalty'' they pledge is loyalty to the oath they take to uphold our Constitution. In coming forward, in speaking the truth, in raising concerns about events that trouble them as guardians of our national security, they are carrying out an act of selfless patriotism and love of country that that this President is incapable of understanding, let alone doing himself. I hope that some of our other senior officials will step forward and show just a sliver of the backbone that these individuals have shown. I hope they will do the right thing. I hope they will issue statements of public support for officials courageously coming before Congress and commit to protecting them from retribution or reprisal. Our State Department employees deserve commendation, not retaliation. They deserve our thanks, not our scorn. Above all else, they deserve leaders who will defend them, not desert them when it matters most.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, over 104 years ago, the Ottoman Empire launched a systematic campaign to exterminate the Armenian population through killings, forced deportation, starvation, and other brutal means. Every year I join the Armenian community in honoring the memory of the victims who made invaluable contributions to sustain the Armenian people and preserve Armenian history and culture before their cruel, inhuman deaths. At the time of the genocide, U.S. diplomats who witnessed it knew that the tragedy they were seeing was an intentional choice. Henry Morgenthau, the then-U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, said that the Turkish Government's deportation order for the Armenians was ``a death warrant to a whole race.'' Those are his words. They are ``a death warrant to a whole race,'' and an aim which ``they made no particular attempt to conceal'' in their discussions with them. We know what to call such an intentional, highly organized effort to destroy a people on account of their identity alone: genocide. In other circumstances, no one questions this definition. U.S. foreign policy must reflect an honest accounting of human rights abuses, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. We cannot turn our backs on the Armenian victims of genocide nor on any victims of genocide anywhere or anytime it occurs. If we do, we only empower those who seek to use genocide as a weapon of war for their own malevolent purposes. 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, initiated prosecutions and smear campaigns against those who study the Armenian community's experiences at the hands of the Turks, and even resorted to violence and harassment of journalists and human rights activists who bravely speak the truth. These actions are unacceptable and speak volumes to both the crime and its coverup. Thankfully, there are also voices speaking up against Turkey's efforts to silence the truth of the Armenian genocide. I have long worked in the U.S. Senate to push for this honest accounting and to ensure that anyone who represents the U.S. Government does the same. 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 committee for the first time. The U.S. Congress cannot stand idly by and let the truth of genocide be silenced. We must commit ourselves to learning the painful history of the Armenians as we seek to build a better world for our own and future generations. We must stand up unequivocally for truth, justice, and peace. Only then, with that hard work and advocacy and recognition of the truth, will we then confidently be able to say ``never again.'' Never again. I have heard many colleagues come to the floor when we talked about the Holocaust and say ``never again.'' In Rwanda, we said ``never again.'' In the Armenian genocide, we should say ``never again'' as well. Genocide is genocide, and we should recognize it as such so we can move forward at the end of the day. I am proud to have worked with Senator Cruz and 23 other Senators in leading a resolution recognizing the horror of this genocide. I thank them for their efforts on this important resolution and appreciate their standing up for the truth. This is not an issue of historical dispute. I listened to President Erdogan's press conference with President Trump where he suggested they are reviewing this history. They are going to review it until there isn't one more Armenian genocide victim alive. Historians from across the world, the most noted historians, and genocide observers and experts and ethicists have said that this was a genocide. I want to thank my colleagues for forwarding this important resolution and appreciate their standing up for the truth. I hope the full Senate will join us and send a clear message to the world that the United States stands by the truth, stands by justice, and stands with victims of genocide wherever they may be. This passed overwhelmingly with strong Republican support in the House of Representatives. We are one step away from finally recognizing this historical fact. Therefore, Mr. President, 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, 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, needless to say, I have great admiration for the Senator from South Carolina and consider him a friend, but our problem with Turkey--and I know my colleague has asked me several times: What are we doing about Turkey? And I know it was meant in the context of sanctions, which I obviously do support for a variety of reasons--violations of CAATSA, purchase of the S-400, what they did in Syria, and the list goes on and on. But in our desire to see Turkey become that which we would want it to be, which it is not, under President Erdogan, we continue to become enablers of the types of actions that are undemocratic. More journalists are jailed in Turkey than in any other place in the world. Imagine that--a NATO ally. More lawyers are jailed in Turkey than in any other place in the world. And the simple recognition of a historical fact--the simple recognition of a historical fact of the Ottoman Empire and the cruel persecution of the Armenian people cannot be recognized by the U.S. Senate the way the House of Representatives recognized it in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote? Are we so afraid to stand up to history and the truth? Are we so afraid about Turkey? Who is the superpower? Who is the superpower? I am beginning to wonder because every time Turkey threatens to do something, we cower. Well, as far as I am concerned, they don't get to dictate the views of the Congress of the United States. They don't get to dictate the views of this Senate. This Senate should rise up and recognize the historical truth as documented by historians and as documented by our own diplomats. I will not cease continuing to come to the floor to prick the conscience of the Senate and to ultimately reveal who supports recognizing the Armenian genocide and who does not. Otherwise, the words ``never again''--they are just hollow. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I am going to yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, first, let me congratulate the Senator from Oklahoma on his upcoming 50th anniversary.

Mr. MENENDEZ. That is the 60th anniversary. Oh, my God. That is a hallmark under any set of circumstances, and we wish him much health and happiness with his bride for a lot longer time as well. I say congratulations.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, When President Trump welcomes Turkish President Erdogan to the White House this week, he will be welcoming a known authoritarian, human rights abuser, and friend to Putin, whose behavior increasingly runs counter to the interests of the United States and our allies. It is yet another strategic mistake and a terrible misuse of the power of the Presidency. In recent years, the President of Turkey has made a series of decisions to part ways with NATO, with the United States, and with the basic principles of democracy. Make no mistake. Erdogan's actions are intentional. It is stunning to think that any American President would legitimize Erdogan's harmful policies by welcoming him to the Oval Office. This meeting is a mistake, plain and simple. I can only hope that instead of yielding to Erdogan's policies that are so squarely at odds with U.S. interests, President Trump treats this misguided meeting as more than just a photo op with yet another dictator. The President should instead use this visit to actually stand up for America, for our principles, and for our allies. He can do this by raising the many serious questions that Turkey has yet to address. I would like to use this opportunity to outline 10 critical questions, each of which deserves real answers. Question No. 1: Will Turkey reverse course from Erdogan's decision to buy and receive the S-400 air defense system from Russia? The President's National Security Advisor claims that the administration is very ``upset'' about Turkey's purchase of Russia's S- 400 weapons system. Well, ``upset'' is not a policy, and it falls well short of the Trump administration's legal obligations. Under the CAATSA sanctions law, Turkey's purchase of the S-400 is a significant and sanctionable transaction. These sanctions should have been imposed in July when Turkey first took delivery of the S-400s. Yet, by failing to implement the legal requirements of CAATSA, President Trump has done lasting damage to U.S. credibility, to the integrity of our sanctions, and to the rule of law. Is it too much to ask the President of the United States to follow the law? He can start by imposing CAATSA sanctions when Erdogan is in Washington. Question Number 2: Will our President sanction the activities of Halkbank, a Turkish institution that facilitated the biggest evasion of Iran's sanctions in history? I repeat: It was the biggest evasion of Iran sanctions in history. We know that the Justice Department has finally brought charges in the case, but if the administration had followed the law, they would have already imposed sanctions on Halkbank and sent a message to other actors who seek to evade Iran sanctions. I understand that one of Erdogan's top priorities for his visit to the White House is to secure relief for Halkbank. That is the opposite of what the law requires, and I hope President Trump shows some backbone when Erdogan asks him for yet another favor. Let's not forget that President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani represented Reza Zarrab, one of the players in Halkbank's sanctions evasion. It seems that the President likes to talk tough about his sanctions policy on Iran and yet all the tough talks suddenly stops when the interests of his authoritarian pals or his personal lawyer are on the line. Question number 3: Will the President accept the commission of war crimes in Syria by Turkish-backed forces--the war crimes that he in effect invited Turkey to commit when he green-lighted its invasion of Syria? The U.N. reports that more than 200,000 people have been internally displaced from the so-called safe zone controlled by the Turks. Some of those displaced have reported that Turkish-backed forces have beaten civilians and conducted kidnappings and summary executions. With the pullout of American troops, Turkey was effectively given license to commit these abuses and unleash unspeakable crimes. That is ethnic cleansing. So many in this Chamber have said never again to this kind of horror in the past. Can we depend on President Trump to do the same? Last week, I introduced a binding resolution that would require the State Department to report on Turkish human rights abuses in Syria. State's findings could have a direct bearing on arms sales to Turkey. Meanwhile, we have additional legislation to hold Turkey accountable that has been waiting for a vote for weeks. But where are we? Did we pass the Risch-Menendez bill on Turkey? No. Did we pass the House version of that legislation? No. Day after day, week after week, we sit on our hands, too timid to act on any legislation that might upset Erdogan while he is in town. Whatever happened to standing up for our American values? This weekend, National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien declared that ``there's no place for ethnic cleansing, for war crimes in the 21st century.'' Will President Trump deliver that message to Erdogan on Wednesday? Will he seek to maintain any shred of dignity and U.S. credibility on human rights issues, or will he let Erdogan engage in these horrific human rights issues without consequence? Question Number 4: Will our President stand up to Turkish aggression against its neighbors throughout the region? Turkish naval ships routinely violate the exclusive economic zones of Cyprus and may take measures in Famagusta that would set the peace process on the island back even further. Turkey also routinely violates airspace that belongs to Greece, brazenly disregarding Greece's sovereignty and the safety of Greek pilots and those on the ground below. Has President Trump uttered a word of support for our Greek friends and NATO ally? Will he affirm America's relationship with Greece during Erdogan's visit to the White House? The EU has developed a sanctions framework that would address Turkey's actions in the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone. Will Donald Trump follow suit? Question No. 5: Will our President condemn or accept Erdogan's warming relationship with the Russian Federation? In addition to buying the S-400, Turkey is now in talks to purchase the Russian Sukhoi aircraft. Last week, Erdogan felt the need to coordinate with President Putin prior to coming to the United States. According to Reuters, he said he would hold a phone call with the Russian President over the weekend to ``form the basis'' of his talks with President Trump. Imagine this, a NATO ally--NATO comprised primarily to defend against the Russian Federation--a NATO ally going to have conversations with Putin to form the basis of his conversation with President Trump. Aside from perhaps Hungary, I can't imagine any other leader in NATO coordinating with Putin before a conversation with an American President. Some say we need to tread carefully with Turkey lest we push it into Russia's arms. Push? It seems to me that Erdogan has jumped into Putin's arms long ago with no provocation from us. Question No. 6: Will President Trump call out Erdogan's assault on the democratic process in Turkey? Will he stick up for civil society groups, university professors, and others who have been unjustly detained? Will he stick up for journalists there, even as he demonizes the free press here at home? More journalists are imprisoned in Turkey than any other country in the world--in the world. Under article 2 of the NATO charter, member countries commit to a certain set of democratic principles. This is the basis of the alliance. At its core, this is why we commit to the mutual defense of these allies. They share our values, our belief in human rights, in human freedom, in democracy, and in the rule of law. Yet all of Erdogan's actions over the past few years run afoul of the democratic principles that define the NATO alliance. I know the President does not like to stand up for democracy at home or abroad, but I hope this meeting will be different in that he will finally come to understand what was clear to so many Presidents before him--Republican and Democratic alike--that how a leader treats his own people is indicative of how they will act on the world stage. An authoritarian at home is an authoritarian abroad, and both should matter to the United States. Question No. 7: Will President Trump ignore the violent attacks by Erdogan's security detail in 2017 against peaceful protesters and DC police? The last time Erdogan visited in 2017, his goons did just that, resulting in criminal charges against more than half a dozen members of his security detail. During his meeting, President Trump should insist that Erdogan hand over those guards implicated in the 2017 attacks. It is clear that Erdogan's visit will again attract demonstrators and rightfully so. While Erdogan may not believe in the right of peaceful protest in his home country, I hope Erdogan learned his lesson that here in the United States the right to peaceful assembly is enshrined in our Constitution and is core to our democracy. I hope President Trump clearly reminds him of this fact. Question No. 8: Will President Trump accept efforts by Turkey to convert Hagia Sophia, which was the largest Greek Orthodox Church in the world for more than 1,000 years, into a mosque? Will he advocate for the religious freedom of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who continues to work and live under pressure from the Turkish Government? I hear a lot about religious freedom. Well, this is one glaring example where the administration has been silent. Question No. 9: Will President Trump ignore Erdogan's violation of the U.N.'s arms embargo on Libya? Now, to be fair, Turkey is not the only country funneling weapons to clients in Libya in clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970, but the grinding, protracted conflict heightened by these weapons is destabilizing North Africa and allowing for the trafficking and exploitation of desperate migrants and refugees. Will President Trump call on all outside powers, including Turkey, to engage in Libya with diplomacy rather than weapons transfers and to encourage the warring parties to find a political solution to the conflict? Finally, Question No. 10: Will President Trump call out Turkey's relationship with Hamas, the Palestinian organization that continues to terrorize Israel on a daily basis? Will he stand by our ally Israel or will his personal interest and affinity for strong men win out once again? The President says he wants to put America first. Yet on every one of these 10 issues, the President has cowered to the demands of Ankara and Moscow. Look, President Trump can meet with Erdogan--that is his decision and his prerogative--but on these and so many other issues, President Trump's actions do not represent the values of the American people or their representatives in Congress. He does not represent those who support holding Russia accountable. He does not represent those who stand against war crimes in Syria. He does not represent those who want to see a democratic Turkey. Despite our objections, President Trump will welcome Erdogan to the Oval Office. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that so many months into the controversy surrounding Ukraine, President Trump has yet to set a date for an Oval Office meeting with Ukraine's President Zelensky. President Zelensky is a true friend to the United States on the frontlines of the struggle for democracy in his country. He is standing up to Russian aggression and corruption. He is respecting the free press. He is working to strengthen democratic institutions. President Zelensky is everything that President Erdogan of Turkey is not. Yet it is Turkey that President Trump continues to admire and Ukraine that he continues to demonize. Something is wrong here. Something is wrong. We should not have to cross our fingers and hope that any American President stands up for our values, holds our adversaries accountable, and does the right thing when it matters most. It should not be a question. It should be a given. Yet all I can do at this time is hope that President Trump will reverse course and challenge the bad behavior of an authoritarian like Erdogan rather than celebrate it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the U.S. relationship with Turkey and certain actions that the U.S. must consider in order to protect our national security interests and those of our true allies in the region. Today, more than ever, we need strong allies and partners in Europe. As the Trump administration does nearly everything in its power to erode our alliances and denigrate our closest friends, we find increasingly emboldened regimes in Russia and China. The U.S. cannot stand up to them alone. Throughout the Cold War, our diplomats worked assiduously to build strong bonds with allies, knowing that having close partners was better than having enemies on the world stage. Our strongest allies should be those in NATO, those that have made a treaty commitment to mutual defense, those who share our values, those who work in concert with us to face the threat from countries like Russia and Iran with common cause. Unfortunately, Turkey under Erdogan embodies none of those things. Today, I would like to lay out a fact pattern that so many of my colleagues have come to see in recent weeks, that Turkey under Erdogan should not, Turkey under Erdogan cannot be seen as an ally. How many more times do we need to see Turkey betray the values upon which NATO was established? How many more times do we need to see President Erdogan visit Moscow, Sochi, or any other Russian city to kiss Putin's ring? How many more journalists need to be locked up by Erdogan before we stop calling Turkey a democracy? Enough is enough. Over my 27 years in the House and the Senate, I have followed developments in the Eastern Mediterranean quite closely. Turkey's invasion of Cyprus in 1974 was a shocking attempt to redraw borders in Europe in the wake of World War II. To this day, Turkey's invasion of northern Cyprus must be see for what it is: an illegal occupation that must end. Turkey's action over those days in 1974 were not the actions of a democratic country. They were not the actions of a reliable ally. They were not the actions of a responsible actor on the world stage. But the events of 1974 would only presage Turkey's aggressive posture in the eastern Mediterranean in the years to come. To this day, Turkey under Erdogan continues to aggressively bully international energy companies, including U.S. companies, and the Republic of Cyprus. Their sin? Conducting completely legitimate exploration in the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone. This is not territory under dispute or an issue for debate. Turkey's hostility towards these companies is the kind of gunboat diplomacy that belongs to eras past and has no place in today's world. Examples abound where Turkey continues to operate in bad faith when it comes to Cyprus. It could abide by UN Security Council resolutions to transfer the fenced area of Varosha, Farmagusta to the administration of the United Nations. These calls to return this area to its original inhabitants, whom Turkey ejected during the 1974 invasion, have gone unheeded. Instead, several Turkish Ministers have recently visited and threatened to move forward with commercial development--a true affront to those forced from their land more than 40 years ago, as well as to the U.N. Security Council resolution. In the eastern Mediterranean, for years Turkey has also aggressively violated the airspace of neighboring Greece, also a NATO ally. These dangerous maneuvers have threatened the lives and safety of Greek pilots, as well as civilians living on the islands below. Greece wants a good neighbor in Turkey and has sought to find common ground upon a constructive relationship. But with these airspace violations, Turkey has shown its true colors, and the international community must come to terms with this. We have seen Turkey's belligerence abroad manifest itself even here in the United States. Who can forget when President Erdogan's bodyguards attacked U.S. citizens in a Washington park peacefully demonstrating, as is their constitutional right? And as momentum builds following the passage of the Armenian genocide resolution in the House of Representatives, Turkey and its lobbyists are working overtime to block it in the Senate because they know that if this resolution, which both I, Senator Cruz, and bipartisan Members on both sides have sponsored, were to come to the floor for a vote, it would pass resoundingly and send a clarion message that recognizes the truth. The Armenian genocide happened, it was a monstrous act, and those who deny it are complicit in a terrible lie. Genocide is genocide. The Senate should not bow to this pressure. It cannot bow to this pressure. Let's pass this resolution today. Erdogan's behavior abroad has roots inside of Turkey, where the democratic process has significantly eroded and religious freedom is under sustained pressure. In particular, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of the Greek Orthodox Church--and its community--faces dire consequences as the spiritual head of the world's second largest Christian church. His church properties have been confiscated, and President Erdogan restricts his religious freedom. This is wrong, and his All Holiness deserves our attention and our ongoing support. For those who speak about religious freedom in this Chamber--and I admire the many who have--as well as on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this is also an issue of religious freedom. Of course, Erdogan's repression of his own citizens does not stop with restricting religious freedom. Following its emergency decree after a failed coup attempt, Turkish authorities engaged in a draconian crackdown and roundup of citizens across the country. The U.N. reports that close to 160,000 people were arrested in an 18-month period, including over 100 women who were pregnant or had just given birth, often on grounds of nothing more than that they were associated with their husbands, many of whom were suspects on trumped-up charges. As we examine Turkey's increasingly destructive role in the world, we must never turn a blind eye from those Turkish citizens who want a more democratic future for themselves and their families. In July, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed my Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act with a strong bipartisan vote. We are working for full passage in the Senate, and I understand the House Foreign Affairs Committee will mark up the legislation soon. I traveled to Greece and Cypress in the spring and told leaders in both places that this was not--not--an anti-Turkey bill and that we all wanted Turkey to be a constructive and democratic partner in the region. At the time, this vision seemed a long ways off, but now, given Erdogan's recent choices, it has become virtually impossible. Let's review events since my visit to the region in the spring of this year. First, Erdogan took delivery of the S-400 air defense system from Russia. Let me repeat. Turkey, a supposed NATO ally, purchased an air defense system from NATO's main adversary--the reason that NATO largely came to be. This choice endangered the security of the United States and other NATO partners. The United States made a good offer of the Patriot missile system--an offer that would have maintained the security equilibrium in the region and enabled Turkey to remain a NATO member in good standing. That offer was rejected. The Trump administration did the right thing in removing Turkey from the F-35 program. It was clear to all involved that the S-400 could not be parked next to an F-35. After all, it is meant and it is intended to be able to shoot down an F-35--this from a NATO ally. But the administration has fallen well short of its obligations under the law. Under the CAATSA law, which I helped write, the administration is required to sanction any entity that conducts a significant transaction with the Russian military or intelligence sectors. This provision of law is not permissive. It is not optional. Under no credible definition would the purchase of an S-400 Russian system not be considered significant. The administration is breaking the law by ignoring this provision and kowtowing to Ankara. According to U.S. law, Turkey must be sanctioned for the S-400 system, and it should happen today. Otherwise, it will send a global message that we are not serious about sanctioning significant transactions with the Russian military. Some have said that such an approach is unwarranted and unwise lest we push Erdogan into Putin's arms. He is already there. He clearly is already there. In a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in Syria, I held up this poster, and I asked the Secretary of State: What is wrong with this picture? This picture of President Erdogan, President Putin, and President Rouhani of Iran says everything--says everything. They are two of our biggest foreign policy challengers. And who is there with them? Erdogan. I argued that we were ceding American leadership in Syria and the region to leaders and countries whose policies were intrinsically at odds with our own. Unfortunately, today we are seeing the terrible consequences of this abdication of leadership. Erdogan's warm relationship with Putin should ring alarm bells across the NATO alliance, raising concerns about NATO's exposure at Incirlik and intelligence vulnerabilities with respect to the alliance's presence in Turkey. It raises concerns about how Erdogan and Putin may be working together to counter U.S. interests across the Middle East, in the Balkans, and around the world. NATO is an alliance of shared values. None of those values are respected--none of them--by the current occupant of the Kremlin or in Ankara. Second, provided with a green light from the Trump administration, President Erdogan's invasion of Syria to attack our Kurdish partners is an unconscionable act of brutality that has caused death and untold suffering among our Kurdish friends and partners. Tens of thousands have fled the area, creating an even greater problem of refugees in that war-torn region. The consequences of these actions by Turkey and its proxies will persist for years to come. Turkey's incursion poses a direct threat to U.S. national security interests in the region, not the least of which is by facilitating Russian foreign policy ambitions in the region and opening the door for ISIS to reconstitute. At its inception, Turkey did not take the threat of ISIS seriously enough, and in the early days, ISIS's ability to easily traverse the Turkish-Syrian border bolstered its ability to grow in strength and numbers. Turkey did nothing--nothing--to stop them, did nothing to stop foreign fighters going into Syria. While Turkey has legitimate security concerns from the PKK, its singular focus on extending this feat to the whole Kurdish population risks its ability to effectively confront other terrorist organizations, including ISIS and al-Qaida. There must be a full accounting by Turkey of these atrocities. That is why I am today introducing an expedited resolution of request for the Secretary of State to inform the Senate in 30 days of the extent of Turkey's human rights abuses in Syria. This resolution invokes statutory authority under the Foreign Assistance Act to require the Secretary of State to assess and report to Congress on Turkey's human rights abuses in Syria. This resolution calls for the administration to provide all available information concerning alleged violations of internationally recognized human rights by Turkey, its armed forces, and associated groups in Syria. It calls for a description of the steps the United States has taken to promote Turkey's respect of human rights in its Syria operations. The resolution also calls for a determination of whether Turkey's actions have resulted in the release of ISIS or other extremists inside of Syria. I am also working closely with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch, on the Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act of 2019, which would impose targeted sanctions on Turkey for its actions in Syria. A similar bipartisan measure passed the House last week, and I urge the Senate to deliberate on the measure. Based on changing circumstances on the ground, we are updating the language to condition sanctions based on Turkey's actions. I hope it will be marked up in the coming days. For years, the world held out hope that Turkey could be the bridge between east and west--a democratic, secular country that could be a democracy in Europe and a responsible actor on the world stage. I, for one, was always skeptical but certainly supported the sentiment. Today we are the furthest from that dream we have ever been. The most imprisoned journalists in the world--in the world--are not in North Korea, Russia, or Iran; they languish in Turkish prisons. This doesn't happen in a democracy. As international pressure mounted following Turkey's invasion of northern Syria, Erdogan threatened to unleash thousands of refugees onto the European Union's shores, a wave like we saw in 2015. These aren't the statements of a rational, responsible actor. Yet where is U.S. policy? The Trump administration was its normal erratic self in recent weeks as it flailed from sanctions on Turkey to claiming victory. The Kurds are the ones who emerged as the clear loser. Erdogan was eager to sign on to the Pence-Pompeo plan because it gave him all he wanted--full control of the Kurdish areas of Syria and carte blanche to wipe out swaths of the community. In addition to claiming victory, President Trump now wants to invite Erdogan to Washington with open arms. Stunning. The photo of Trump and Erdogan in the Oval Office will not only be the nail in the coffin for any Kurdish aspirations to live in peace and security, it will also be the death knell for any credibility the United States hopes to maintain with any combat partners in the future. President Trump, I urge you to cancel this invitation and side with the bipartisan consensus in the Senate and the House that Turkey, under Erdogan, is no friend to the United States. Do not ruin our reputation further by fawning over yet another authoritarian leader. You want to repair the damage that has been done? Show our commitment to our allies by inviting the Syrian Kurdish leadership to the Oval Office for a meeting on how we prevent a resurgence of ISIS. That is how you protect our interests. That is how you protect our national security. It is time to challenge Erdogan to live up to NATO's values and to respect the international order. It is time to stop enabling Turkey to be a bad actor. It is time for the Senate to act. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I am honored to rise today in recognition of the late John H. Adler on the occasion of the dedication of the John H. Adler Memorial Park at Challenge Grove in Cherry Hill, NJ. The Honorable John H. Adler was a remarkable public servant who worked tirelessly on behalf of New Jersey residents for decades. Growing up in southern New Jersey, John worked hard in school and overcame many personal challenges to earn his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University before returning home to Camden County. He began a selfless career in public service in 1987 when he was elected to the Cherry Hill Township Committee. In 1992, he went on to represent New Jersey's Sixth Legislative District in the State's senate, where he served until 2008. There, he rose to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee and served on the Environmental Committee. One of John's signature achievements, New Jersey's Smoke-Free Air Act, has greatly improved the lives of New Jerseyans and will undoubtedly continue to positively impact the health and well-being of our State's residents for generations. In 2008, John was elected to the House of Representatives, becoming the first Democratic lawmaker to represent New Jersey's Third Congressional District in more than a century. Upon his arrival on Capitol Hill, John quickly established a reputation for hard work, compromise, and compassion. He advocated forcefully for seniors, members of the armed services and veterans, and the environment. He recognized the strategic and military importance of Joint Base McGuire- Dix-Lakehurst and sought to attract new missions to help preserve the installation's role in our national defense. He was well known for working across the aisle and overcoming partisanship to accomplish meaningful legislation to the benefit of our families and constituents. I am honored to have served with John both in the New Jersey Legislature and as members of New Jersey's Congressional Delegation. John represented the very best of our lawmakers, and his sudden passing in 2011 was an immense loss to the Garden State. Today, John's wife, Shelley, and their sons, Jeffrey, Alex, Andrew, and Oliver, continue to carry on his legacy of service and extraordinary dedication to our friends, neighbors, and communities. Mr. President, I acknowledge and commend the Camden County Board of Freeholders on the dedication of the John H. Adler Memorial Park at Challenge Grove as a fitting tribute to remember one of New Jersey's most honorable sons. I would like to once again recognize, applaud, and remember the Honorable John H. Adler's extraordinary life and his service to the people of New Jersey.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I guess if you live long enough and are around here long enough, you get to hear it all. Hypocrisy is when the party of the rich--now the party that gave $1 trillion in the Trump tax bill to the largest corporations, with most of it going to the wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent--now says it is for the working guy. Amazing. Hypocrisy is when donor States, like my State of New Jersey, give moocher States--those that actually receive far more than they give to the Federal Treasury--say that somehow we should continue to pay more. Yet that is overwhelmingly the reality that is going on. In fact, I find the comments of some of my colleagues here to be pretty ironic. I urge the Senate to reject these new IRS rules that are designed to block efforts by homeowners across America to avoid the Trump tax law's harmful caps on their State and local tax deductions. I thank Leader Schumer and Ranking Member Wyden for the opportunity to exercise our authority under the Congressional Review Act to stop these IRS rules from taking effect. It was 2 years ago when President Trump and his allies rammed their corporate tax bill through Congress. They promised middle-class families thousands of dollars in tax relief and $4,000 raises in their salaries. Instead, all they got was $1.5 trillion more in debt and an economy that was even more rigged in favor of big corporations and wealthy CEOs. Of course, as bad as the tax bill is for the whole country, it is even worse for States like New Jersey. That is because, even after borrowing over $1.5 trillion from China, the President still can't pay for his deficit-exploding corporate tax cuts. Where are all of my colleagues--all of those deficit hawks--who talked about exploding deficits and debt? They are silent. Even though he couldn't have enough of this $1.5 trillion of borrowing, what did President Trump do? He dipped into the wallets of New Jersey's and other States' middle classes by gutting the State and local tax deductions they used to write off, their property taxes. In 2016, $1.8 million, or around 40 percent of New Jersey's taxpayers, deducted their property and State income taxes from their Federal returns. That average was about $18,000 per deduction. More than 80 percent of those who deducted earned less than $200,000. So to say that the Trump tax law was a giant hit job on New Jersey's middle class is no exaggeration, for already New Jersey families are paying the price. Earlier this month, new data from ProPublica revealed that because of the new $10,000 cap on property tax deductions, home values in New Jersey have taken a huge hit. In fact, home values in Essex County, NJ, declined more than those of any other county in America. And according to nj.com, of over 30 counties across the Nation suffering the largest dip in home values, 16 of them are in the Garden State. That is why Governor Murphy and New Jersey's legislative leaders took action to protect homeowners from getting hammered. They adopted a program, as did over 30 other States. And, by the way, these States, or all these red States, are not the ``blue States'' or wealthy States. These are States that adopted similar provisions before the Trump tax bill that were getting the benefit of a local tax credit for charitable contributions to nonprofits set up by local governments. They adopted a program that 30-some other States have in the books in some form. In return, taxpayers could receive a property credit worth up to 90 percent of their contribution. Other States have long used similar charitable contribution programs. For example, in Alabama, there is a 100-percent tax credit available for contributions to private school scholarship funds. In Missouri, one program incentivizes donations to shelters for survivors of domestic abuse. In Florida, there are programs that actually go to an education fund and to a conservation fund. I could go through the list of these 32 States that had charity tax-credit programs across the country, which now the IRS rules are nullifying, and which all of those States--and many of my Republican colleagues who represent them--are now facing. What was completely acceptable and the IRS had no problem with now is not acceptable whatsoever. The IRS long respected these programs. So I was hopeful that New Jersey's charitable contribution credits would provide relief to homeowners suffering under the Trump tax scam and would be treated the same as all of these 32 other States. Unfortunately, as soon as New Jersey and other States took action, the IRS reversed course and issued new regulations, hamstringing this long-accepted type of charitable contribution program. These are harmful regulations for all of the 32 States that are represented through some of these programs, and the Senate has an opportunity to protect all of those 32 States' charitable contribution programs. Look, in an ideal world, New Jersey's charitable contribution credit wouldn't be necessary because Congress would uphold the full state and local tax deduction as a bedrock principle of our Tax Code. As a matter of fact, it is the oldest deduction in the history of the code, and it is a principle that I would especially expect my Republican colleagues to stand up for. Since the Federal income tax creation in 1913, the State and local tax deduction has encouraged States to stand on their own feet. It encourages States to make smart investments that, at the end of the day, make them less reliant on Federal handouts. In New Jersey, we know that when we invest in public schools, we prepare our students to succeed in high-paying fields. In New Jersey, we know that when we invest in mass transit, we connect workers to new jobs and opportunities. In New Jersey, we know that when we invest in public health and law enforcement, we all do better because our streets are safer and our families are healthier. It is no coincidence that New Jersey is one of the most economically productive States in the Nation, to the betterment of all Americans, especially those in less productive States--donor State versus moocher States. Isn't that a good thing? Isn't a State's right to set its own tax policies a right worth defending? For as long I can remember, I have heard my Republican colleagues talk about self-reliance, about personal responsibility, about protecting not punishing success, and about States' rights. Well, the Trump tax law was nothing short of a massive tax on the success of States like New Jersey and the State rights of States like New Jersey. Likewise, I have heard Republicans talk about States' rights and the virtues of federalism. Well, guess what. The State and local tax deduction is a bedrock of federalism. Today's CRA vote is an opportunity for my colleagues across the aisle to actually stand up for those principles of self-reliance, of States' rights, and federalism; to walk the walk, instead of just talking the talk, and to preserve the programs of these 32 States with charity tax credit programs that are now all threatened of being extinguished by the IRS's determination. I want to close by sharing a constituent letter I received earlier this year about what the property tax deduction meant to one New Jersey family. This past April, Leigh, from Budd Lake, wrote: My husband and I just did our taxes today--and for the first time ever--we owe money. And not just a little, hundreds. We own a home and for the first time we were not able to itemize our deductions; our deductions in fact were cut in half. There is no incentive to us owning our home anymore. We are an average middle class family paying a mortgage and trying to raise three kids. I'm tired of our family being collateral damage in yet another political fight. Leigh is absolutely right. New Jersey families shouldn't have to foot the bill for massive handouts for big corporations. To add insult to injury, while the new IRS rules crack down on New Jersey's efforts to save families like Leigh's money, last fall the Treasury Department made clear that corporations--listen to this--could continue to benefit from the same exact kind of workaround. Corporations can continue to benefit from the same kind of workaround. How is that for protecting the little guy? How is that for hypocrisy? It is not fair. It is not right. Our constituents deserve better. So we will continue to push for a long-term solution to this problem. I have introduced the Stop Attacking Local Taxpayers Act, or SALT Act, to restore the full deductibility of State and local taxes. Under my bill, the more you pay in property and State taxes, the more relief you get. It is the exact opposite of what the Trump tax bill says, which is that the higher the cost of living is in your State and the more you pay in State and local taxes, the more you owe the Federal Government come tax time. It is double taxation. It makes no sense. The SALT Act deserves the full consideration of the Senate, but in the meantime, we should use the opportunity before us today to help hard-working homeowners suffering from the Trump tax law. We should help these 32 States--overwhelmingly, most of them, Republican--that have a tax credit program be able to sustain that program for the benefits of the decisions they made in their States and for the purposes they made, whether it be education, conservation, or whatever else, that now are nullified by the IRS rule. Join us, and let's exercise our power with the Congressional Review Act to do what is right--to protect middle-class families throughout the Nation from higher property tax burdens, to protect States and their right to determine how their taxpayers will ultimately receive the benefits for making investments in education, for making investments in conservation, and for making investments in a whole host of issues, that these States, in their rightful judgment, decided were perfectly fine and that were always upheld by the IRS and are now nullified by the Internal Revenue Service's decision. That is what we have an opportunity to turn around, and I hope we will. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my opposition to the nomination of Andrew Bremberg to be Representative of the United States to the Office of the United Nations in Geneva. He is not qualified for this position, and his views on women's rights and access to reproductive healthcare conflict with longstanding positions of the U.S. Government and more than three-quarters of the American public. I take my position as ranking member for the Foreign Relations Committee seriously. I have a duty to thoroughly vet all nominees who come before the committee whether they be political nominees like Mr. Bremberg or career civil servants. The criteria I use to determine their fitness to represent our country abroad include their foreign policy experience, their core values, and whether they will be responsive and honest with Congress as we conduct our oversight. I am disappointed to say that Mr. Bremberg fails even these basic criteria. He has no relevant foreign policy experience. I repeat, the nominee to represent the United States at Geneva has no foreign policy experience. Mr. Bremberg has served as Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor for Domestic Policy at the White House and as a political appointee to the Department of Health and Human Services in the Bush administration. When it comes to Mr. Bremberg's core values, his nomination hearing left me deeply troubled. Our voice at Geneva must stand up for the core principle that reproductive rights are human rights; yet Mr. Bremberg made clear that he opposes access to reproductive health services for women and girls who are victims of sexual violence in conflict in the world. This radical view of women's rights and access to reproductive healthcare is totally outside the mainstream, not just for the Democratic Party but the Republican Party and the American people at large. That is why 40 reproductive health groups wrote a joint letter opposing Mr. Bremberg's nomination. Moreover, in his positions at the White House, Mr. Bremberg led and advanced divisive and incendiary policy proposals, such as the infamous Muslim ban Executive order and the addition of a citizenship question on the census. When questioned on these subjects, Mr. Bremberg frequently cited confidentiality interests and declined to elaborate further. When pressed by Senators on whether he was exerting any form of privilege or executive privilege, he insisted he was not; yet he continued to refuse to answer questions. Clearly, we cannot rely on this nominee to be honest and forthright with this body. Beyond Mr. Bremberg's lack of experience, his extreme far-right views, and his lack of respect for Congress, there is the issue of his erroneous declarations on government documents. Indeed, his nomination was significantly delayed because my staff discovered Mr. Bremberg's claim that he had terminated from his political consulting company--of which Trump for America was a client--when the truth is he did not. In fact, Mr. Bremberg did not terminate his political consulting firm until forced to as part of the Foreign Relations Committee's vetting process. Once again, the Trump administration has displayed a basic inability to conduct even the most cursory vetting to ensure that a nominee is qualified and fit to hold office, free from potential financial or ethical conflicts of interest. We have nominees with restraining orders, nominees who have failed to mention sexual harassment lawsuits, and nominees whose virulent, troll- like approach to social media should disqualify them from holding any office, much less a Senate-confirmed representative of the American people. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has decided to advance unqualified and unfit nominees even as it withdraws a number of qualified civil servant nominees from consideration. The failure of the political leadership at the State Department to stand up and defend qualified, veteran Ambassadors when they come under fire from the White House is nothing short of cowardice. It was reported last week that Fiona Hill, the former White House foreign policy adviser, concluded that one Trump administration Ambassador was so unprepared for his job that he actually posed a national security risk. Mr. Bremberg is cut from the same mold. If his performance before the Foreign Relations Committee demonstrated anything, it is that his views are completely outside those of mainstream America. He is unprepared to represent our Nation on the world stage, and he has little to no respect for the Senate and the role of Congress as a coequal branch of government. Surely, we can do better than this. The American people certainly deserve better than this. I urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination and to demand that this administration nominate an ambassador to the United Nations organization in Geneva who is worthy of representing our country on the world stage. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my support for ratifying the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of North Macedonia. In light of the Kremlin's ongoing aggression against the United States, against Ukraine, and against many of our democratic allies, today's vote sends an important signal that we are serious about standing up to Moscow. A strong NATO is critical to the security of the United States, and supporting NATO's expansion is one of the most important things this body can do to protect our Nation. This historic vote would not be happening without the Prespa Agreement between Greece and North Macedonia, which resolved the two countries' name dispute and came into force in February. I want to acknowledge the hard work of these countries, as well as the tireless efforts of American diplomats, to make Prespa a reality. North Macedonia has already made notable contributions to the security of the U.S. and of NATO. North Macedonia has deployed more than 4,000 troops to Iraq in support of U.S. efforts there, and in 2018, North Macedonia boosted its contribution to Afghanistan by 20 percent. It actively supports the international counter-ISIS coalition and has also supported missions in Kosovo. This history of partnership with the U.S. on important security issues speaks strongly in favor of North Macedonia's inclusion in the Alliance. NATO is strongest when all of its members contribute, and I am glad that North Macedonia is committed to hitting the target of spending 2 percent of its GDP on defense by 2024. The government has already made great progress towards that target, and we must hold them to that promise. I also want to stress the importance of all NATO members spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. Our allies have increased their defense spending since 2014 in response to a clear and growing threat from the Kremlin. We must work to make sure that trend continues, and we must do it as partners, not as bullies. We must also remember that belonging to NATO is about more than military capabilities. NATO was established as a club of democracies that abide by a certain set of principles. When the Clinton administration was considering new members, former Secretary of Defense William Perry laid out some criteria for inclusion in this group: individual liberty for citizens, democratic elections, the rule of law, economic and market-based reforms, resolution of territorial disputes with neighbors, and civilian control of the military. North Macedonia has made progress on rule of law and democracy, but more work remains to perfect the system. NATO member states should not consider this process complete and must continue supporting North Macedonia's work to fully implement its reform commitments. Finally, admitting North Macedonia into NATO is an important step towards fully integrating the Balkans into the international institutions that contribute to peace and stability in Europe. I hope that today's vote will provide momentum for North Macedonia to open EU accession talks as well. There is unfinished work for peace in the Balkans, and the United States must remain committed to the region to resolve these long-running challenges. The Kremlin, of course, does not want to see stability in the Balkans. It does not want to see the spread of democracy and rule of law. It does not want countries like North Macedonia to experience the peace and prosperity that integration with the West brings. That is why Russia tried to stop the Prespa Agreement with disinformation and political manipulation, and why it has vocally opposed North Macedonia's NATO accession. With today's vote, we can make clear that no country outside the Alliance gets a veto over who gets to join NATO, especially not Russia. We can show our support for a country that has partnered with us on important security missions and is making tough but necessary reforms. We can promote stability in a critical region of the world and reduce Kremlin influence there. Most importantly, we can protect our homeland by expanding an alliance that has proven invaluable to national security. While it is a positive step that we are voting to ratify North Macedonia's NATO accession protocol, it is also an opportune moment to take a step back and consider the Senate's treaty power more broadly. Article 2 of the Constitution endows the President and the Senate with shared power over treaties. The President, it states, ``shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.'' While the Constitution does not expressly dictate a procedure for terminating treaty relationships, Senators have long asserted that the shared treaty power extends to withdrawal and therefore also requires Senate approval. Regardless of whether the executive branch agrees with this position, what is completely unacceptable is that Senators are first learning about treaty withdrawals and threats to withdraw online or in the newspaper instead of through proactive outreach by and meaningful dialogue with the executive branch. The stakes could not be higher. Among the three treaties President Trump has pulled out of just this year is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty--INF Treaty--a cornerstone of the nuclear nonproliferation regime with Russia. The Senate approved this; treaty in 1988 by a vote of 93-5. Now, there are rumors swirling that the President will imminently pull out of the Open Skies Treaty, a multilateral arms control agreement that has been a critical element of U.S. and European security. The Senate approved that treaty in 1993 without any recorded opposition. As with so many aspects of President Trump's foreign policy, withdrawal from Open Skies would be another gift to Vladimir Putin. Just last year, the United States conducted an extraordinary flight authorized under Open Skies and intended to reaffirm U.S. commitment to Ukraine and other partner nations. Further, when the Ukraine crisis first emerged, the United States used images collected by U.S. surveillance missions under the Open Skies Treaty to publically demonstrate that Russian forces had invaded Ukrainian territory. Withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty would be perceived as casting us further doubt on the status of the U.S. commitment to Ukraine's security and would advance the Russian narrative that the United States is an unreliable partner in the region. These withdrawals not only demonstrate a reckless approach to foreign policy--an approach that gratifies the Trump administration's short- term goals at the expense of our country's long-term interests--they also erode the Senate's prerogative on treaties. Given the constitutional mandate of shared responsibility for treaties between the Senate and President, along with a heightened standard for Senate advice and consent, it is inconceivable to think that unilateral treaty termination, absent any engagement whatsoever with the Senate, could be constitutionally sound, yet that is what this President is doing and what this Senate must reject. It is in this context that we must face an unfortunate truth relevant to the continuing health of the NATO alliance, which is the constant threat that President Trump may suddenly pull the United States out of NATO altogether. It is a dangerous option the President has apparently raised with subordinates. If recent history is any guide, the fact that a U.S. withdrawal would be reckless, dangerous, and, as the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO has said, ``a geopolitical mistake of epic proportion,'' does not mean that the President will not pursue it. With that in mind, it is unfortunate that Senator McConnell refused to allow amendments to the North Macedonia Protocol. Had he allowed a more open process, I would have offered an amendment that would have conditioned Senate advice and consent on the protocol to a requirement that the President not withdraw from NATO without Senate approval. While this step may not have been necessary previously, we must regretfully move in that direction to respond to President Trump and to protect against his ability and willingness to jeopardize U.S. national security through hasty and unilateral treaty withdrawals. So, while I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting to ratify North Macedonia's NATO accession protocol, I must express my concern that the Senate has not yet taken any steps to prevent President Trump from pulling the United States out of NATO or other treaties absent any Senate input or approval.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Murray and Senator Jones, to call upon the Senate to pass the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education Act--the FUTURE Act--today because that future is today. Should the Senate fail to act on this legislation, hundreds of minority-serving institutions and historically Black colleges and universities across America are going to face some drastic funding cuts that could jeopardize the education of millions of students of color nationwide. Collectively, these institutions serve nearly 6 million undergraduate students throughout the United States, two-thirds of whom come from communities of color. Without these Federal dollars for MSIs, we will be facing the potential for job losses, the possible closure of important academic programs, and most importantly, the doors of educational opportunity slamming shut for young men and women of color across this country. Minority-serving institutions have long enjoyed bipartisan support in this body. It is perplexing and concerning to think that the Senate would depart for recess without passing this critical legislation. In the coming years, these institutions of higher learning will play an increasingly vital role in our increasingly diverse Nation. Consider that, already, Hispanic children make up one out of every four children in America's public schools and counting. Of these students, approximately one out of five will go to college. And when they do, two-thirds of them will wind up studying at a Hispanic-serving institution. Can we, as a nation, really afford to shortchange their education? In representing a community that is already such a large part of the American population--one out of four is going to be one out of three in just a couple of years--can we afford to shortchange their education and, as such, the success of this country, which demands that we do not? Just last Thursday, this body joined me to unanimously pass my bipartisan resolution honoring Hispanic-serving institutions week. But it is hard to take seriously our words of support for minority-serving institutions if we fail to back up those words with real action. Unfortunately, that is where we stand today--on the cusp of skipping town without voting to properly fund these institutions. Across America, 523 Hispanic-serving institutions in 25 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico serve more than 2 million hard- working Latino and Latina students who dream of a college education. I know this dream well. Indeed, my own story began at a Hispanic-serving institution, even though that designation did not yet exist at the time. I was the first in my family to attend college, and I did so at St. Peter's College in Jersey City, NJ. It is because of the professors and educators at St. Peter's, who recognized that not all children arrive at college with the same advantages or opportunities for upward mobility, that I am here today--one of four Hispanic-American Senators. It is a story that is repeated not only in Hispanic-serving institutions but at HBCUs and other MSIs across the country that help students from underserved communities overcome the odds and reach their true potential. This isn't a Democratic or Republican issue. The House passed this bill by voice vote. It was such an easy vote that they didn't even require a rollcall. I understand that there are many other issues facing our higher education system, and I appreciate that. I am committed to working with my colleagues--particularly Senators Alexander and Murray, the chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee--to help create a system in this country that helps serve all of our students and prepares America's workforce to compete all around the world. Yet the fact is that these minority-serving institutions face a funding cliff if we fail to act. Let's not make our students of color pay the price while we continue to debate the broader issues facing our higher education system. Let's pass the FUTURE Act today. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, once again, I come to the floor to call for action in light of revelations that President Trump appears to have no problem in seeking the assistance of a foreign government for his own political gain. Today's summary of the telephone call from the White House between him and a foreign leader exposes this in black and white. Given this White House's lack of transparency, I have little faith that this so-called transcript reflects the totality of the conversation, but what it did release was shocking enough. He clearly pressured the Ukrainian Government to investigate former Vice President Biden for his own political benefit. He mentioned the Attorney General of the United States or his personal lawyer six times, and in using the levers of State, the President sought to weaponize the Justice Department to pursue a personal political vendetta. We now know that for more than 2 months, the President urged Ukraine to investigate a political opponent while holding $391 million in urgently needed security assistance that Congress appropriated to support U.S. national security interests. In fact, Congress approved this security assistance, including $141.5 million from the U.S. State Department and $250 million from the Pentagon, with overwhelming bipartisan support. Indeed, for years now, the Republicans and the Democrats have come together to offer America's support to Ukraine in the face of relentless Russian aggression. We have stood together on Ukraine because we have known what has been at stake. Our friends in Ukraine sit on the frontlines of a struggle against the Kremlin's vision of a world that is not guided by democratic values or the rule of law but, instead, ruled by Putin and his corrupt cabal of oligarchs. The Democrats and the Republicans have stood together behind a free and independent Ukraine because, together, we stand behind our shared values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. We have stood in support of Ukraine in pursuit of our own strategic interests in the region. That is why we came together when Russian forces illegally invaded Crimea in 2014 and worked to bolster American support of Ukrainian sovereignty. I was proud of that moment as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee at the time; that we passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act with strong bipartisan support. In an era of growing political divides, our support for a democratic, free, and sovereign Ukraine inspired us to transcend partisanship and to work together in common cause. I applaud my Republican colleagues who have worked on these efforts, who have traveled to Ukraine, who have been strong advocates for our partners, standing up against Kremlin aggression. That is why it is all the more puzzling that Republicans have largely been silent over the past few days. Whatever happened to solidarity with Ukraine? Whatever happened to standing up to Russia? Whatever happened to putting the national security of the United States ahead of petty partisan politics? We have found ourselves with a President in the White House who has now sought to manipulate aid to Ukraine to advance his own personal political agenda. Let's examine what we know. President Trump admitted that he spoke with President Zelensky and raised the issue of investigating the family of Vice President Biden. That was included in today's so-called transcript of the congratulatory call with President Zelensky. We know that after Congress appropriated this funding, the Department of State sent a notation to the White House Office of Budget and Management on June 21. We know deliberations over this kind of funding typically just take 5 days. Instead, the White House sat on this funding for 2 whole months. My staff met with the State Department last Friday. We tried to glean what could be the cause for this delay. Did the Department have an objection to this money moving forward? No, they did not. Did they know why the White House sat on it for 2 months? No, they did not. Did the White House ask them any substantive questions on the security assistance to Ukraine over these months? No, they did not and neither did the Defense Department. In other words, the State Department was unaware of any policy motivation that could have delayed the dispersal of urgently needed security funding to Ukraine. There was no policy motivation. On the contrary, the revelations of the past few days suggest a political motivation. It appears that President Trump's willingness to use the powers of his office for grossly inappropriate behavior on the international stage is pretty vivid. We need to know exactly who in the Trump administration played a role in the improper withholding of congressionally appropriated funding for Ukraine and how. That is why today I am calling for unanimous consent for my bill, the Ukraine Foreign Assistance Integrity and Accountability Act of 2019. This bill would require an inspector general, State Department, investigation into the Office of Management and Budget's delay in obligating these funds. My legislation would require the State Department to share all records in its role in facilitating the President's personal lawyer's engagement with the Ukranian Government. It would require that the administration obligate all Ukranian security assistance funds and authorize additional funds to counter Russia malign influence across Europe. It would also express solidarity with the Ukranian people by imposing new sanctions on Russia for its continued aggression in eastern Ukraine. Those sanctions would target Russia's shipping sector, oligarchs, and cyber attacks. I want to be clear that I am an advocate of regular order in the Senate, but we are in a crisis. It is a crisis potentially of constitutional proportions, a crisis that goes to the heart of our democracy, and how we respond to it will forever define our willingness as a Congress to defend the rule of law and live up to our article I responsibilities. President Trump has once again stood in the way of congressional efforts to support Ukraine and all of Europe in the face of Russian aggression. The administration has once again flouted the rule of law, this time with the Acting Director of National Intelligence refusing to disclose to Congress the whistleblower complaint on President Trump's conversations with President Zelensky--and we don't know what more--as he is mandated to do. It is time for this Congress to stand up for its article I powers. We need to act quickly to send a message to the White House and to the Kremlin. If there is anything we have learned from President Trump, it is that lawlessness begets lawlessness. It is time for us to remind the American people and the world that the rule of law means something. We will not allow the corrupting of our national security assistance. We will not allow our relationship with Ukraine to become a political football, and we will not let the foreign policy of the United States be corrupted for campaign purposes. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2537 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 2537; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I understand we are supposed to be heading to a briefing on Iran. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes, and then I will cease, and I ask unanimous consent for my entire remarks to be included in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ. No. 1, it is not unusual for--there have been many times when the urgency of the moment has had legislation come to the floor. I think this is one of those moments. But I do appreciate the Chairman's suggesting that he will take up consideration of this issue, and that is something I think is incredibly important. On Russia, I would just say the congressionally mandated sanctions, which the committee and the Congress passed, gave very little flexibility to the administration and have been the driver on sanctions on Russia. But there is a lot that hasn't been done that Russia has done subsequently, which we should be ultimately pursuing, and I look forward to the Chairman's having a markup on DASKAA and other related legislation to actually continue to fight Russia. Lastly, I would simply say that holding money from Ukraine doesn't make other countries give money to Ukraine. That was money that was directed by the U.S. Congress, which was promoted, as well, by the State Department and the Department of Defense. They had no concerns about corruption as it relates to this money. They understood the importance of the security assistance. Finally, on the question of the transcript, overwhelmingly, there wasn't banter there so much as there was a direct effort to get President Zelensky to use his powers to investigate former Vice President Biden's son. That is crystal clear, and any plain reading will do it, and I do hope the American people will read the summary. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, every Member of the Senate knows that Venezuela's illegitimate dictator, Nicolas Maduro, has created an unprecedented and harrowing humanitarian crisis in that country. Extreme food and medicine shortages, widespread criminal violence, and brutal state-sponsored repression have forced more than 4.3 million Venezuelans to flee their homeland. This number could be 8 million by the end of next year. As Venezuelans flee their country, it is time for the United States to place itself fully on the side of the Venezuelan people. Unfortunately, just this week we have seen news stories about the Trump administration deporting Venezuelans from Florida. It is unconscionable that anyone would be sent back to the catastrophic humanitarian conditions that exist in Venezuela. That is why, in February of this year, Senator Durbin and I, along with Senators Rubio, Leahy, and Booker, introduced bipartisan legislation to provide TPS to Venezuelans living here in the United States. The House of Representatives has already passed a version of this bill back in July, with support from dozens of Republican Members. However, rather than providing TPS for vulnerable Venezuelans in the United States, the junior Senator from Florida has brought up an amendment that seeks to overhaul existing TPS statute and make it easier for the Trump administration to strip status from vulnerable migrants who are legally in the United States. Respectfully, the suggestions that the courts have made it impossible to end any TPS is just not based in fact. This debate is not about watering down our immigration laws. It is about using the laws that we have right now to provide protection to Venezuelans so that we can ensure that the Trump administration doesn't deport them back to the nightmare they fled. While I join the Senator in the same goal, it is unfortunate that the Senator from Florida would prefer to pass legislation that advances the administration's immigration agenda rather than help the Venezuelan people--something we all agree about. As a matter of fact, we don't even really need congressional action because the President has the right to give temporary protected status to the Venezuelans living in the United States and he doesn't need an act of Congress to do that. He has failed to do that. It is in that failure that the House of Representatives acted to try to create a legislative response. For all these reasons, I object to the unanimous consent request of the Senator from Florida.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Since the Senator from Florida and I do agree on the need to provide TPS for Venezuelans, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 549, the bill that has already passed in the House, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, very briefly, I regret that my colleague has gone down the road of questioning political motives here. The reality is, in a bipartisan way, the Senator from Florida joined with us in February of this year to provide legislation that would provide TPS for Venezuelans and the United States. The House of Representatives, which has a Democratic majority--and he mentions the Democrats--passed a version of this bill in July of this year with the support from dozens of Republican Members, a bipartisan effort in the House of Representatives. At the end of the day, it doesn't take undermining TPS--dramatically changing TPS--in order to give Venezuelans temporary protected status. That is something the President could do without having the House of Representatives or the Senate act, but he has chosen not to. There are those who want to try to create an excuse for the President, but he has chosen not to do it, No. 1. No. 2, the reality is, if we wanted to create TPS for Venezuelans, we could immediately do that right now by accepting my unanimous consent request because the House of Representatives passed it with broad, bipartisan support. We could do it right now. It would be on the way to the President, and then, of course, he would have to sign the legislation even though he could do it on his own right now. I hope we can work toward the goal of actually giving the Venezuelans that opportunity who are living in the United States and seeking refuge from the violence, from the chaos that is Venezuela, but I am not ready to undermine all of the temporary protected status in order to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we have heard some deeply disturbing revelations in recent days about President Trump's efforts to tie congressionally appropriated security funding for Ukraine hostage to its government's willingness to investigate his political opponents here at home. The alleged threat by President Trump to withhold vital security funding from Ukraine came out last week in press reports about a whistleblower complaint from a U.S. intelligence official. These revelations suggest a gross abuse of power unlike anything I have ever seen during my 27 years of working on U.S. foreign policy. They also show Donald Trump once again welcoming a foreign power to influence our elections, this time using the power of the White House. As of today, the Acting Director of National Intelligence has refused to comply with the law that requires him to share this whistleblower complaint with Congress. Yet that hasn't stopped multiple members of the President's inner circle from all but confirming that the President pushed Ukrainian President Zelensky to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden. They have, together, engaged in a disturbing effort to convince the American people that this sort of behavior is somehow normal. We first watched the President's personal lawyer admit on CNN that he had raised this issue of investigating Biden on the President's behalf. Then, yesterday, we saw Secretary Pompeo sink to a new low when he defended this behavior on national TV. Then it was the President himself who admitted it to reporters--the President himself. I am not sure what more evidence we need, folks. Where are my Republican colleagues? Where are those supposed defenders of democracy and freedom? Where are the advocates for a strong relationship with Ukraine? They are silent, shamefully silent. For more than 2 months, the President held up $391 million in urgently needed security assistance for Ukraine--assistance that was appropriated by the Senate with broad bipartisan support. Congress didn't pass this funding so that the President could sit on it. We didn't pass this funding so that the President could use it as leverage to get Ukraine to investigate his political opponents. We passed this funding because Ukraine needs our support against relentless Russian aggression and because providing that support is in the interest of our own national security goals. Many of us were certainly not surprised to see this administration delay assistance to Ukraine given the President's repeated cowering to Moscow on the international stage. Yet, for 2 months, we wondered exactly why this money was being held from Ukraine. Now we know. The President withheld this money all in the hopes that the Ukrainian Government would open a bogus investigation into Vice President Biden's son. How is that not an abuse of power? I welcome efforts in the House to fully investigate the role of the President's personal lawyer in pressuring a foreign country to investigate the family of a potential political opponent. I urge the Senate to follow suit because a legitimate President would never allow his lawyer to override bipartisan support for Ukraine. A legitimate President would not let his personal lawyer compel foreign powers to interfere in our political process. A legitimate President would not withhold congressionally appropriated funding to Ukraine to advance his reelection prospects. So I am calling for a series of measures today to get to the bottom of this. First, I call upon the inspector general of the State Department to review the withholding of security assistance for Ukraine. This review must include the extent to which the Department was aware of or was part of the decision to withhold these funds and whether our foreign assistance laws were broken. The inspector general must also examine whether the State Department knew why the administration was withholding these funds and highlight any communications between the White House and the State Department on this matter. Second, I call upon the State Department to provide all details and records about any support in any form provided from the Department for the President's personal lawyer's efforts in Ukraine. We, likewise, need to know about any briefings the President's personal lawyer provided to Department personnel and his interactions with Ukrainian officials. Third, I call on the Office of Management and Budget to tell Congress why it sat on Ukraine's security assistance for more than 2 months. It typically takes the OMB just 5 days to review notifications from the implementing agencies. To sit on a notification for more than 2 months is unorthodox, unprecedented, and unacceptable. Fourth, I call upon the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations, Appropriations, Armed Services, and the Select Committee on Intelligence to immediately hold hearings on the President's purported use of security assistance to pressure Ukraine to open an investigation into a political opponent. I urge Chairman Risch to fulfill his commitments to hold a hearing on Russia and a markup on Russia sanctions soon. If President Trump had used money to coerce another person to perform some corrupt action on his behalf, we would call it out for what it was--extortion. Are we just going to let the President of the United States extort foreign leaders? Are we going to let him reshape American foreign policy to advance his own personal and political goals? Is this not a gross abuse of Presidential power? If not, then what is? These committees have a responsibility to ask these questions, and they have a constitutional responsibility to do their jobs. The Senate, as a whole, has an obligation to get to the bottom of this. Do my Republican colleagues really think it is OK to ask a foreign power to pursue unfounded allegations against a political opponent? Is this the new normal? I hope not. This is behavior that we have never seen from an American President. Unfortunately, it is behavior that fits into President Trump's broader pattern of surrendering to his patrons in Moscow. I wish I could say that extorting Ukraine were the only way Donald Trump corrupted our national security over the course of the summer, but that is just not the case. Last month, President Trump also redirected funding for the European Deterrence Initiative to his ridiculous border wall. Funding for the European Deterrence Initiative helps our allies counter the kind of Russian malign influence that was deployed by Putin against our democracy in 2016. It is well known by now that President Trump was lying when he said that Mexico would pay for the wall. To this day, he refuses to own up to this lie, so much so that he is willing to siphon dollars away from our military and abandon our most vital democratic allies in Europe to pursue a medieval vanity project. It is yet another example of his selling out our national security to curry favor with his political base. Over the past few weeks, my office has heard from several European Embassies that are now stuck holding the bill for Trump's wall. While you won't hear it from them publicly because they, too, fear a backlash from this President, they are offended and angry about this decision. It is simply astounding. We are talking about the allies that Americans fought and died for in order to defend democracy, worked so hard to rebuild after World War II, and continued to protect during the Cold War. I am sure the Kremlin couldn't be happier. To Putin, this must be a stroke of genius. Trump is killing two birds with one stone by redirecting these funds. He is dividing us from our European allies in the face of Russian aggression and dividing the American people with his politics of hate. I have said it before, and I will say it again: Investing in Donald Trump's candidacy was the best decision Putin ever made. His patron at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will stop at nothing to repay the debt. It might indeed be the only debt businessman Donald Trump has ever worked so hard to repay. My friends, we have witnessed a real summer of love between Trump and Putin. Consider the G7 meeting in France last month. So clearly was the United States not the leading voice at the table. So tragically have we lost the confidence of our closest allies, and so predictably did our President once again make an appeal on behalf of his patron in Moscow by repeatedly calling for the expansion of the G7 to include Russia. Sometimes I wonder: Does President Trump actually think that Russia is a democracy? Does he think that the Russian people live in freedom? Does he see Russia as an advanced economy? Does he believe Russia shares America's interests? I have to say that little surprises me these days, but even I was taken aback to see him blame President Obama for Russia's behavior--on foreign soil, no less. There is only one country responsible for Russia's removal from the G8 in 2014, and that is Russia. The Russian Federation was suspended from the G8 by its fellow countries because of its invasion and illegal occupation of Crimea, which is the territory of the sovereign nation Ukraine. Five years later, more than 10,000 Ukrainian patriots are dead. That is why Russia does not belong in the G8. What has the Kremlin done since 2014 that could possibly justify an expansion of the G7? Has it suspended its illegal occupation? Has it behaved like a responsible member of the international community? Has it respected the sovereignty of other nations? The answers are no, no, and no. Let's review Russia's behavior since 2014. First--and on the top of mind for many of us--was Russia's sweeping and systematic interference in our 2016 Presidential election on behalf of then-Candidate Donald Trump, as is documented in the special counsel's sobering report. Spreading propaganda, manipulating social media, and spying on American election infrastructure is not the behavior of a G7 country. Second was the Kremlin's chemical weapons attack on British soil--a blatant assassination attempt against a Putin opponent and his daughter. One British citizen was killed, and others required medical attention. This is not an isolated case. Just last month, a Russian citizen was gunned down in a park in Berlin at the suspected hand of the Russian authorities. This is not the behavior of a G7 country. Third is the Kremlin's complicity in Bashar al-Assad's war crimes in Syria. An untold number of Syrian civilians have been killed by Russian airstrikes launched in support of Assad. Those responsible should be tried in The Hague on war crimes charges. This is not the behavior of a G7 country. Fourth, in recent weeks, Russian forces have ramped up their pressure on the country of Georgia. More than 11 years after Russia's invasion, the Georgian people suffer under its ongoing aggression. That is not the behavior of a G7 country. Fifth is the recent Russian crackdown on demonstrators exercising their basic political rights. Throughout the summer, Putin oversaw the brutal beatings of children, women, and men and subjected everyday Russian citizens to arbitrary arrest and detention. What was their ask? What was their plea? That they be able to register their own local candidates for their own local elections. The Kremlin's ongoing and too often violent oppression of the Russian people is not the behavior of a G7 country. No country in the G7 acts this way. This behavior is destabilizing, it is aggressive, it is authoritarian, and it does not belong at the table of democracies. It is truly a disgrace that any American President would so easily discount all of what I have just described to win favor with his patron and pal. Of course, these aren't the only gifts bestowed by President Trump during this summer of love. Let's not forget how the President has delayed sanctions on Turkey over its purchase of the Russian S-400 system. Congress passed these sanctions under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA, in response to Russia's attack on our elections in 2016. We have these sanctions for a reason. They advance America's national security interests. They starve the Russian defense sector of much needed international business. By not imposing them, this President is both failing to hold Russia accountable and sending a dangerous message to other countries that they can buy Russian weapon systems without consequence. From the moment we passed CAATSA, this administration has resisted every step of the way. So let's imagine, for a moment, what a legitimate American President, a President who is not a Putin puppet, would do in this situation. How would that person protect our country? First, a legitimate President would not endanger the relationship with a key ally in order to gain political advantage at home. They would show solidarity with our democratic allies by providing all appropriated security assistance to Ukraine and funding for European efforts to counter Russian aggression. Second, I am sure they would not welcome Russia back into the G7. Third, they would impose CAATSA sanctions on Turkey and send a clear message to the world that the United States is serious about imposing pressure on the Russian defense industry. So let me close. The United States of America must always stand on the side of democracy, human rights, freedom, and the rule of law. That is why we must secure our elections from the threat of foreign interference at home and defend democracies in the face of Russian aggression abroad. That is why we must demand that security funding appropriated by Congress is actually delivered and that the sanctions we craft to counter our adversaries are imposed. That is why we cannot be silent when an American President extorts foreign countries into influencing our elections or welcomes an authoritarian strongman's return to the G7. I implore my colleagues to use the powers of Article I of the Constitution. We have to get to the bottom of these very issues and preserve the critical checks and balances we have in our Nation. I yield the floor.