Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to express my reservations about the nomination of John Rakolta, Jr., to be Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. Historically, the United States has sent career foreign service officers to serve as ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates, men and women well-versed in the complexities and challenges facing the region. Mr. Rakolta would be the first political nominee to serve as Ambassador to this critical post. The U.S. mission in the United Arab Emirates has benefitted from experienced, trained diplomats who can adroitly navigate our important security partnership while also addressing some of our major policy disagreements, particularly regarding involvement in conflicts throughout the Middle East. In nominating Mr. Rakolta, this administration is putting a political nominee with no diplomatic experience at the helm of one of our most critical Middle East posts. While Mr. Rakolta possesses extensive business experience, he lacks knowledge of the arms sales process, security commitments, and complex diplomacy that we should demand of our emissaries to the United Arab Emirates. This is a risky venture that could jeopardize our effectiveness in the region. It also is part of a concerning trend that has reduced the number of career ambassadors serving abroad. The historically even split between political and career nominees is becoming further skewed toward political ambassadors. Mr. Rakolta's nomination is also indicative of the lack of due diligence and forthrightness demonstrated by a number of this administration's nominees. It took months for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to obtain an accurate and complete picture of the extent of Mr. Rakolta's business holdings, litigation history, and the role he played at a questionable nonprofit, ostensibly related to economic development. Mr. Rakolta initially failed to include key details in the paperwork he submitted to the committee. He did not disclose dozens of companies that he had owned or managed, including many with an international presence, and omitted dozens of foreign lawsuits, among other details. More concerning, however, he did not disclose that he had served on the board of a nonprofit that had been the subject of intense public scrutiny, including questions about payments the board approved for its executive director. These issues and omissions not only slowed down Mr. Rakolta's nomination, but raised concerns about Mr. Rakolta's candor and forthrightness with the committee. The committee relies on nominees to be transparent and forthcoming about relevant information to ensure that there are not actual or potential conflicts of interest or issues that call into question a nominee's fitness for public service. When these details are obscured, omitted, or hard to obtain, it further erodes the confidence that a nominee is well-qualified and committed to serve in a given position. Mr. Rakolta's failure to provide accurate details to the committee did not inspire confidence about his diligence or transparency. Further, the details that the committee did obtain raise concerns about the type of leadership that he would bring to a critical U.S. embassy. Therefore, I opposed his nomination.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to once again call for this body to act on commonsense gun safety legislation. Time and again we have witnessed unfathomable carnage at the hands of assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines. It is a horror movie we have seen over and over. As parents bury children, as infants lose parents, as America grieves the senseless loss of life, the NRA just tightens its grip on the President and the majority leader. I am heartened by the grassroots movement that has grown across our Nation in recent years, and, likewise, I am encouraged by the many polls indicating that Americans overwhelmingly want action. Americans are tired of having their voices drowned out by the NRA. They are tired of a Congress that fears NRA attack ads more than the next mass shooting, and they are tired of being told time and again that this is a mental health problem or a violent video game problem when we know it is a gun problem. It is time for real action in the Senate. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed universal background checks for every gun sale--the kind of measure that would have stopped the shooter in Midland, TX, from bypassing a criminal background check if it had been a law. Just last week, the House Judiciary Committee passed the Keep Americans Safe Act, my legislation to limit the sale of ammunition to no more than 10 rounds. We know that a magazine that holds 30 or 60 or even 100 rounds of ammunition, like the Dayton shooter's did, is not for hunting or self-defense or protecting your home. High-capacity magazines are designed for one thing, and that is high-capacity killing. It is true that no single law is going to prevent all gun deaths. It is also true that we can prevent some gun deaths, and reducing magazine size is a proven way to do so. What will it take for the majority leader to take action? I am not the only one asking this question. Indeed, on September 3, the Washington Post published an editorial calling on the majority leader to act. They asked: ``Would any volume of bloodshed convince the Kentucky Republican that Congress faces a moral imperative to act?'' Alongside their call for action, the Post also published a staggering list of names--names of fellow Americans who have lost their lives in mass shootings, many involving high-capacity ammunition. I will read as many of these names as I can in my allotted time today: Cassie Bernall, Steven Curnow, Corey DePooter, Kelly Fleming, Matthew Kechter, Daniel Mauser, Daniel Rohrbough, William ``Dave'' Sanders, Rachel Scott, Isaiah Shoels, John Tomlin, Lauren Townsend, Kyle Velasquez, Jennifer Bragg Capobianco, Janice Hagerty, Louis ``Sandy'' Javelle, Rose Manfredi, Paul Marceau, Cheryl Troy, Craig Wood, Derrick Brun, Dewayne Lewis, Chase Lussier, Daryl Lussier, Neva Rogers, Chanelle Rosebear, Michelle Sigana, Thurlene Stillday, Alicia White, Naomi Ebersol, Marian Stoltzfus Fisher, Lena Zook Miller, Mary Liz Miller, Anna Mae Stoltzfus, Ross Abdallah Alameddine, Christopher James Bishop, Brian Bluhm, Ryan Clark, Austin Cloyd, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, Daniel Perez Cueva, Kevin Granata, Matthew G. Gwaltney, Caitlin Hammaren, Jeremy Herbstritt, Rachael Elizabeth Hill, Emily Hilscher, Jarrett Lane, Matthew J. La Porte, Henry Lee, Liviu Librescu, G.V. Loganathan, Partahi Lumbantoruan, Lauren McCain, Daniel O'Neil, Juan Ramon Ortiz, Minal Panchal, Erin Peterson, Michael Pohle, Julia Pryde, Mary Read, Reema Samaha, Waleed Shaalan, Leslie Sherman, Maxine Turner, Nicole R. White, Beverly Flynn, Janet Jorgensen, Gary Joy, John McDonald, Gary Scharf, Angie Schuster, Dianne Trent, Maggie Webb, Parveen Ali, Almir Alves, Marc Henry Bernard, Maria Sonia Bernard, Hong Xiu Mao, Jiang Ling, Layla Khalil, Roberta King, Lan Ho, Li Guo, Dolores Yigal, Maria Zobniw, Michael Grant Cahill, Libardo Eduardo Caraveo, Justin Michael DeCrow, John Gaffaney, Frederick Greene, Jason Dean Hunt, Amy S. Krueger, Aaron Thomas Nemelka, Michael S. Pearson, Russell Seager, Francheska Velez, Juanita L. Warman, Kham See Xiong, Christina Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, John M. Roll, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwan Stoddard, Gabriel Zimmerman, Demetrius Hewlin, Russell King, Jr., Daniel Parmertor, Tshering Rinzing Bhutia, Doris Chibuko, Sonam Choedon, Grace Eunhea Kim, Katleen Ping, Judith O. Seymour, Lydia Sim, Jonathan Blunk, A.J. Boik, Jesse Childress, Gordon Cowden, Jessica Ghawi, John Thomas Larimer, Matthew McQuinn, Micayla Medek, Veronica Moser-Sullivan, Alex Matthew Sullivan, Alexander Teves, Rebecca Ann Wingo, Satwant Singh Kaleka, Suveg Singh Khattra, Paramjit Kaur, Prakash Singh, Ranjit Singh, Sita Singh, Charlotte Bacon, Daniel Barden, Rachel D'Avino, Olivia Engel, Josephine Gay, Dylan Hockley, Dawn Hochsprung, Madeleine F. Hsu, Catherine V. Hubbard, Chase Kowalski, Jesse Lewis, Ana G. Marquez-Greene, James Mattioli, Grace McDonnell, Anne Marie Murphy, Emilie Parker, Jack Pinto, Noah Pozner, Caroline Previdi, Jessica Rekos, Avielle Richman, Lauren Russeau, Mary Sherlach, Victoria Soto, Benjamin Wheeler, Allison Wyatt. My time is almost up, but I haven't even reached the names of those who died after Newtown nearly 7 years ago. I will close with one last point. It is heartbreaking to know that some of the people on this list might be alive today if we only had the courage to pass the Keep Americans Safe Act or to establish universal background checks or a new assault weapons ban. It is just as heartbreaking to know that more names of more sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, friends and colleagues will end up on this list in the days ahead should the Senate continue to fail to act. That is the truth. That is the truth. Every day without action is another closer to America's next mass shooting. The time to save lives is now. I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post's entire list of mass shooting victims be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to the growing risks of an Ebola epidemic in Central Africa and to urge the Senate to take up and pass S. 1340, my bipartisan bill authorizing USAID to combat the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This legislation passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June, and it is time for the full Senate to act. On July 17, the World Health Organization declared this Ebola outbreak a ``public health emergency of international concern,'' with experts predicting the outbreak will last well into 2020. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the DRC, as it is known, has been battling an Ebola outbreak for exactly 1 year as of today. Despite the best efforts of the Congolese, the World Health Organization, and international partners, this outbreak is now the second worst in history. More than 1,800 people are dead and more than 2,600 confirmed and probable cases have been identified. It took just over 7 months to reach 1,000 cases of Ebola, but only 2 months to reach 2,000. According to the World Health Organization, up to 25 percent of all infections may be going unreported. The scope of the outbreak continues to grow. Just today, press reports indicate that there is a third case in the city of Goma, home to over 1 million people. Imagine the consequences of an unrestrained outbreak in a city of over 1 million people. Under the best of circumstances, it would be difficult, but not impossible, to control the outbreak. However, we are not dealing with ideal circumstances. Today's Ebola outbreak is unfolding amid a noxious mix of political mistrust and overall insecurity. Consider that eastern Congo has been plagued for years by armed opposition groups and militias. Dozens of armed groups opposed to the government operate in the areas most affected by Ebola, periodically preventing health officials from reaching communities in need of treatment and prevention. Likewise, criminal gangs operating with near impunity have made it dangerous for healthcare workers to travel to Ebola-affected villages without security. To complicate things further, we have witnessed community resistance specifically to the Ebola response. Long marginalized by the capital of the DRC, Kinshasa, communities in eastern Congo remain skeptical that the crisis is real. They fear the government is using the disease as another tool of disenfranchising them, especially after the former government canceled elections. Some actors even oppose medical interventions and promote disinformation and conspiracy theories questioning the existence of the Ebola outbreak. To date, there have been more than 100 attacks on health facilities, severely hampering the response of the DRC and the international community. Misinformation, mistrust of the government, and fear of violence at health centers has resulted in between 25 and 50 percent of new Ebola deaths taking place outside treatment facilities. This means infectious patients are less likely to receive lifesaving treatment and more likely to infect others. We no longer have the luxury of half-hearted international engagement. We need a multifaceted, multisectoral, international response to get this under control. We know all too well that infectious diseases have no borders. It is one airplane flight away from coming to our own country. That has happened in the past. It is in our national and international interest to ensure the United States uses every resource available to get this outbreak under control. To date, however, the White House response has not only been inadequate but downright counterproductive. In early May, USAID developed a new strategy focusing on basic assistance for disenfranchised communities to help build trust and improve access for healthcare workers. This strategy would, for example, support health interventions for anyone who comes to a healthcare center in need of care, even if not totally related to Ebola. USAID also proposed new programs to increase education, provide clean water and sanitation in communities, and improve conditions in Ebola- affected communities. These programs were designed to build trust and promote resilience in at-risk communities so that health workers can better stop the spread of the disease. These were good ideas. Instead of embracing them, the administration has effectively tied its own hands in promoting a sensible, sustainable response to the Ebola crisis. As we all know, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which I have been a champion of on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, having worked with the former chairman, Bob Corker, who felt passionately about these issues, railed against the administration when they didn't put countries in tier 3, the most significant consequence under our law, because they were playing politics with that country for other reasons and not observing the essence of the law, and made sure that the TIP Report was transparent and honest in its assessments. So I am supportive of the harsh sanctions for countries that fail to adequately combat human trafficking. As a tier 3 country under the law, the DRC is therefore severely restricted from receiving U.S. aid. But let's use some common sense here. This legislation was never, never intended to hurt the most vulnerable in society or to be used as an excuse to ignore a deadly epidemic with international implications. In fact, Congress foresaw the need for exceptions to these sanctions in extraordinary cases in 22 USC, chapter 78, section 4 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. This language that I just cited allows the United States to waive sanctions and provide assistance when it is in our national interest to do so. Indeed, the law specifically says: ``The President shall exercise the authority''--shall exercise the authority--``under section (4) when necessary to avoid significant adverse effects on vulnerable populations, including women and children.'' According to the World Health Organization, the Ebola virus disease has a 50-percent mortality rate. No one can deny its effects on vulnerable populations. If the people of eastern Congo, including women and children, are not vulnerable, then I don't know who is. Yet the White House has refused to exercise the waiver. That is why we need the Ebola Eradication Act. This simple legislation directs the USAID Administrator to immediately provide assistance, including multisectoral, nonhumanitarian, and nontrade related foreign assistance, to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other vulnerable countries to effectively combat the Ebola outbreak, notwithstanding the sanctions required by the Trafficking and Victims Protection Act. Make no mistake, President Trump could have done this himself months ago. But as a Bloomberg editorial published today points out, President Trump has failed to respond with urgency. As a result, needless delays and inaction have hampered our response. In mid-June, the administration had granted exceptions for all Ebola- related activities proposed under USAID's new plan, but they have yet to be launched. To make matters worse, those exceptions were granted only for fiscal year 2018 money. Finally, the exception is not a country waiver, creating loads of redtape for future activities related to combating Ebola. In other words, we are shooting ourselves in the foot with unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that serve no purpose and slow down our response even as the disease continues to kill more and more people. Fortunately, the DRC and bordering countries, together with the World Health Organization, have lessened the overall impact by successfully vaccinating more than 120,000 people. They have also administered experimental treatment regimens to over 300 people, which, if caught in time, can save more lives. But this is a case where, in fact, America can and must do more. While there is no magic wand we can wave to change the security situation, we can certainly step up the U.S. response and our support for local and international efforts. We have a moral obligation to help contain and combat this outbreak before it becomes an epidemic. Likewise, we have an obligation to protect the safety and security of the American public. Our goal must be to save lives and prevent the spread of Ebola before it stands a chance of reaching America's shores. Ultimately, we ignore the tragedy unfolding in the Congo at our own peril. It is time for this body to act. USAID Administrator Mark Green testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year and expressed strong support for this legislation as it is currently written. I urge my colleagues to work with me in passing S. 1340, the Ebola Eradication Act of 2019, as it is currently drafted and as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed it in June. This is an opportunity to ultimately save lives. It is an opportunity--something we don't always get in this Chamber--for us to actually save lives. It is an opportunity to stop an epidemic. It is an opportunity to preserve our own interests by making sure Ebola doesn't come to the shores of the United States. It should be a no-brainer. I hope we can work through the one objection I understand that exists with our colleague from Utah so that we can actually control the epidemic, save lives, and ultimately ensure our own interests. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, let me thank my colleague from Illinois, who has been a clarion voice in this regard, a strong proponent of human rights and democracy in Venezuela and in other parts of the world, but in this case, in Venezuela; who has traveled there at a time when people could not travel--certainly from the Congress--in an effort to see if there was a pathway forward and to see the plight of the Venezuelan people. I really appreciate his cosponsorship with me on this temporary protected status for Venezuelans. His leadership is critically important, not only as the Democratic whip but also as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee that I hope can take up this legislation. I will say this: I regret that our colleague from Utah, No. 1, objected, and No. 2, left. I would just make two observations on his comments. No. 1, there was a strong bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives. So, no, there was not unanimity, but there was a strong bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives. Secondly, this legislation has been over here in the Senate for some time. We have offered it for some time, so it is not new. Thirdly, I would just say as to whether we get to legislate in this Chamber, that depends on the majority leader and his side of the aisle, who control the floor. We would like to see legislating take place. We would be happy to have a debate on the fierce urgency of this as it relates to this issue of TPS, temporary protected status. I fear my colleague was unaware of what he objected to. This is urgently needed legislation that would have granted that temporary-- underline temporary--protected status. This is a class of people who need to be protected, the approximately 200,000 Venezuelans currently residing in the United States. As we all know, the Maduro regime has created an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in Venezuela that has now forced more than 4 million Venezuelans and migrants to flee their homeland--more than 4 million. Think about it. This is on the verge of becoming one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes in a refugee situation that we have in the world--and that is something considering what has happened in Syria and other places in the world--right here in our own hemisphere. In response to this humanitarian tragedy, last December--this has been around several months--Senator Durbin offered the first bipartisan bill to provide TPS for Venezuelans, which we reintroduced in February. Last week, the House passed their own bipartisan version of the legislation with support of dozens of Republican Members. It is an unconscionable moral failing for the Senate not to approve this legislation. Earlier this month, as the senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I traveled to the Venezuela border to see the crisis firsthand. I returned convinced that we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines any longer. My colleague, I think, would not have objected to TPS for Venezuelans if he saw what I saw. During my trip to Cucuta, I walked on the Colombian side of the Simon Bolivar International Bridge, between Colombia and Venezuela, amidst thousands of Venezuelan refugees--30,000 cross each and every day--and migrants who cross into Colombia each and every day. I joined thousands of Venezuelans who were fleeing hunger as they sought food at the Divine Providence soup kitchen. I visited patients seeking medical care that is no longer available in Venezuela. By the way, Venezuela should be one of the wealthiest countries in the Western Hemisphere. It has huge oil and natural gas reserves, but despite that they can't get medical care in Venezuela because the hospital system has completely collapsed. When I was there in Colombia at the border, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a report decrying that the Maduro regime's security forces had murdered nearly 7,000 Venezuelans in the last 2 years-- 7,000. My colleague cannot possibly want to return Venezuelans to the cruel conditions they are fleeing. That is what temporary protected status is all about. I have applauded--I don't find too many times in which I am in agreement with the Trump administration, but I supported their efforts on sanctions and other efforts around the Maduro regime so we can restore democracy and human rights, but how can you say and do all the things you are doing in Venezuela and then have a deportation force that wants to round up these people who have done nothing wrong and send them back to the country where 7,000 have been killed by Maduro? These extraordinary conditions have scattered millions of Venezuelans in countries across the Americas. Today 1.3 million reside in Colombia, 750,000 in Peru, 250,000 in Ecuador, and the numbers keep growing. Colombia and its neighbors have largely welcomed Venezuelans as they flee a devastating humanitarian catastrophe. By not approving this bill today, the United States is failing to match their efforts and failing to approve temporary protected status for the vulnerable of Venezuelans already living in our country. For those who doubt whether TPS would make a difference for these Venezuelan families, let me share with you a few stories provided to my office by the respected Venezuelan human rights group Foro Penal. Yuley Gomez is the mother of Luis David, a 4-year-old who has a delicate heart condition. In Venezuela, Yuley asked for help from everyone she could, but all she received was a prescription for painkillers. In a closed-door meeting, she was told privately to wait for the inevitable death of her child, a 4-year-old. Just imagine being told to wait for a son or daughter to succumb to a treatable illness. No parent would do that. After great personal sacrifice, Yuley made it to the United States and admitted her son into Boston Children's Hospital. Three years later, David is thriving, but he requires frequent checkups and treatments that remain unavailable in Venezuela to this day. Then there is Leila Calderon, who resides in my home State of New Jersey. Her nephew, who once lived with her in Caracas, is a pilot in the Venezuela Armed Forces. He was wrongly arrested for plotting to overthrow Maduro. In the absence of evidence, he was released from jail, but on his way home, he received a call warning him that military counterintelligence agents were waiting for him. When he tried to hide, security forces arbitrarily arrested his mother, his girlfriend, and his father-in-law. The following day, he was detained and charged once more, again with no evidence. He remains imprisoned today. Even Leila, who has publicly advocated for his release, has been labeled as a ``terrorist'' on national television by the regime thug Diosdado Cabello. Let me share the story of Omar Acosta. His brother, Captain Rafael Acosta Arevalo, was detained on June 21, 2019, by members of the Venezuela military counterintelligence. After being forcibly imprisoned for a week, on June 28 of 2019, Captain Acosta was rolled into an arraignment hearing in a wheelchair, visibly affected by torture. He died the following day. The kind of torture that took Captain Acosta's life is one of the many dangers Venezuelans in the United States would need to fear if we don't approve TPS. The Maduro regime's unthinkable abuses have created a full-blown refugee crisis in our own hemisphere. These extraordinary, and what we pray are temporary, conditions prevent millions of Venezuelans from safely returning home, including nearly 200,000 in our own country. There has been a broad bipartisan support for the Trump administration's effort to confront the Maduro regime. However, as we confront Maduro, we cannot turn our back on the Venezuelan people. Unfortunately, today the Senate has chosen not to act. We could have sent legislation to the President's desk that ensures that vulnerable Venezuelans in the United States are not sent back into harm's way-- into potential death or imprisonment. Instead, we did nothing. This is a tragedy in its own right. This is what we could have avoided today. I am sure Senator Durbin and I will continue to push forward. We will both challenge the leadership here to allow us either to have this passed or give us a vote. I think the community should know who stands on their side and whether they are willing to protect them temporarily from the enormous humanitarian catastrophe--the great risk of the loss of life or liberty that exists for Venezuelans in the United States who have fled to freedom. We are going to go out of session the end of this week. That means all these people will languish for the summer, not knowing whether, in fact, they can be deported back to a country in which they may well lose their life or their liberty. That is pretty outrageous. If we can't get it done this week, I hope to God we can get it done in September. If not, I worry about a continuing crisis that will only lead to greater uncertainty and create greater risk to those simply fleeing freedom and who are being, by the way, very productive citizens here while they are temporarily in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, one final comment to my colleague. The 7,000 who have been killed by Maduro's secret police is reflective of the fact that those who are here are some of the earliest opponents of Maduro--those who tried to create change but fled. They have a heightened reason why, in fact, going back--in addition to the chaos and in addition to the danger--they are particularly threatened, at the end of the day, because they are the ones who were trying to create change and found a situation in which the threat of their life was at risk so they came to the United States. Getting protected status--if there was ever a moment in which temporary protected status was envisioned, it is for this situation. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Ms. Kelly Craft to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. As a firm believer in the strength and power of U.S. diplomacy, there are three main reasons I oppose Ambassador Craft's nomination. First and foremost, she lacks the experience necessary to stand up for American values and promote our national security on the global stage. Second, during her brief diplomatic tenure in Canada, she posted so many absences that I cannot describe it as anything less than a dereliction of duty. Ambassador Craft has also been unable or unwilling to convince the Senate that she will fully separate her professional obligations from her family's business interests. We cannot have an ambassador to the United Nations who risks using this incredibly influential position in ways that could benefit her own family's finances. This position is one of the most important diplomatic posts in our government. It is a global stage, and every leader who serves in this role must always put country first. Since its founding, some of our most distinguished public servants have represented the United States at the U.N.: George H. W. Bush, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Thomas Pickering, Madeleine Albright, John Negroponte, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power. These Americans brought to the table years of experience as former Ambassadors, senior State Department officials, National Security Council staff, and more. Ambassador Craft simply cannot match the foreign policy and national security expertise offered by these distinguished leaders. Before serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, she had no previous significant foreign policy experience or executive experience at all. It would seem that her most relevant credential is that she, along with her husband, contributed more than $1 million to the President's campaign. During the confirmation process, Ambassador Craft's performance suggested a deep lack of knowledge and applicable experience. I want to be clear. This is not a judgment on her character. This is merely an assessment of her ability to represent the United States of America on the world stage where she will grapple with some of the most complex and challenging foreign policy issues of our time. When asked at her hearing to identify the most pressing issues facing the U.N. and comment on how the United States could leverage the U.N. to pursue our national foreign policy priorities, Craft displayed no sophisticated understanding of the many challenges confronting our country. She failed to mention North Korea's aggression on nuclear proliferation. She failed to mention ongoing threats from Iran. She failed to mention China's growing power and Russia's continued malign influence. When asked about the two-state solution, she could not articulate a viewpoint. When asked by Senator Paul whether she believed the Iraq war was a mistake, she replied that she was ``not going to second guess the . . . Bush administration.'' In response to Senator Cardin's question about the threat of climate change, she said that the United States does not need to be a member of the Paris climate agreement in order to show leadership. All the more disturbing are her past comments on climate change, such as when she said, ``I believe there are scientists on both sides that are accurate.'' Taken together, these answers should alarm anyone who hopes that the United States can use our power, our influence, and our leadership position to promote our interests and answer the great challenges of our time. Simply put, never in our Nation's history has a President nominated such an underqualified person to this critical post just for being a donor. Ms. Craft also lacks the professionalism needed to be the U.N. Ambassador. As our Ambassador to Canada, she had one job: to represent the United States in Canada. Yet, during her time in Ottawa, the defining characteristic of her service appears to be how little time she actually spent there. The numbers speak for themselves. During the 608 days she served as U.S. Ambassador in Ottawa, she spent 357 days outside of Canada. Let me repeat that. During her 21 months assigned to Ottawa, she spent an entire year out of Canada. For my colleagues who insist she was engaged in trade negotiations, the State Department's own records suggest otherwise. Indeed, the record shows she spent only 40 days on travel related to USMCA. She did, however, spend 210 days at her homes in Kentucky or Oklahoma. I repeat, she spent 7 of her 21 months as our Ambassador in Canada at home in the United States. The last time I checked, not a single round of the USMCA negotiations took place in Kentucky or Oklahoma. Additionally, while Ms. Craft claims that she always received approval from her travel, records show that she spent at least 11 days out of the country without State Department approval. Should she be confirmed as Ambassador of the U.N., I think it is very fair to say that if an international crisis erupts, we might more likely find her in Kentucky than New York City. Ambassador Craft's absences represent a total abdication of her responsibility as the head of the U.S. Embassy in Canada--one of our Nation's most vital allies. In one troubling instance, during the month when the Trump administration shut down the Federal Government, Ambassador Craft was in Ottawa for only 2 days. Rather than provide leadership to Embassy personnel during uncertain times, she was at home in Kentucky. Perhaps she thought she was nonessential personnel. Finally, Ms. Craft has also displayed a lack of diligence when it comes to preventing conflicts of interest. I know this administration has sunk to some new lows when it comes to mixing family business with national security, but that doesn't mean it is OK. Norms are only as strong as our will to stand up and defend them. That is why we must push back against self-promotion at the expense of the American people. We also know that Ambassador Craft's husband, Joe Craft, runs the second largest coal producer in the Eastern United States and has lobbied the EPA to roll back regulations against air and water pollution. Ms. Craft insisted to the committee that her husband ``plays no role whatsoever in official U.S. government business,'' but email and calendar records tell a different story. When Ambassador Craft needed information about a U.S. environmental project, she asked her husband--not Embassy employees--to connect her to former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. When the EPA sent the requested information to the Ambassador, they included her spouse on the response. In addition, according to official calendars, Mr. Craft participated in at least four meetings with U.S. or Canadian Government energy and environmental officials. The potential conflicts of interest are staggering. The nomination of Ms. Craft to this position underscores the Trump administration's total lack of respect for the work of diplomacy, for our diplomats, and for the United Nations. Taken together, Ambassador Craft's lack of experience, her dereliction of duty and excessive absences in Ottawa, and her unwillingness to address potential conflicts of interest render her unfit to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations. In a world of growing challenges, the American people deserve a serious, thoughtful, and proven leader to represent their interests at the United Nations. They deserve a leader who can leverage the United Nations to advance our national security interests and ultimately build a safer, more stable, prosperous world. They deserve a leader who will put the interests of the people over the profits of their family. Kelly Knight Craft is not that leader. For those reasons, I will vote no on this nomination and urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's veto of three resolutions of disapproval on arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. As we all know, several weeks ago, the Secretary of State attempted to bypass this body and the entire Congress on 22 separate arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates--all on the pretext of an urgent physical threat from Iran that was, at best, ill-defined and, at worst, completely false. Let me be clear. Iran has and will continue to pose a threat to U.S. interests and allies in the region, and I have and will continue to approve arms sales to partners and allies that address legitimate security threats and advance American interests. From the start, this administration has failed to demonstrate what kind of national security threat or ``emergency'' from Iran warranted fast-tracking the sale of these weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Indeed, Secretary Pompeo's own May 24 justification for the sales lacked any persuasive information explaining how these sales would address an Iranian threat so serious that it justified bypassing Congress on an ``emergency'' basis. That is why I introduced resolutions to disapprove these sales, and that is why 6 weeks ago, this body came together in a bipartisan way to reassert the role of Congress in reviewing arms sales and passed 22 separate resolutions of disapproval. Today I ask that we come together again. In fact, not even President Trump's own veto messages mention the word ``emergency.'' It is clear this administration has had other motives from the start. We continue to hear officials invent new reasons for pushing through these sales. We heard these sales are necessary for ``sustaining the global supply chain,'' for preventing ``loss of sale to peer competitors,'' for maintaining U.S. ``credibility as an arms supplier,'' and so on. So, look, many of us expected the President to use his veto powers. That is his right, but the constitutional, strategic, and moral imperatives that led the Senate to reject the sale of these arms 6 weeks ago still stand today. Let me review three main reasons I hope we can unite today to override the President's veto. First is how these weapons are being used. By now, we are well acquainted with what has been, at best, the incompetent, and, at worst, criminal actions of Saudi Arabia's airstrikes in Yemen. All evidence suggests that the Saudis have intentionally targeted hospitals, bridges, power stations, apartment buildings, weddings, schools, and, yes, even a schoolbus filled with children, leaving thousands of Yemeni civilians killed or maimed. Over the years, Congress has received many assurances about how U.S. arms sales, advice, and assistance would supposedly help the Saudi Air Force and command authority better identify military targets and thereby reduce the risk to civilians. Those assurances no longer stand. We cannot brand the sale of precision-guided munitions as humanitarian weapons if the Saudis are intentionally targeting civilians in the first place. That is why, last year, I placed an informal hold on the sale of 60,000 precision-guided munitions, or PGMs, to Saudi Arabia, requesting the administration explain how they would enhance efforts to reduce civilian casualties. They failed to do so in a fulsome and convincing way, and, believe me, I would like to be convinced. After the slaughter of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October of last year, the Trump administration apparently flatout gave up trying to convince anyone that the Saudis have any regard whatsoever for human rights at home, in Yemen, or at their diplomatic consulates abroad. Last week, recognizing the abject failures of the Yemeni campaign, the United Arab Emirates announced it was ceasing its support and largely withdrawing from Yemen. I commend that as the right decision. I do not doubt that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are concerned about Iranian threats, but the indisputable reality is that these precision-guided weapon kits were always headed for this disastrous air war in Yemen. So, again, let's not delude ourselves. These sales will in no way support Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates or the United States from an imminent Iranian threat. Full stop. Second, if we fail to override the President's veto, we will allow this administration to transfer American jobs and sensitive military technology to the Saudis. That is right. With this sale, the Trump administration has authorized Raytheon to allow the Saudis to begin manufacturing part of the electronic guidance system for these precision-guided munitions. In other words, the administration is not only selling the Saudis these weapons but also portions of the blueprints for building these weapons. This work has always and always should be done by American workers right here in the United States. America's defense industry produces the most sophisticated systems in the world. Yet the Trump administration is opening the door for the Saudis to manufacture their own similar weapons in the future or transfer our American-made technical know-how to other countries. Disturbingly, we also know that if the Trump administration gets its way, this transfer will not be a one-time thing. State Department officials have actually admitted to the Foreign Relations Committee staff that this will be the first of many sales authorizing the Saudis to manufacture even larger, more sensitive portions of these highly advanced weapons. My colleagues, that is simply madness. Not only is this sale a Saudi jobs program, but it is also a giveaway of sensitive U.S. military technology. The President's own veto message claims that not giving away American jobs and sensitive military technology to Saudi Arabia would ``abandon'' them. I am guessing by ``them,'' he means the royal family the President is intent on praising and courting. I ask my colleagues who oppose stopping this sale or are thinking of allowing the President's veto to stand: Do you want to be on record supporting a Saudi jobs program? Do you want to be on the record as aiding and abetting the transfer of sensitive U.S. military technology to Saudi Arabia, a source of extremism and bloodshed in the world? S.J. Res. 37 disapproves a sale of precision-guided munitions to the UAE at a time when the UAE is pulling its military forces out of Yemen. Yet the President's veto message says that stopping this sale would somehow prolong the suffering in Yemen, which goes against any logic with which I am familiar. S.J. Res. 38 disapproves a sale of fuzes for Saudi bombs. Yet the President argues that stopping this sale will again prolong the suffering of the innocent in Yemen, presumably by denying the Saudis the ability to target them indiscriminately. It doesn't make sense. Finally, I think all of my colleagues can agree that the United States and Saudi Arabia need a course correction. The brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, an American resident and journalist in a Saudi consulate, may have been the final, violent straw that broke the camel's back, but we must reexamine this relationship. Beyond the Khashoggi killing and the atrocities in Yemen, the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar and the ongoing rift within the GCC are not in the interests of the United States. The Saudis kidnapping of the Lebanese Prime Minister is not in the interest of the United States. Finally, Saudi Arabia's detention and torture of human rights activists calling for the same exact rights the Crown Prince himself pretends to support--its suppression of dissent and speech--this behavior does not reflect American values or our long-term interests. My colleagues, America is better than this. This Senate and this Congress must continue to stand up for reason, for decency, and for the actual foreign policy and national security interests of the United States--not the personal interests of the Trump family and their misguided willingness to put profit over principle and profit over people. This administration's willingness to turn a blind eye to the wholesale slaughter of civilians and the murder of journalists and move forward with the sale of these weapons will have a lasting implication for America's moral leadership on the world stage. That is why, 6 weeks ago, in a bipartisan fashion, the Senate came together to approve an unprecedented 22 separate bipartisan resolutions of disapproval. That is why 5 weeks ago, the Committee on Foreign Relations approved my bipartisan bill--the Saudi Arabia False Emergencies, or SAFE Act--to prevent similar abuses of emergency authority in the future. That is why, 3 weeks ago, the House passed several amendments to their National Defense Authorization Act to stop these same arms sales, and, 2 weeks ago, the House passed three of the Senate joint resolutions of disapproval and sent them to the President. It is the first time, since 1988, that any such resolution has passed the Congress, and it is the first time multiple resolutions of disapproval had done so. Finally, just last week, the Foreign Relations Committee approved on a bipartisan vote the Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act, legislation I introduced with Senators Young, Murphy, Graham, Reed, Collins, and Shaheen that would finally impose real sanctions, including on arms sales, on Saudi Arabia for its atrocities-- legislation I hope Senator McConnell will swiftly bring to the floor. I hope this administration appreciates the gravity of these actions and those to come. Today we have an opportunity to again demonstrate to the President, the Secretary of State, and to the butchers of Saudi Arabia that the U.S. Senate will stand up for our values, will stand up for our long- term national security interests, and will put country over short-term business interests. I urge my colleagues to take this stand today, override these vetoes, and stop the Saudi arms sales. There are few days in this body where we can say that our votes will save lives. Today is such a day.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to address an important issue, that the Secretary of State did not comply with the law when he made an emergency declaration on May 24 to bypass the Congress and issue export permission for 22 separate arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Because of this, a case can be made that some or all of the export licenses and the letters of offer are not valid because they did not comply with the Arms Export Control Act. We have made clear in this body that there is strong bipartisan opposition to the President and Secretary of State's reckless disregard for the law, for common sense, for human rights, for basic human decency, and even for our national security, when it comes to matters involving Saudi Arabia. We voted to disapprove each and every one of these 22 ``emergency'' sales, and I have no doubt, we will continue to attempt to correct the President's self-serving myopia on Saudi Arabia and its murderous leadership. But the Secretary of State's failure to comply with statutory obligations is a serious matter that we cannot allow to get lost in the bipartisan outcry over the Secretary's incredible contentions that these sales respond to an Iranian emergency. At the risk of losing some in the minutia, let me briefly lay out how the Secretary's ``emergency'' declaration fails to comply with the basic requirements of the emergency provisions in Arms Export Control Act and degrades congressional prerogatives. The Secretary's failure to comply with the statute materially and adversely impacts the Senate's institutional interests. It undermines the clear and intentional statutory balance between Congress and the executive branch designed to govern individual arms sales, and it impedes the Senate's ability to understand, conduct oversight, and respond to each sale. As laid out below, in this instance, the blanket approach taken with regard to these 22 sales demonstrates precisely why a generalized determination and certification is insufficient to protect the Senate's role in arms sales. Mr. President, allow me to explain further. The Secretary indicated that he determined that, pursuant to sections 36(b)(1), (c)(2), and (d)(2), an emergency exists that requires the immediate sale of defense articles and services to Saudi Arabia and UAE and thereby purported to waive the congressional review requirements for the 22 certifications. In support of this action, the Secretary submitted only one determination and one memorandum of justification. The emergency authorities cited above and upon which the Secretary relies, however, do not allow for a blanket determination and justification covering multiple certifications. Rather, these provisions require submission of a separate determination and justification for each individual emergency certification. This requirement is clear from both the structure and text of sections 36 (b), (c), and (d). For example, subsection (b)(l) mandates that the President submit an individual certification for each letter of offer--``before such letter of offer is issued, the President shall submit . . . a numbered certification with respect to such offer . . . .''. The emergency authority available to the President in (b)(1) is similarly limited and may be exercised only in relation to a specific letter of offer covering a specific sale, with a justification and determination required in each instance such authority is exercised. The relevant statutory references are only in the singular, and not in the plural, leaving no doubt as to what the law requires. ``If the President states in his certification that an emergency exists which requires the proposed sale in the national security interest of the United States, thus waiving the congressional review requirements of this subsection, he shall set forth in the certification a detailed justification for his determination, including a description of the emergency circumstances which necessitate the immediate issuance of the letter of offer and a discussion of the national security interests involved.'' The structure and text of 36(c)(2) and (d)(1) are analogous in requiring a specific determination and justification to accompany each emergency certification. Mr. President, given the extraordinary nature of the emergency authority and the national security sensitivities involved in arms sales, it is not surprising that Congress did not give the President blanket authority to invoke an emergency and bypass Congress. The requirement for a case-by-case exercise of such authority protects congressional interests by ensuring that the Senate has sufficient information on each sale to understand the sale, conduct oversight, assess whether use of the emergency authority is consistent with the AECA, and determine whether a resolution of disapproval is warranted. The case-by-case approach set out in the statute was designed to protect against the very situation the Senate faced as a result of the Secretary's blanket use of the emergency authority to cover 22 sales at once. The Secretary was abusing the emergency authority by invoking it to cover sales for which there is no actual emergency need, e.g., the manufacture of F-18 fighter aircraft side panels in Saudi Arabia for export outside the region, when Saudi Araba doesn't even own the F-18. Further, the senior State Department official responsible for arms sales, Assistant Secretary of State R. Clarke Cooper, reinforced this concern in a briefings to Senate staff when he cited justifications other than Iran for the 22 sales, including the possible loss of arms sales to China and Russia, the need for ``interoperability'' of weapons systems, maintaining credibility as a reliable arms supplier, and supporting the global supply chain for weapons sales. By lumping all 22 certifications together with only one determination and justification, the Secretary sought to mask obvious deficiencies in his position that there is an actual and articulable emergency applicable to each of the 22 sales. This tactic runs directly counter to senators' ability to conduct oversight and the body's ability to consider resolutions of disapproval in an informed manner. Unfortunately, we must conclude that the Secretary intentionally took this approach, given that he and the Department were not forthcoming with the Senate as a general matter in relation to the 22 sales. For example, just 2 days prior to the submission of the certifications, the Secretary briefed all Senators on the enhanced threat from Iran and the steps the United States is taking to counter that threat, yet did not mention the arms sales or pending emergency certifications, which he now justifies as necessary due to the Iran threat. Other Iran briefings by the administration similarly omitted this issue. The view that the omissions were purposeful is bolstered by official confirmation from State that the decision to bypass Congress had been in the works for months. The Secretary's failure to comply with the statutory requirement for individualized justifications materially and adversely impacted the Senate's institutional interests. It undermined the clear and intentional statutory balance between Congress and the executive branch designed to govern individual arms sales, and it impedes the Senate's ability to understand, conduct oversight, and respond to each sale. Second, Mr. President, one of the statutory provisions that the Secretary purports to use for these ``emergency'' sales does not provide the Secretary the very emergency authority he claims. Article 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, which covers the direct commercial sales at issue in 13 of the 22 sales, allows for emergency sales in very limited situations that do not include sales to Saudi Arabia or the UAE. So let me be clear: To proceed under an emergency basis for 13 of the 22 sales, the Secretary had to ignore the plain language of the Arms Export Control Act and simply assume he had the power to do so. I have asked the State Department on multiple occasions their legal analysis of this provision--any legal analysis at all that would support the Secretary's authority. To date, I have received none, not even verbally. They simply do not want to talk about it. It therefore seems clear that they know that the Secretary did not have the authority that he claimed to use. Mr. President, let me explain in further detail. Section 36(c)(2) does not provide statutory authority for emergency certifications to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. As a result, in each instance in which the Secretary relies solely on that subsection as the legal basis for waiving congressional review, the certification in question is invalid. The Department has notified several of the arms sales at issue pursuant to section 36(c)(2). That subsection clearly allows the President to bypass Congress upon certification of an emergency if the sale is to a NATO or other close ally--NATO + 5: Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, and South Korea, section 36(c)(2)(A)--or in relation to certain launches of commercial communication satellites, section 36(c)(2)(B). That authority does not extend to 36(c)(2)(C), a ``catch-all'' provision that covers sales to all other countries including Saudi Arabia and UAE. In fact, while the statute explicitly references the NATO + 5 and satellite launch emergency authority, it omits (c)(2)(C), the catchall from the scope of the emergency authority. ``If the President states in his certification that an emergency exists which requires the proposed export in the national security interests of the United States, thus waiving the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph, he shall set forth in the certification a detailed justification for his determination, including a description of the emergency circumstances which necessitate the immediate issuance of the export license and a discussion of the national security interests involved.'' Interpretation and application of section 36(c)(2) should hew closely to the plain text of the statute and give effect to the omission of subsection (c)(2)(C). Doing otherwise would entail reading an extraordinary emergency power into the text for subsection (c)(2)(C) where none exists, which would be a departure from traditional canons of statutory construction and would significantly expand the President's authority under the AECA at the expense of Congress. The statute should be interpreted and applied to afford extraordinary emergency powers to the President only where the text clearly provides for such authority, and subsection (c)(2)(C) does not do so. We note that, prior to a 2000 amendment, section 36(c)(2) previously allowed for emergency certifications in relation to NATO + 5 and the catchall/any other country category. The 2000 amendment added the provision dealing with commercial satellites, new 36(c)(2)(B) and, at the same time, removed the emergency authority from the catchall, (formerly subsection (c)(2)(B) and, post-2000, renumbered as (c)(2)(C). There is a strong policy rationale for Congress to have acted in this manner. Section 36(c) governs direct commercial sales, e.g., Raytheon to Saudi Arabia, as opposed to government to government sales under 36(b)(1). In the case of direct commercial sales, the executive branch has less insight and control over the transaction than it would if the U.S. Government were the seller and engaged directly with a foreign government. It follows, then, that Congress would be willing to allow extraordinary emergency authority with regard to NATO and a small set of our closest allies and partners, as well as in certain highly limited situations where there is a direct commercial need--satellite launches. Given that level of control does not exist for direct commercial sales, however, it also follows that Congress had a powerful incentive to narrow the scope of the emergency authority so that it no longer authorized the President to bypass congressional review via a catchall applicable to almost every country in the world. We have heard through the grapevine that the Secretary's position may be that Congress screwed up in the 2000 amendment and neglected to clarify that the emergency authorities continued to apply to the catch 11 category. This counterargument is problematic for several reasons. It ignores the plain language of the statute; it presumes congressional error where the presumption should be that Congress knew what it was doing and intended the result absent clear evidence of an error; there is no contemporaneous documentation or statements of intent of which we are aware that would corroborate this counterargument; and it serves only the interest of the executive branch at the expense and diminishment of Congress' role in arms sales. Furthermore, the Secretary has never even made this argument to us, indicating that even he does not believe it. We are in dangerous territory, my friends. The Secretary has moved forward, seeking to eliminate Congress's role in arms sales, based on an extraordinary emergency power that arguably does not exist in statute and for which he and his team have been unable or unwilling to provide a serious legal rationale or any legal justification whatsoever. While his position may pass muster with or even have been blessed by the self-serving opinions we have seen from the current Justice Department, it is nothing more than an executive power grab at the expense of Congress and unmoored from the law. It is our responsibility, through these resolutions, to send the clear message that the United States Senate rejects this lawless approach.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield the floor. Vote on S.J. Res. 36--Veto

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I regret that I come to the floor to announce my opposition to one of President Trump's political nominees, Ms. Lynda Blanchard. To be honest, I cannot even believe that we are considering her nomination on the floor of the Senate. U.S. Ambassadors are supposed to represent the best of America to nations around the world, and I challenge my colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, to look at this nominee's record and tell me with a straight face that Lynda Blanchard should represent the United States anywhere. Look, I have made a good-faith effort to work with this administration to confirm a number of well-qualified individuals to State Department positions that are vital to advancing America's interests around the world. I don't think anyone can deny that. But there are some nominees who just raise too many red flags, and I raised this to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a letter I sent in June of 2018, shortly after his confirmation. I explained that a number of nominees before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had demonstrated histories of questionable temperament and judgement, of questionable conduct, of #MeToo issues, just to mention a few, and I expressed my hope that we could work together to find qualified nominees to the U.S. Department of State. I am disappointed that that effort went unheeded. Ms. Blanchard has a history of using Facebook as a platform to post incendiary, false articles and disturbing statements. For example, she once shared an article titled ``The Clinton `Body Count' EXPANDS--5 Mysterious DEATHS in the Last 6 Weeks,'' resurrecting the vicious lie and preposterous conspiracy theory that President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have systematically murdered political opponents and associates. Then, on election day of 2016, she posted on Facebook ``Make God our Father paint this country Red with the Blood of Jesus!''-- inappropriately using religion as a blunt instrument in a political campaign. She has also shared articles by the far-right Conservative Tribune, some of which were taken down for failing to meet its ``editorial standards''-- quite literally, fake news. What is perhaps most disappointing to me is that 2\1/2\ years into the Trump administration, none of this is particularly new. We have had Trump diplomatic appointments call for putting political opponents in prison, such as Kyle McCarter, President Trump's Ambassador to Kenya, who tweeted on election night of 2016: ``Hillary for prison. No, really!'' We have had Trump diplomatic appointments, already at their posts, make totally inappropriate and inflammatory forays into American politics, which is taboo for the Foreign Service, such as in June of this year, when Carla Sands, President Trump's Ambassador to Denmark, appeared to accuse former President Obama of an ``attempted coup d'etat in America''--the U.S. Ambassador in Denmark, June of 2019. And we have had Trump diplomatic appointments embarrass the country by making false claims and then failing to take responsibility for them. Pete Hoekstra, appointed by President Trump as Ambassador to the Netherlands, has claimed that there were ``no-go zones'' too dangerous to enter due to Muslim migration. When asked about these statements, Ambassador Hoekstra claimed they were ``fake news'' until he was confronted with footage of his own words. This is not normal. We cannot grow accustomed to this kind of disgraceful behavior. We cannot look at the poor behavior of already- confirmed nominees and conclude that we should lower our standards when it comes to Ms. Blanchard's nomination. This is the U.S. Senate--supposedly, the world's greatest deliberative body. We should examine the fitness and qualifications of every single individual nominated to be the face of America in nations across the world. We should expect our Ambassadors to represent the United States with dignity, respect, and sound judgment, and we should remember that America's role as a leader of nations rests on our moral standards and greatest values. Something is wrong if we willingly confirm people to these positions who repeatedly spread fake news, baseless slander, and the most despicable of conspiracy mongering. For these reasons, I will be opposing the nomination of Lynda Blanchard and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am pleased, at long last, to speak on the floor today in support of four protocols amending the tax conventions between the United States and Spain, Switzerland, Japan, and Luxembourg. I have long been a strong supporter and proponent of these tax protocols and worked to advance them across multiple Congresses. In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I voted to advance Japan and Spain protocols three times and voted four times to advance the protocols with Luxembourg and the Swiss Confederation. I am pleased that, after too many years of waiting, the majority leader has finally decided to take up these protocols. I am a strong believer in the benefits these treaties provide our country. They play a critical role in relieving U.S. citizens and companies of double taxation, encouraging foreign investment in the United States, and enforcing U.S. tax law on those who seek to evade it. There are no downsides to these treaties. As I conveyed directly to Secretary Mnuchin, the Treasury Department's initial interaction on these treaties without consulting the Foreign Relations Committee was completely inadequate. This botched effort resulted in a completely avoidable delay in taking up these four protocols. However, I am pleased that Treasury responded quickly to my concerns, including providing a written commitment on behalf of the administration that the Foreign Relations Committee chair and ranking member would be consulted on any changes to the model tax treaty prior to negotiations based on a new model or new model provisions. Therefore, I support moving the tax treaties as expeditiously as possible and urge my colleagues to support them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Peter Wright as Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Land and Emergency Management. This position is of enormous consequence to the people of New Jersey, and I refuse to stay silent as the Trump administration stacks Federal agencies charged with protecting our health and our environmental safety with industry insiders and corporate hacks. Mr. Wright is a former chemical industry lawyer. If confirmed, he will be charged with overseeing the cleanup of the most toxic waste sites in America through what is known as the Superfund Program. New Jersey is home to more Superfund sites than any other State in the Nation. For many years, a lack of strong environmental protections and oversight left our communities vulnerable to unsafe, unchecked, unregulated pollution. I am talking about the days before we had an Environmental Protection Agency, before we passed landmark environmental laws, and before we had regulations to protect public health. Back then, big polluters had a blank check to contaminate our air, soil, and water with toxic chemicals. People across America were exposed to pesticides, lead, asbestos, and other toxins through the air they breathed, the rivers they fished, the soil they farmed, and the land they built. It was unhealthy, it was unsustainable, and in many cases, it was downright dangerous. Indeed, it was 1980--the same year a chemical waste facility in Elizabeth, NJ, burst into flames and forced an entire community to stay indoors--that Congress passed a law creating the Superfund Program. Today, Superfund is our primary tool for cleaning up the hazardous waste across America. It requires polluters to pay to clean up the sites they have contaminated, and it also funds the cleanup of orphan sites for which the polluters responsible no longer exist. The Superfund Program is a promise to our communities--a promise to hold polluters accountable for the damage they have done; a promise to rid our soil and water of toxic chemicals; a promise to transform toxic brownfields into safe, livable, usable land; and a promise to protect the health of today's families and of future generations. That promise cannot be kept on its own. We the people must keep that promise. The one way we can do so is by ensuring that leaders who oversee the Superfund Program are willing to stand up to polluters, listen to the best science, and hold big corporations accountable. Nothing in Peter Wright's records suggest he will be that kind of leader. He spent nearly two decades as a lawyer for Dow Chemical--one of the primary polluters for many Superfund sites across the Nation. For all the President's talk of draining the swamp, it is just that-- talk. Mr. Wright could have been a force for good at Dow. He could have stood up for science and raised standards. He could have pushed for more efficient, thorough cleanups of toxic waste. Instead, he did just the opposite. Consider Dow's Midland site in Michigan, where more than a century of producing things like Styrofoam, Agent Orange, and mustard gas left rivers contaminated for more than 50 miles. As Dow's self-styled ``Dioxin Lawyer,'' Mr. Wright points to the Midland site as one of his greatest achievements. But a New York Times investigation from last year tells us a different story. It found that under Mr. Wright's watch, Dow was accused of ``submitting disputed data, misrepresenting scientific evidence and delaying cleanup.'' These accusations were leveled by Federal regulators and whistleblowers alike. One independent lab found Dow used incomplete contamination data, leaving the risk of toxins going undetected. An internal whistleblower revealed Dow intentionally designed its data so that it couldn't be properly vetted by independent third parties. In 2007, an EPA memo concluded that Dow had ``documented history of impeding the efforts of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality'' at the Midland site. It wasn't only regulators that Mr. Wright misled; the EPA also found that Dow ``frequently provided information to the public that contradicts agency positions and generally accepted scientific information.'' That included mailing out a newsletter to local residents downplaying the risks of dioxin to human health, which, according to the EPA, is highly toxic, can cause cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, and damage the immune system. The newsletter even included the false claim that dioxin- contaminated wild game was safe to eat. That is appalling. Mr. Wright also participated in Dow's funding of a study claiming that people living on dioxin-contaminated soil were not at risk for personal exposure. Simply put, Peter Wright made his mark at Dow Chemical by misrepresenting science, downplaying threats to public health, and undermining cleanups. These practices run counter to the very mission of the EPA. Yet Wright's past indicates that, if confirmed, he will continue to mislead communities, continue to delay cleanups, and continue to sacrifice the health of our people for the bottom line of corporate polluters. Finally, as if it weren't enough to mislead the public, we now know that Mr. Wright misled Congress when he lied to the Environment and Public Works Committee about continuing to own stock in Dow after his nomination. When I hear that Mr. Wright proudly called himself the ``Dioxin Lawyer,'' when I hear that he misled families about threats to their health, and when I hear that he sought to distort scientific evidence and get his company off the hook for their toxic legacy, I worry about the damage he could do across the Nation, including in New Jersey. New Jersey is home to 114 Superfund sites. That is more than California--a State with 4\1/2\ times our population. That is more than double the total sites in Texas--a State with 30 times our land mass. Millions of people live within a few miles of these sites, in North Jersey and South Jersey, in bustling cities and rural towns, in every corner of our State. Among them is one of the largest Superfund cleanups in the country. Like the site in Michigan, New Jersey's Diamond Alkali Superfund site is contaminated with dioxin from the making of Agent Orange. Like the site in Michigan, we have warnings about dioxin-contaminated food, such as seafood from the Passaic River. Like those in Michigan, the New Jerseyans who reside by the Passaic are depending on the Superfund Program to clean up the river and limit their exposure to toxic chemicals. These families and millions of Americans nationwide are depending on the EPA to protect the water they drink, the air they breathe, and the soil on which they farm and build. They are depending on their government to put their health ahead of corporate polluter profits. Today they are depending on us to reject the nomination of Peter Wright. The EPA has a simple mission: to protect human health and the environment. The American people deserve an Assistant Administrator who believes in that mission, not someone who has spent decades fighting it. I urge my colleagues to vote no on Mr. Wright's nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to explain the context in which I will vote for the Romney amendment. First, I am grateful for Senator Romney's substantive contributions and his collegiality as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. The plain text of the amendment states the obvious--that funds authorized by the NDAA may be used to ensure the ability of our Armed Forces to defend themselves and U.S. citizens. I believe every Member of this body certainly shares the fundamental understanding that our Armed Forces must have the ability to defend themselves and our citizens against foreign enemies. Indeed, the purpose of the NDAA is to provide the authorizations that are necessary to ensure the Department of Defense is in a position to defend the United States and our citizens. In my opinion, in that respect, this amendment is not necessary. For anyone who argues that the Romney language is somehow necessary because of the Udall amendment that we will be voting on tomorrow, I say reread the Udall amendment. It includes an explicit exception for self- defense. I am concerned that this administration will seek to twist the Romney amendment into something that is completely unrecognizable, something that we are not voting on today, and something that has no basis in law. As a legal matter, the amendment does nothing more than to explicitly provide the authority to use funds under the act to ensure this ability. Let me be clear. This amendment does nothing more than that. Either implicitly or explicitly, it does not authorize the use of military force. Let me repeat. It is not an AUMF. An explicit authorization would have to come to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee following serious and substantive engagement by the executive branch. It is no secret that there are some in this administration who are eager to engage militarily with Iran. This week, the President himself argued that he does not have to go to Congress to seek authorization. But those who don't want to completely bypass our congressional prerogative will be grasping at any purported source of authority that could justify, in their minds, that Congress has authorized these actions. Look no further than the Secretary of State, who is purportedly pushing the bogus legal theory that the 2001 AUMF, which Congress passed in the wake of 9/11, somehow provides authority to use force against Iran. Apparently, Secretary Pompeo is not dissuaded by the facts. The plain language of the 2001 AUMF does not extend to Iran. Congress did not intend for the 2001 AUMF to cover Iran, and neither Republican nor Democratic Presidents who have operated pursuant to this AUMF have claimed such authority. Against this backdrop and a President who has evaded Congress in unprecedented and unlawful ways, we must make crystal clear that the Romney amendment cannot be abused by those in this administration who appear to be desperate to build a case that the President has all of the authority he needs to take us into war with Iran. We cannot leave anything up to chance when it comes to the choice of whether we send our sons and daughters into war. I believe we should be having a serious conversation about our use of military force and about what constitutes self-defense and attacks on our allies. I am pleased that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has previously committed to holding these hearings, and I believe we should commence with hearings with multiple stakeholders, including the administration itself. Previous administrations have sent up representatives to explain to Congress their rationale for war or to explain the type of authorizations they are seeking. We should demand nothing less from this administration. I support the amendment, and I look forward to continuing appropriate oversight over the executive branch's pursuit of military action around the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again to speak about a humanitarian crisis that is not taking place in Yemen or in Syria or in any foreign country but, rather, right here at the southern border of the United States. They say a picture speaks a thousand words, but I think it is even more than that. Photographs have the power to cut through noise, speak the truth, and invoke action. We all remember the heartbreaking image of a little boy who was covered in ash while he sat in an ambulance in Syria. It told us all we needed to know about acts of mass murder committed by Bashar al-Assad. Likewise, we remember the look in the eyes of the malnourished girl who was on the brink of death in Yemen--one of more than 85,000 children to have succumbed to hunger during Saudi Arabia's disastrous bombing campaign. Yet the photo I have brought to the floor today has shaken me to the core as a father, as a grandfather, as a son of immigrants, and above all else, as an America. Like the other photographs I mentioned, this one tells a story too. This one speaks an ugly truth, and that truth is that President Trump's cruel, inhumane, and un-American border policies have failed. They have failed to make us safer. They have failed to reduce migration to our border. They have also failed to live up to the American values that define our leadership around the world. We will never forget this heartbreaking photo. More importantly, we will not forget the names of Oscar Alberto Martinez and his 23-month- old daughter, Valeria. They drowned in a desperate attempt to claim asylum in the United States. Oscar, Valeria, and Tania, her mother, fled El Salvador in the hopes of seeking asylum in the United States. The Washington Post reported: They traveled more than 1,000 miles seeking it. . . . But the farthest the family got was an international bridge in Matamoros, Mexico. On Sunday, they were told the bridge was closed and that they should return Monday. Aid workers told The Post the line to get across the bridge was hundreds long. The young family was desperate. Standing on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, America looked within reach. Martinez and Valeria waded in. But before they all made it to the other side, the river waters pulled the 25-year-old and his daughter under and swept them away. Later, when Mexican authorities recovered their bodies, Oscar and Valeria were still clinging to each other. Here in the United States, it is hard to imagine what kind of desperate conditions would propel you to flee your home and embark on a perilous journey in search of protection from a foreign nation. Most of these families who arrive at our border come from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras--three countries that are collectively known as the Northern Triangle. It is a region that is plagued by transnational gang violence, weak institutions, and poverty. Young boys are forced into servitude by gangs. Young girls are beaten and raped if they refuse to become their girlfriends. Parents who try to protect their children end up getting killed. These countries are among the most dangerous in the world. In El Salvador, a woman is murdered every 19 hours, and in Honduras--the country with the highest homicide rate in the world for women--a woman is killed every 16 hours. To be blunt, these families face an impossible choice. It is either stay and die or flee for a chance to live. Well, if this horrific and tragic photograph does anything, I hope it dispels us of the ludicrous notion that you can deter desperate families from fleeing their homes in search of safety. That is how the Trump administration describes its cruel policies at the border-- deterrence. In the name of deterrence, it is tearing children and babies away from their mothers and fathers. In the name of deterrence, it is shutting down legitimate ports of entry, effectively encouraging migrant families to seek more dangerous methods of getting into the United States, like crossing the Rio Grande. In the name of deterrence, children are being housed in unsanitary conditions, which leaves infants in dirty diapers and children without soap or toothpaste. Let me share with our colleagues just a few of the statements that the children who have been kept in these abhorrent conditions have made. Said one 8-year-old boy: They took us away from our grandmother, and now we are all alone. They have not given us to our mother. We have been here for a long time. I have to take care of my little sister. She is very sad because she misses our mother and grandmother very much. . . . We sleep on a cement bench. There are two mats in the room, but the big kids sleep on the mats, so we have to sleep on the cement bench. Consider the words of a 16-year-old girl: We slept on mats on the floor, and they gave us aluminum blankets. They took our baby's diapers, baby formula, and all of our belongings. Our clothes were still wet, and we were very cold, so we got sick. . . . I have been in the U.S. for 6 days, and I have never been offered a shower or been able to brush my teeth. There is no soap, and our clothes are dirty. They have never been washed. Finally, here are the words of a 17-year-old mother: I was given a blanket and a mattress, but then, at 3 a.m., the guards took the blanket and mattress. My baby was left sleeping on the floor. In fact, almost every night, the guards wake us at 3 a.m. and take away our sleeping mattresses and blankets. . . . They leave babies, even little babies of 2 or 3 months, sleeping on the cold floor. For me, because I am so pregnant, sleeping on the floor is very painful for my back and hips. I think the guards act this way to punish us. This is not the America I know. Yet this administration wants us to forget who we are. This administration wants us to believe that if the Government of the United States is cruel enough, that if it denies those who seek asylum all semblances of humanity, that if we ignore basic standards of child welfare, and that if we abandon fundamental American values like respect for human rights, then desperate families who flee Central America will stop coming here. It is not true. The entire doctrine of deterrence is grounded in hideous lies, beginning with the lie the President has fed the people from the moment he launched his campaign in 2015--the lie that immigrants are a threat to our security. President Trump has cast immigrants as criminals and rapists and drug dealers when the truth is that these migrants are the ones who are fleeing the criminals, the rapists, and the drug dealers. I am sick and tired of these lies, like when the President repeatedly says he inherited the policy of family separation from the Obama administration. That is a lie. The Trump administration masterminded this despicable policy, pure and simple. These cruel policies are not working. They have done nothing to stem the tide of families who seek asylum in the United States. They have done nothing to stabilize Central America and to alleviate the conditions that force families to seek refuge here. It is time to turn the page. There are so many alternatives to detention that are available to the DHS that are far more humane and far less costly to the taxpayers. Consider the Obama administration's pilot program known as the family case management system. It established procedures to treat migrant families humanely as their cases moved forward. Pregnant women, nursing mothers, or mothers with young children were given caseworkers who helped to educate them on their rights and their responsibilities. They were connected to community resources or to family in the country who could help them. According to an inspector general's report, the program was an enormous success. It had a compliance rate of 99 percent. That means that 99 percent of the time, families in the program showed up for their ICE check-ins and appointments. Likewise, they showed up 100 percent of the time for their immigration court hearings. Tell me--how many government programs work 100 percent of the time? It is very rare. This one did, but that didn't stop President Trump from terminating it. Even though it had a 99-percent compliance and check-in rate and had 100 percent who showed up for their hearings, oh, no. Evidently, that was not good enough for the Trump administration, for it was far more humane and far less costly to the taxpayers. Beyond embracing alternatives to mass detention, we must ramp up humanitarian assistance at the border. That is why I voted yesterday for the House's emergency supplemental bill, which would provide desperately needed support to on-the-ground organizations and would better ensure the humane treatment of children who are in CBP custody. The House bill included strong guardrails to prevent this White House from using these funds to pursue its draconian detention practices and mass deportation agenda. While the Senate bill fell short in these areas, I hope the administration uses whatever money it receives to ensure that the children are properly cared for--in a way that respects basic human rights. Solving this crisis will take more than humanitarian funding. If President Trump were serious about reducing migration, he would be working day and night to improve the conditions that are driving families to flee Central America in the first place. Instead, he has cut off aid to the Northern Triangle and has undermined critical U.S. efforts to work with Central American governments to crack down on gang violence, strengthen the rule of law, and alleviate poverty. These programs were working, and the Trump administration knows it. Why do I say that? In recent years, Congress has not only increased funding for foreign assistance to Central America, but it has required these governments to meet clear benchmarks in order to demonstrate their progress in areas like combating drug trafficking and strengthening their legal systems. The Trump administration has acknowledged the effectiveness of these programs on several occasions. In fact, it has sent Congress not one, not two, but nine different reports that have certified these benchmarks have been met. Here is just one of them that has been signed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: I hereby certify that the central government of El Salvador is informing its citizens of the dangers of the journey to the southwest border of the United States; combating human smuggling and trafficking; improving border security, including preventing illegal migration, human smuggling and trafficking, and trafficking of illicit drugs and other contraband; and cooperating with the United States Government agencies and other governments in the region to facilitate the return, repatriation, and reintegration of illegal migrants arriving at the southwest border of the United States who do not qualify for asylum consistent with international law. This one is dated August 11, 2018. There are nine certifications by the Secretary of State saying that the programs we had going on and working in Central America were, in fact, working. But we all know this President has no respect for facts or evidence- based reality. His decision to punish Central American governments for the migration crisis by slashing aid is only making the crisis worse. It absolutely makes no sense. If we want to reduce migration from Central America, we need a bold strategy to address the root causes driving families in fear from their home. That is why my colleagues and I have introduced the Central America Reform and Enforcement Act. Our bill would dramatically expand U.S. engagement in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala through proven programs that help strengthen the rule of law, combat violence, and build prosperity. Our bill would also minimize border crossings by expanding refugee processing centers in the region in an effort to reduce demand at the border, and, finally, it includes several measures to protect the welfare of children and ensure efficient, fair, and timely processing of asylum seekers. Now, this administration may wish the Northern Triangle's serious problems would just go away, but the longer we let these conditions fester, the greater this migration crisis will become. There is a very real possibility that President Trump views a growing crisis at the border as an asset in his path to reelection in 2020. The President believes his best shot at winning elections is to stoke fear of migrant children who pose no threat but desperately need the safe embrace of Lady Liberty. After all, President Trump cannot campaign on solving the student loan debt crisis or providing Americans with better, cheaper healthcare, or making sure that big corporations pay their fair share. He has failed on all these fronts and more. The only play left in the Trump playbook is to blame immigrants for America's problems instead of solving America's problems. That is what I call the politics of hate. The politics of hate is what led President Trump to attempt to ban Muslims from traveling to the United States. The politics of hate is what led President Trump to end DACA and threaten 800,000 Dreamers with deportation to countries they have never called home--young people who through no choice of their own were brought to the United States, the only country they have ever pledged allegiance to is the United States and to the flag of the United States. The only national anthem they know is the Star Spangled Banner. The only place they have ever called home is America. The politics of hate is what led President Trump to attack TPS holders and jeopardize thousands of parents to American-born children. The politics of hate is what led the administration to forcibly separate nearly 2,800 children from their parents--and maybe thousands more, because they don't even have a recordkeeping system of where all of these children are. That is a policy that will forever be a stain on our history. The politics of hate is what led President Trump to tweet out his plan to send ICE agents into our communities to terrorize our towns and cities with mass arrests and mass deportations. It is a plan that would leave millions of U.S.-born American citizen children wondering: Why mom never came to pick me up at school or why dad never made it home for dinner. It is a plan that would inflict traumatic and irreparable harm on American children who would not only have to reckon with the loss of a parent but the loss of the income provided by that parent. The politics of hate led to the remain-in-Mexico policy, which forces asylum seekers to remain in Mexico amid dangerous conditions. Indeed, just yesterday, U.S. asylum officers requested that the courts block the Trump administration from requiring migrants to stay in Mexico, stating it is ``fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our Nation and our international domestic legal obligations.'' Now, in the latest action, I fear it is the politics of hate that explain the awful press reports we heard today suggesting that President Trump plans to end a program that protects undocumented members of U.S. military families from deportation. Imagine that-- someone who wears the uniform of the United States, who may serve halfway around the world in service to the Nation, who risks their lives, and now you are going to take the one program that put their mind at ease--that their spouse or child, who may be undocumented in the country and had the ability to stay because of that servicemember's service, and now you are going to say you are going to deport their children, their spouse. Well, if someone is willing to wear the uniform of the United States, pledge allegiance to our flag, and risk their life to defend this Nation in battle, the last thing we ought to do is to deport their loved ones. The Trump administration's policies at our border have brought us nothing but chaos, despair, and shame. We cannot let the politics of fear and hate degrade the values that make America great. We cannot wall off our country from the strife gripping Central America. We cannot tweet our way out of this problem. We must lead our way out of this problem with real solutions and strategies that bring sanity, dignity, and order back to our border and prevent the kind of tragic loss of human life we saw earlier this week on the banks of the Rio Grande. We are just better than this. We are just better than this. If my colleagues do not raise their voices, then, they are complicit to this. History will judge us poorly. I hope we will have bipartisan voices who say: This is not who we are; this is not what we stand for. And we can work toward making sure this tragic photograph never ever happens again. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania that we need to fight the opioid epidemic from every angle. The trafficking of this drug fentanyl coming into the United States has to stop. Many lives are at stake. In my State of New Jersey, over 3,100 New Jerseyans died in 2018 alone as a result of prescription pain killers, heroin, and fentanyl. While I support the Senator from Pennsylvania's desire to use all of the leverage we have at our disposal to pressure China to do a better job at regulating illicit fentanyl, as is exemplified by the amendment I cosponsored with Senator Schumer and others that is in the underlying legislation we are considering as of now, the Senator from Pennsylvania's amendment could potentially have far more wide-reaching implications. I believe every Member of the body should be concerned about the potential collateral damage should this become law. The Trump administration's State Department, when we asked them for an assessment of the original version of this amendment, concluded that it would lead to the suspension of U.S. foreign assistance to every country on the planet. That is not something I can support. When we talk about China, our aid to China isn't to China as a nation. China doesn't need our aid. It is giving out aid all over the world. Our aid to China is to individuals, entities, and organizations that actually promote our national interests and our national security by creating opportunities for different parts of Chinese society to be independent from the Chinese state. So it is not China that gets our foreign assistance, but, in large part, that ultimately would be denied, and that is a type of loss that the Chinese would be only too happy to see happen. My office worked extensively through the weekend with the Senator from Pennsylvania's office. We offered numerous different compromise agreements, but none of them were acceptable. So while I agree with the spirit of this amendment, I cannot support it as it is currently drafted, and therefore I must object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as I said, we worked all weekend long with the Senator from Pennsylvania's office, and we are happy to continue to work with him to see if we can come to a common ground. His original amendment that we were discussing did include the elimination of democracy promotion, and that is something that China would only be too happy to achieve. I understand that in this amendment--which I have not had the full opportunity, nor my staff, to fully analyze--he may have excluded that. That is another step forward. So we are happy to engage with the Senator and see if we can come to common ground beyond today. My goal, however, is to join the Senator in punishing countries that are ultimately allowing this to happen, but not to do it in a way that doesn't punish the country but actually denies those whom we are trying to help inside of those countries in the pursuit of our own interests. So if we come to that point, I hope we can ultimately come to an agreement. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor again to urge my colleagues to stand up for Congress as a coequal branch of government and assert our institutional rights in the arms sales process. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined with me in this effort to bring us here today. As we get ready to vote on these resolutions, I want to again remind my colleagues what is at stake here. At the end of the day, these votes are not about any one President or any one arms sale. There will be another President in the White House someday. There will be another President who will want to claim Executive authorities to run over Congress and who will want to use emergency declarations to push through their agenda. We in this body must embrace our article I responsibilities and ensure that we serve as an effective check on whoever that Executive is. Regarding these resolutions, in particular, we must both assert our role in upholding the rule of law at home and use our position to ensure that when our government seeks to sell weapons, those sales advance our national security interests and our values. It is the Congress that provided the President with the authority to sell arms while retaining strong oversight in the process. At the risk of getting in the weeds, I want to briefly explain why Secretary Pompeo's 22 emergency certifications don't meet the basic requirements laid out by Congress in the Arms Export Control Act. I will be submitting a further statement for the Record detailing my statutory concerns, and I encourage my colleagues to read it. First of all, Secretary Pompeo provided us with one single emergency declaration for 22 separate arms sales, when the law requires each come with its own individual justification. It is obvious why the Secretary flouted the statute: His bogus emergency doesn't pass the laugh test, in general. Furthermore, the Secretary is trying to justify these sales by relying on a section of the Arms Export Control Act--article 36(c)-- that arguably does not grant him the authority to do what he is even trying to do. Congress made fairly clear back in 2000 that this provision only allows for the United States to make emergency arms sales in very limited situations--for example, to sell arms to NATO partners and other steadfast allies that share our values, like Israel, Australia, and Japan. This is a power grab, pure and simple, with lasting implications for the role of Congress in the sale of arms around the world. We cannot, as an institution, stand for it. Let me turn to the proposed sales. As a number of my colleagues and I have already laid out, the administration's argument that this is an emergency meriting pushing through $8 billion worth of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates simply does not pass muster. The weapons sales this administration is trying to push through without congressional review will not in any way equip the United States or our allies to better face any imminent threats from Iran. The Assistant Secretary of State, R. Clarke Cooper, admitted as much multiple times last week before the House of Representatives. In one instance, he noted that the administration had been considering this emergency determination for months. In another, he conceded that a majority of these sales will not even be functional or come online for months or, even in some cases, years. Let's take a moment to review why last year I decided to put a hold on a sale of 60,000 precision-guided munition kits. Saudi Arabia, at the helm of its coalition, has used these weapons to devastating effects in Yemen. The two resolutions we will consider individually relate to the sales of precision-guided munitions and parts. We have heard that these weapons are humanitarian weapons. When they are used to precisely target civilians, how can we possibly continue to sell them? These are components of bombs that we know have killed thousands of civilians in Yemen--patients in hospitals, children on schoolbuses. In fact, the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project last week released data showing more than 90,000 people have been killed in Yemen since 2015. The list goes on. Yemen has become a humanitarian catastrophe. Twelve thousand people have died under the Saudi-led coalition. There are 85,000 children who have died from starvation in Yemen, an incomprehensible moral tragedy. Another 14 million people remain at risk, especially as cholera resurges across the country. This is the challenge we have. It is our bombs that are dropping on those civilians. We cannot morally continue to support such a sale. Secondly, Saudi Arabia, which continues to do this with impunity, also with impunity went ahead and dismembered Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist who was a resident here in the United States. The gruesome report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on this issue is chilling. If the Senate wants to make it very clear that even if you are an ally, you cannot kill with impunity, this is the moment. It is also the moment to tell the UAE that you can't take our weapons and give it to others whom we consider people on the terrorist list. That is going on here too. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the Constitution, stand up for article I in our rights here, stand up for the Senate's institutional role to ultimately ensure that it has a say on arms sales, stand up for the proposition that we will not let any ally, simply because they are an ally, kill a journalist with impunity--something we cherish under our Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the freedom of expression under the First Amendment--and stand up for the proposition that we will not let our bombs fall on innocent civilians and have the moral responsibility, which will be a blemish on our history for years to come. This is the moment for the Senate to stand up to its institutional prerogatives. This is the moment for the Senate to stand up for the Constitution. I have heard so many of my colleagues speak of the Constitution. This is the moment. This is the moment to stand up for some moral clarity. This is the moment to send a global message: You cannot kill journalists with impunity. That is the message we must send to Saudi Arabia. Vote yes on the resolutions of disapproval. Stand up for these propositions. Let's have a moment in which the Senate can be a profile in courage. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we have been able to work on an agreement on the unanimous consent request that the majority leader just propagated that would provide for votes on these 22 joint resolutions of disapproval over the administration's proposed arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Emirates. I thank the bipartisan group of cosponsors of these resolutions. The majority leader and our staff are diligently working through an unprecedented process. I would also like to briefly engage the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch, in a colloquy. I thank the chairman for agreeing to quickly take up two priority pieces of legislation. Earlier this year, I led a bipartisan group of Senators, including a number on the Foreign Relations Committee, in reintroducing legislation to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for its devastating actions in Yemen, gross human rights abuses, and the murder of American resident Jamal Khashoggi. I understand the chairman has also been working on such legislation, and we have agreed to use his legislation as a base text to which we will be able to offer amendments, including those that reflect the bipartisan consensus contained in my bill, the Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act. Additionally, the chairman has agreed to a markup of the SAFE Act, which I believe will take place at a business meeting next week, which prospectively eliminates the ability of the President to use emergency authority to sell arms to any country that is not a NATO plus five member. These votes couldn't be more important. I am happy to yield to the chairman.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, with that and with the chairman's agreement that we will have a markup of these two bills moving forward, I thank the distinguished chairman, and I yield the floor.