Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to correct the record concerning statements the Senate majority leader made yesterday morning, in which he claimed that GEN John Abizaid's nomination to be Ambassador to Saudi Arabia ``is being held up.'' Allow me to ease the majority leader's concerns. Far from being ``held up,'' the Foreign Relations Committee, with my full support, has been extremely diligent in taking up General Abizaid's nomination; he appeared on the very first committee nominations hearing of the 116th Congress, and his nomination is advancing through the regular committee process expeditiously. I look forward to his approval by the committee and, hopefully, a speedy confirmation. As with all nominees, his final confirmation is under the control of the majority leader. I am concerned that the majority leader has an inaccurate view of the nominations situation facing the Foreign Relations Committee. He stated yesterday that ``if we want to solve problems in the Middle East, through diplomacy, we'll need to confirm diplomats.'' Unfortunately, we cannot confirm diplomats that we do not have. It took 23 months before the Trump administration bothered to nominate General Abizaid, leaving a gaping hole in our diplomatic posture to Saudi Arabia and the region. It is possible that this failure of leadership is the result of the President believing that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is capable of doing this job from the White House. Regardless of the reason, Saudi Arabia is not an isolated example. It took even longer, over 2 years, before the Trump administration nominated a candidate to be U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. We are now 26 months into the Trump administration, and we still lack ambassadorial nominees to critical countries like Egypt, Pakistan, and our close ally, Jordan. This failure is a reckless abdication of a constitutional responsibility that is essential to projecting American power abroad. There is only one person responsible for this failure: President Trump; yet the majority leader appears to be curiously oblivious to that fact. Let me be clear: When the committee has received nominations, we have worked with efficiency and diligence to vet and advance those nominations. I have devoted my time and staff resources to ensure this because of my strong belief that the State Department, USAID, and other foreign affairs agencies must be appropriately staffed. We cannot promote our foreign policy, protect American citizens, and advocate for American businesses without a robust diplomatic corps. In the 115th Congress, the committee reported 169 nominations. I reject any assertion that we have not done our part to ensure that the State Department is appropriately staffed. All too often, however, the committee has received nominations late or not at all. There is, unfortunately, there is another severe problem that we cannot ignore with regard to this administration's nominees. Delays in advancing Trump political nominees is largely due to poor vetting by this administration. When the President nominates and renominates individuals with restraining orders for threats of violence, who engaged in incidents that should, frankly, mean they never should have been nominated, or made material omissions, sometimes on a repeated basis, in their nomination materials, the Foreign Relations Committee must do our due diligence on behalf of the American people. Someone has to. My staff and I have had to spend significant additional time on vetting because of the White House's negligence or incompetence. The United States and our allies continue to face tremendous challenges around the world. We must continue to lead on the international stage and work in collaboration with international partners to achieve our shared security goals, but to have our diplomats in place, they must be nominated in a timely fashion and vetted properly. Despite the majority leader's confusion on this issue, that is the real hold-up here.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to express a concern over the Rubio amendment to the Sanders-Lee joint resolution, S.J. Res. 7, which was passed by voice vote in yesterday's debate. The Rubio amendment attempts to make clear that nothing in the joint resolution is intended or may be interpreted to affect any intelligence or counterintelligence activity or investigations relating to threats in or from Yemen, which involves the collection, analysis, or sharing of intelligence with any coalition partner. I do not believe that it was the intention of the authors of S.J. Res. 7 to restrict these intelligence activities per se. I believe it was Senator Rubio's intention to make sure that that legitimate intelligence activities, as specified, were not affected. However, my concern springs from the full implications of what ``sharing intelligence'' means. I assume it is meant to share useful intelligence the United States may acquire about the intentions, activities, characteristics, and other information about, for example, the Houthis or Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That is entirely appropriate. But if the intelligence being shared is actually information that allows Saudi Arabia or other members of the Saudi-led coalition to specifically target and conduct military operations, such as airstrikes, against specific sites in Yemen, then that would get perilously close to the U.S. being directly involved in hostilities in Yemen, including under the War Powers Resolution. Section 8 of the War Powers Resolution considers U.S. Armed Forces to be ``introduced into hostilities'' if, among other activities, members of the U.S. Armed Forces ``coordinate'' the activities of foreign forces. Arguably, enabling Saudi forces to target specific sites in Yemen could constitute ``coordination'' under the War Powers definition. Why is this important? It is important, first, to preserve the scope of application of the War Powers Resolution, which the Congress enacted to rein in the power of the executive branch to make war anywhere under any circumstances. Second, the more direct assistance U.S. Armed Forces provide to the Saudi-led coalition, the closer they are associated with the actions of those countries. That could lead to shared liability in those activities if and when those activities lead, inadvertently or otherwise, to atrocities on the ground in Yemen. Again, I do not believe that it was the intention of the author of this amendment to create the legal space for this to occur. I would advise the Department of Defense and the appropriate intelligence agencies to be mindful of this issue and be cautious about what intelligence information is shared and for what purposes it is used.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to again support efforts to stop U.S. direct military support for the Saudi-led coalition efforts in Yemen. I do not need to remind my colleagues what is at stake. Each time we have considered this resolution, the situation for Yemenis is even more dire. Now in its fourth year, this conflict has put nearly 16 million people on the brink of starvation, including 400,000 children who are severely malnourished, displaced more than 3 million people, and done nothing to increase stability or prosperity for the people of Yemen. In fact, the longer this conflict goes on, the larger Iran's foothold in Yemen grows and the more entrenched opposing political factions become. In addition to the horrifying humanitarian crisis, we have also learned that U.S. coalition partners may be transferring U.S.-origin weapons to known--underline known--terrorist organizations. We have read alarming reports about torture and abuse in prisons throughout Yemen--both Houthi and coalition controlled. I will simply repeat what I have said before. It is in the interest of the United States to put as much political pressure on the parties to end this conflict as we can. Yes, we have strategic partnerships with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, but we must find a way forward to get those relationships on a path that truly serves U.S. interests. To be clear, the Houthis bear significant responsibility in the deterioration of the state of affairs in Yemen, and that is without a doubt. We do not have diplomatic relations with the Houthis, and we certainly don't sell them arms or provide active military support. This resolution is a good first step, but what we really need is a comprehensive approach to address our interests in the gulf. Along with Senators Young, Reed, Graham, Shaheen, Collins, and Murphy, I introduced the comprehensive Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act. The bill calls for a suspension of offensive weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, sanctions all persons responsible for blocking humanitarian access in Yemen or supporting the Houthis in Yemen, and urges accountability for all actors in Yemen guilty of war crimes. Finally, it also addresses some of the most reckless Saudi actions by calling for true accountability for those responsible for the murder of American resident and journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and a report on human rights in Saudi Arabia. I support this resolution and encourage us to continue to debate. We must evaluate our relationship with these partners and find a path forward not just in Yemen but indeed in the entire gulf region that truly promotes American interests and American values. Today is a day we can make a clear and unequivocal statement that we do not support this continuing conflict and humanitarian disaster. There is a consequence for acting in the way the coalition has--in many cases, clearly, irresponsibly, with the reckless loss of human life. I hope we can continue to work to go beyond that so we can deal with the entire region's challenges. I look forward to whatever is the agreement on amendments that may be considered here. I personally would like to see us get an up-or-down vote as a resolution. I understand there may be some amendments. Depending upon what amendments are made in order, I may seek a second-degree amendment at the end of the day. I am concerned that one of these amendments that are contemplated may be well-intentioned but also may very well be used in such a way to actually undermine the very essence of the underlying vote we are taking. I will reserve my judgment until that time on that, but in the interim, I urge all of my colleagues to continue to support it, as they did in the last vote on this question of this resolution. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brandon Jacobsen, a fellow from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, be granted floor privileges while he serves on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations through August 15, 2019.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today having just voted no on the motion invoking cloture on Paul Matey's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Now, I know speeches on procedure rarely make headlines, but I cannot be silent as the majority shreds long-held norms for political gain. Once again, the Republican majority has ignored the blue-slip process that allows Senators to either green light or prevent hearings on judicial nominees from their home States. Some Americans may wonder, why does this matter? Well, the blue-slip process gives the people a voice through their elected representatives on who ultimately renders justice in their State. Neither Senator Booker nor I have returned blue slips for Mr. Matey. In fact, Mr. Matey's confirmation hearing took place before Senator Booker--our State's voice on the Judiciary Committee--was even extended the common courtesy of meeting with Mr. Matey. It wasn't for lack of trying. Senator Booker requested time with Mr. Matey, but when he didn't receive it, the Judiciary Committee proceeded anyway. To add insult to injury, committee Republicans falsely claimed the White House had meaningfully consulted with myself and Senator Booker, the home State Senators, and that is simply not the case. There never was meaningful consultation between the White House and Senator Booker or me to identify a highly qualified consensus nominee--rather, we were informed about the decision to nominate Mr. Matey--nor did I receive any offer to meet with Mr. Matey, not before his nomination, not after his nomination, not even to date as we are voting on the Senate floor. Look, I have come to expect this behavior from the Trump White House, but in the Senate, Democrats always--always--respected the blue-slip process during our time in the majority. That is undeniable. Before President Trump took office, only five judges in the past century were confirmed with only one blue slip, much less no blue slips. Never has a Democratic-led Senate ever held a hearing or confirmed a judicial nominee without a blue slip from a Republican Senator. It is shameful. As long as the President keeps packing our courts with corporate- friendly Federalist Society judges, the Republican majority is willing to destroy a process that Senator Orrin Hatch--former chairman of the Judiciary Committee--once called ``the last remaining check on the President's judicial appointment power.'' President Trump's nominees are now being confirmed at record speed, despite objections from home State Senators. My Republican friends claim to be the party of conservatism. Yet there is nothing conservative about sweeping aside century-old norms for political gain. They have put their party before country and show no fidelity to the institutions that have made this country great. Aside from the degradation of Senate norms surrounding Mr. Matey's nomination, I have real concerns with his record. The people of New Jersey have no appetite for a judge who served in Gov. Chris Christie's administration and was once even called a protege of our esteemed former Governor. As deputy chief counsel for Governor Christie, Mr. Matey said he tried to ensure that that administration followed ``the highest standards of propriety, ethics, and legality.'' Somehow I question that. Consider what the people of New Jersey had to go through during Governor Christie's tenure: the Bridgegate scandal, the defunding of a Rutgers institute that was run by a Federal nominee, the spiteful removal of a security detail from former Governor Codey, and the rampant mismanagement of Superstorm Sandy relief contracts, which forced too many families to live in trailers for years on end. That is quite a list--quite a list. I struggle to believe that Mr. Matey, the second most senior attorney in the Christie administration, had no knowledge of this behavior. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Matey could not detail any of the steps he took to ensure ethics rules were followed and declined to offer any description of his supposed ``rigorous system'' of monitoring and oversight at his confirmation hearing. Apparently, Mr. Matey's system wasn't so rigorous, considering that Bridgegate--for those of my colleagues who may not know, although I think everybody knows, is when the operatives of the Christie administration closed access to the George Washington Bridge from the New Jersey side, which caused massive--massive--tieups on the New Jersey side, all to politically punish the mayor of the community where the George Washington Bridge leads from on the New Jersey side. Bridgegate amounted to one of the most egregious abuses of political power against everyday New Jersey families in our history. He was supposedly the guy who was making sure there was a rigorous system of monitoring and oversight. Well, I don't know how that happened. I also have concerns about Mr. Matey's career after working for Governor Christie. During his time as the senior vice president of University Hospital in Newark, a nationwide investigation gave the hospital an F--F, failure--for patient safety standards. Mr. Matey has acknowledged that while these issues were medical in nature, he did have some personal responsibility to mitigate risks to patients. Likewise, some of Mr. Matey's writings suggest a hostility toward plaintiff attorneys who help everyday Americans take on powerful corporate interests in class action lawsuits. In 2005, he authored an article with now-Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch that lamented how the Supreme Court's ruling in Dura Pharmaceuticals was a missed opportunity to ``curb frivolous fraud claims'' and dismissed plaintiff attorneys as seeking ``free rides to fast riches.'' In other words, Paul Matey saw a very narrow question in the Dura Pharmaceuticals case as an opening for the Court to make a sweeping ruling on all securities class actions. Now, that is what you call an activist judge. Matey then goes on to decry the ``enormous toll on the economy'' securities fraud litigation takes on corporations but with little concern for the actual victims of security fraud. Most troubling to me is how Mr. Matey has done zero--I repeat, zero-- pro bono work throughout his legal career. His Senate Judiciary questionnaire lacks any record of pro bono representation. When he was asked about it, Mr. Matey claimed his work on behalf of the State of New Jersey satisfied the requirement. I couldn't disagree more. That is not pro bono work. You were paid for it. Cannon 2 of the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly emphasizes the importance of pro bono work. For many corporate lawyers, representing the underserved is the only way to witness firsthand how the scales of justice in this country are too often tipped in favor of the wealthy and well connected. Pro bono work helps lawyers cultivate sound judgment and is especially important to those seeking to become Federal judges. Mr. Matey has done nothing to serve the disadvantaged, and that does not bode well for the fair administration of justice, nor does the Republican majority's disregard for procedures like blue slips bode well for the Senate's constitutional role to provide advice and consent or our responsibility to help build a judiciary that is responsive to the needs of the American people in the courtroom. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose confirmation of Paul Matey to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. We are better than this. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, on International Women's Day, we reflect on the enormous contributions women make worldwide to their communities and their countries across every aspect of society including justice, politics, culture, peacebuilding, the economy, and national security. On this day, we also recognize and recommit to fighting on behalf of the many women whose voices governments seek to silence. Around the world, women take enormous risks to advance the rights of their fellow citizens and to promote the principles of freedom of expression, religion, and assembly. They fight for rights to access education and healthcare, and they fight discrimination, corruption, and violence. For their words and for their actions, all too often, governments turn these women into political prisoners. Today, I want to highlight just a tiny fraction of the countless number of women and girls held behind bars unjustly. Similarly, unfortunately, the repressive governments detaining these women are just a small fraction of the governments around the world that lock up women for exercising their fundamental freedoms. Just last week, the government of Saudi Arabia announced that it would put on trial its country's leading women's rights activists who have been in prison without charges since May 2018. The crackdown on these activists began just weeks ahead of the much-anticipated lifting of the ban on women driving, one of the very causes for which many of the detained activists had campaigned. While some were quickly released, others remain imprisoned. They include Loujain al-Hathloul, Aziza al-Yousef, Eman al-Nafjan, Nouf Abdelaziz, Mayaa al-Zahrani, Samar Badawi, Nassima al-Saada, Hatoon al-Fassi, Shadan al-Onezi, and Amal al-Harbi. Credible reports indicate that Saudi interrogators tortured at least four of the women, including with electric shocks and whippings and sexual harassment and assault. In the Philippines, Senator Leila de Lima, a brave champion of human rights, launched an investigation into extrajudicial executions that began shortly after President Duterte took office in 2016. As one of the only leaders bold enough to oppose President Duterte's ``war on drugs,'' she has faced prolonged arbitrary detention, according to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. President Duterte has sought to silence her courageous voice as she spoke out against widespread human rights violations, including thousands of extrajudicial executions of mostly poor and marginalized people. In Egypt, Hanan Badr el-Din, a human rights defender and cofounder of the Families of the Forcibly Disappeared Association, was detained on May 6, 2017, at Qanatar prison while visiting an individual who had been forcibly disappeared. She started her activism following the forced disappearance of her husband in 2013. She suffers from a serious genetic disorder, and her health is rapidly deteriorating. China is responsible for some of the most grave human rights abuses, including of women. China has imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Uighur women in detention camps across its northwest region. These women are forced to renounce their Muslim religion and Uighur language and memorize Chinese propaganda. Forced labor, torture, and death are common. Thousands of children have been separated from their mothers and fathers and placed in a separate network of orphanages. One husband of a Uighur woman told Human Rights Watch: ``My wife was about to go back overseas but they took her passport. And when she went to ask to get her passport back, they told her she needs to be subjected to political education for 10 days, and then they would let her go. That was on July 20, 2017. Since then, she's been in a political education camp.'' The family of Guligeina Tashimaimaiti, a Uighur PhD student who was last seen in December 2017 when she returned from studying in Malaysia, for example, fears she is in detention and at risk of torture and other ill treatment. China has also targeted Tibetan Buddhist nuns. The government expelled hundreds of nuns in 2017 from Larung Gar in Sichuan, the world's largest Tibetan Buddhist center. Their homes were demolished; they were barred from entering other monasteries, and faced detention, harassment, and abuse. In Eritrea, Aster Fissehatsion has been held incommunicado without charge or trial since September 2001. Her whereabouts, 17 years later, are still not known. Aster Fissehatsion was arrested together with 10 other members of a group of political dissidents known as the Group of 15, or G-15, including her former husband, former Vice President and foreign minister of Eritrea, Mahmoud Ahmed Sheriffo. Perhaps, most tragically, this is just a snapshot of some of the brave women who dare to speak up for fundamental rights and values. So on this International Women's Day, as we reflect on the achievements of women and reflect on the work that remains to be done, I call on all of us to redouble our efforts to free women political prisoners. Governments have the responsibility to promote the safety, well-being, and fundamental rights of their citizens. I call on governments who are unjustly detaining, harassing, and torturing women for exercising their fundamental rights to immediately release these politically motivated detentions. As they continue to struggle, let us all take up the mantle of their cause.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I rise to oppose the nomination of Chad Readler to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I remember the 2018 campaign season, when so many Republicans suddenly became the world's most passionate defenders of patients with preexisting conditions. They told voters that never ever could they even imagine doing anything that would weaken the protections that stop health insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. Whether they be breast cancer survivors or children born with birth defects or any of the tens of millions of Americans who manage chronic conditions like diabetes or depression or high blood pressure, well, Americans are about to find out whether my American colleagues meant a word of what they said on the campaign trail. Americans will soon see whether Republicans stand up for patients with preexisting conditions or vote to confirm Chad Readler to the Ohio Sixth Circuit Court. This nominee's record of threatening patients with preexisting conditions is not up for debate. Chad Readler was the mastermind behind the Trump administration's effort to strip away the core of the Affordable Care Act--the principle that health insurance companies cannot deny coverage or kick a patient off their policy just because of their medical history. On the campaign trail, President Trump spoke of protecting Americans with preexisting conditions, but we now know that was just another lie. Apparently, it wasn't enough for this administration to stop defending the Affordable Care Act in court; the President sought to attack it in court. Initially, the Trump administration struggled to find someone at the Department of Justice willing to take on this cause. In fact, three separate career attorneys at the Justice Department refused to argue the administration's position in court. One employee even resigned. Chad Readler, the nominee we are voting on today, was more than happy to take on this cruel and unjust cause. He became the chief architect of the Trump administration's legal brief, challenging the very constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's protections for people with preexisting conditions. In other words, Chad Readler's legal brief took the administration's effort to sabotage the Affordable Care Act to a whole new level, threatening to bring us back to a time when health insurance companies didn't have to cover cancer survivors, or individuals with substance abuse disorder, or anyone who has ever faced, ever confronted a health challenge in their life. How does President Trump reward Chad Readler for leading this assault on patients and their families? Well, the day after he filed this reckless and morally repugnant legal brief, the President nominated him to serve on the Sixth Circuit. Now, let me tell you, I spent a lot of time crisscrossing New Jersey over the past year, and I don't think I met a single constituent who came up to me and said: Senator, what my family really needs you to do is once again let health insurance companies deny us care. On the contrary, I heard from and continue to hear from New Jerseyans who depend on these protections. They can't even believe this is still an issue. Last summer, I spoke with a woman from Highland Park named Ann Vardeman who told me she was diagnosed with PTSD after surviving a sexual assault. Ann told me that health insurers shouldn't be able to ``charge me more for something that is a horrible thing that happens to millions of people in this country through absolutely no fault of their own.'' Indeed, without the Affordable Care Act, there would be no Federal health protections for survivors of sexual violence like her. Perhaps one of my constituents--Anne Zavalick of Middlesex, NJ--said it best when she wrote about her battle against bladder cancer. She wrote: It is crucial that I continue to receive scans to make sure there is no recurrence of the cancer. . . . If I don't have coverage for preexisting conditions, I will go bankrupt. . . . Then I will probably die. So, yeah, this is kinda super important to me, personally. It should be personal to all of us. Everyone in this body should take it personally when this administration attacks protections that 130 million Americans rely on for their health and financial security. People remember what it was like before the Affordable Care Act, and they don't want to go backward. They remember how a woman could be denied coverage for maternity care or charged higher premiums simply for being a woman. Today, being a woman is no longer a preexisting condition. They remember how infants born with heart deformities could hit lifetime caps within days of being born. Today, families don't have to worry about lifetime caps. They remember how cancer survivors and Americans with chronic conditions like diabetes or asthma lived in fear of being denied coverage or dropped from their policies at a moment's notice. Today, patients are protected from discrimination, but they will not be if the courts side with Chad Readler's shameful arguments on behalf of this administration. This issue is personal for millions of Americans across our country-- from 3.8 million in New Jersey, to 4.3 million in Georgia, to 4.8 million in Ohio, Mr. Readler's home State. All told, 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions may suffer the consequences of Mr. Readler's assault on the Affordable Care Act. These Americans are not Democrats or Republicans or Independents; they are human beings with a right to access affordable, quality healthcare. Does this Senate really want to reward someone largely responsible for endangering the coverage our constituents depend on with a lifetime appointment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals? I sure hope not. That is not the kind of judgement we want on any court. Last fall, we heard a lot of talk from Republicans about protecting people with preexisting conditions. We know that actions speak louder than words, and it is action that we need right now. We need every Member of this body to stand up for the right of all Americans to get quality healthcare coverage. We need every Member of this body to stand up for the proposition that Americans cannot be discriminated against in their healthcare coverage because of a preexisting condition. We need every Member of this body to vote against the nomination of Chad Readler for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to President Trump's nominee for Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service, Michael Desmond. This nominee comes before us just a week into this year's filing season, when our need for an IRS that treats all taxpayers fairly is clearer than ever. Already, thousands of taxpayers across America are grappling with the fallout of the Trump tax bill and its capping of the State and local tax, or SALT, deduction. Already, the IRS has reported an average 17 percent drop in the size of tax refunds this year. Already, the broken promises made by President Trump and his Republican allies are being laid bare. They promised middle-class families thousands of dollars of tax relief and a $4,000 raise in their salaries. Instead, they got $1.5 trillion in more debt and an economy that is even more rigged for big corporations and wealthy CEOs. As bad as the Trump tax scam is for the whole country, it is worse for New Jersey families. That is because Republicans paid for a big chunk of their corporate giveaways by gutting the State and local tax deduction that New Jersey and other States' middle-class families depend on to write off their property taxes. In 2016, 1.8 million people--about 40 percent of New Jersey taxpayers--deducted their property and State income taxes. More than 80 percent of them earned less than $200,000, and the average deduction totaled $18,000--far above the arbitrary cap imposed by the Trump tax bill. With tax season under way, many homeowners are just now realizing how badly their President ripped them off. To add insult to injury, the IRS issued haphazard guidance for the Trump tax bill that unfairly targets States like New Jersey, trying to simply lessen the burden heaped on them by the GOP. In the final days of 2017, just days after President Trump signed the tax bill, New Jerseyans rushed to prepay their 2018 local property taxes and preserve their deductions before the new cap on the SALT deductions took effect. But then came Trump's IRS, which issued guidance to try to limit their ability to deduct property tax payments made in 2017 on their Federal returns--a stunning backdoor attempt to retroactively apply the cap on property tax deductions without cleared legislative tax to warrant doing so. Months later, the IRS again changed the rules on us by attacking New Jersey's new charitable deduction tax credit program. The IRS never had a problem when 32 other States offered tax credits for charitable donations. Only when New Jersey and other similarly situated States created a similar program did the IRS decide to change the rules. Mr. Desmond would be the Chief Counsel of the IRS, the position directly overseeing the IRS's interpretation of these rule changes. Throughout his nomination, I was given no indication that Mr. Desmond would give fair treatment on these important issues affecting New Jersey and other States. The full deductibility of State and local taxes has been a bedrock principle of our Tax Code since the income tax's creation in 1913, and that concept stretches all the way back to Alexander Hamilton's writings about the autonomy of States under the U.S. Constitution. This commonsense policy allows States to invest in things like public safety, education, and infrastructure--the very things that make New Jersey a great place to live, work, and raise a family. Make no mistake, the property tax deduction isn't just important for homeowners. It matters to all New Jersey families. It is why our public schools rank among the best in the Nation. It is why Save the Children named us the No. 1 State in America to raise a child. I want it to stay that way. We must protect the investments that make New Jersey a place where families thrive. That is why last month I introduced bipartisan legislation to fully restore the State and local tax deduction. It is called the SALT Act, which stands for ``Stop the Attack on Local Taxpayers.'' It is no secret that in New Jersey and in many of the Nation's most economically productive States, families face high property tax bills and a higher cost of living. Our bill is designed to provide some relief. Simply put, the more you pay in property and State taxes, the more relief you get from our bill, and we help pay for it by repealing some of Trump's most unnecessary tax breaks for the superwealthy. It is the exact opposite of what the Trump tax bill says, which is, basically that the higher the cost of living is in your State, the more you pay in State and local taxes and the more you will owe to the Federal Government. That makes no sense. Make no mistake, President Trump and his administration and the IRS have it out for States like New Jersey. Mr. Desmond would be the arbiter of how the IRS would interpret important tax issues affecting these States. That is why I oppose his nomination. I yield back my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, over the last 2 years, many of us have grappled with a very difficult question about our President. It is a question that never before could we even imagine thinking about an American President, let alone saying it out loud on the floor of the Senate. I am talking about the entirely legitimate question of whether Donald Trump could be compromised by the Russian Government. It is more than a legitimate question; it is the natural question that comes to mind every time we learn more about the links between President Trump, his associates, and the Russian Government. With the Mueller investigation possibly coming to a close in the near future, we may be forced to deal with--both Congress and the American public--some very stark facts about the President's ties to Russia. Just think about the reported revelations over the last month or so. We have learned that President Trump took unprecedented steps to conceal the contents of his conversations with Putin from his own advisers. We have learned that following one of the meetings with Putin, Trump phoned a New York Times reporter to argue that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election--once again carrying the Kremlin's water in direct conflict with the entire U.S. intelligence community. We have learned that over the past year, President Trump repeatedly argued for pulling the United States out of NATO--something that Putin desires. We continue to learn new details about Paul Manafort's--President Trump's campaign chairman--meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian national with suspected ties to Russian intelligence and an associate of Oleg Deripaska's. We know that Manafort met with Kilimnik repeatedly, provided him with polling data, and discussed ending U.S. sanctions and adopting a Russia-friendly peace plan for Ukraine. This is perhaps the most significant indication that Trump's inner circle was discussing pro-Kremlin policies in the months before the election. Tellingly, just last night, we learned that Manafort has lied again and again about the truth of his contacts and his conversations. Did Manafort determine that lying to prosecutors was a better alternative to telling the truth? Finally, let's not forget the revelation from just a few weeks ago that the Nation's top law enforcement agency reportedly opened a counterintelligence investigation into the President, in part for firing the FBI Director because of ``this Russia thing.'' You can't make this stuff up. Not even in your wildest dreams, not even on the TV set of ``Homeland'' could you make this stuff up. The news of a possible counterintelligence investigation against a sitting President should shake us all to the core. Instead, we are barely even surprised. For the rightwing pundits who spoon-feed a warped reality to President Trump every hour of the day, it is just one more excuse to paint him--the most powerful man in the world--as a victim, but for the rest of us, these revelations only sharpen the dread that gnaws at us as we search our minds for any explanation for President Trump's perplexing posture toward Russia. Look, I may have my differences with the President on tax policy, on immigration policy, on healthcare policy, and more, but let me assure you, every time he was set to meet with Putin, I, for one, hoped and prayed that our President would prove our suspicions wrong. I hoped that the President of the United States would stand up to Putin and demand accountability for Russia's interference in the 2016 elections--the cyber attacks, the stolen data, the malign social influence campaigns designed to stoke division and doubt in the American people. I hoped President Trump would make clear to Putin that legal aggression against Ukraine and the continual denial of Ukrainian sovereignty is unacceptable and will result in consequences. I hoped President Trump would not congratulate Putin on another sham election victory but operate from a position of truth about his grip on power-- that it comes from the oppression of the Russian people, the seizure of their assets, the torture and murder of dissenters, the building of a chemical weapons arsenal, and the denial of a free press and basic human rights. And of course I hoped President Trump would not budge an inch on sanctions on the Kremlin. But time and again, our President has let us down. He has let our country down. He has left Americans to lie awake at night asking themselves: What does Putin have on our President? Why won't he hold Russia accountable? Why won't he champion the values of democracy, freedom, and human rights that transcend political parties and define our greatest ideals as a nation? Instead, our President champions talking points that could have only come out of the Kremlin. Let me provide just a few examples. He told the leaders of the G7 that Crimea should be a part of Russia. He told the President of France to leave the EU. He said that Montenegro, a NATO member, could start World War III because they are ``very aggressive people.'' He said that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan because ``terrorists were going into Russia'' and Russia was ``right to be there.'' The Wall Street Journal rightly said that ``we cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President.'' I challenge anyone to find one person--one person in the State Department, the Defense Department, the National Security Council--who believes these statements and would have put them in the President's ear. So who does he get these ideas from? I can think of only one person--his good friend Vladimir Putin. Thus far, our greatest insights into what may be driving President Trump's peculiar behavior toward Russia have come out of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation and the additional investigations spawned by it. With every new court filing, we learn that the tentacles of Russian influence over the President and his associates are wrapped tighter than we previously thought. Meanwhile, the President and his cheerleaders on FOX News continue to discredit the Mueller probe as some kind of partisan witch hunt, when the truth is that it has already resulted in 4 individual sentences, 7 guilty pleas, and a total of more than 30 people and 3 Russian entities charged. But all of this still begs the question why. Why does President Trump behave as though he has been compromised by the Russian Government? Why is he so deferential to Putin? We saw that at the Helsinki summit. Why have those around the President gone to such great lengths to cover up and lie about the extent of their interactions with Russia and with Russians? Of course, if we can consider the possibility that the President is an asset of the Russian Government, we then have to wonder whether he is a witting or an unwitting asset. On the one hand, it seems as though most of what President Trump does is unwitting. Perhaps his refusal to take Russian interference in 2016 seriously is merely an outgrowth of his narcissism, a symptom of a fragile ego that cannot accept that maybe, just maybe the unprecedented malign influence campaign orchestrated by the Kremlin did indeed sway some votes on election day. On the other hand, the more I learn about President Trump's strange behavior toward Russia, the more I wonder if he knows exactly what is going on; the more I wonder if he knows that his campaign was making promises about pro-Kremlin positions and rolling back sanctions; the more I wonder if Trump knows that he is indebted to Russia and cannot allow the truth of his business dealings to come to light, for the truth may tell us that Trump's overtures to Putin, his disparaging of NATO, his refusal to fully apply congressionally mandated sanctions, and his mixed messages on Ukraine are actually instances of conspiracy with the Kremlin in real time. Perhaps it is because I am from New Jersey and I have lived through decades of Donald Trump's questionable business dealings, but I cannot understand why anyone would flat out reject the proposition that he is indebted to Russia. He is the first Presidential candidate in decades to refuse to disclose his tax returns. He is the first President in modern history to refuse to divest from his business interests, leaving us wondering whether he and his family are profiting from his position in the Oval Office. Beyond the myth of the man, Trump is no business genius. He was a millionaire by age 8, thanks to his father. He ran the business into the ground. He defaulted on debt, refused to pay workers, and declared multiple corporate bankruptcies. Eventually, American banks saw through him and refused to lend him money, so Trump had to look elsewhere for cash. When you have been essentially blacklisted from the U.S. banking system, where do you turn? You turn to less savory sources. The fact that the Trump Organization courted and sold real estate to wealthy Russian buyers and financiers is no secret, nor is the reality that to be wealthy in Putin's Russia means to have close ties to the Kremlin. Much of the stolen wealth amassed by Putin and his cronies must be hidden from the global financial system, so where do you turn? Real estate. After a string of bankruptcies and racking up debt for years, the Trump Organization suddenly began making a spate of large, unexplainable cash purchases, totaling $400 million over 9 years. Giant, mysterious, inexplicable cash transactions are the hallmark of money laundering. So where did they get the cash? Well, if we are to believe the words of the President and his sons, much of it came from Russia. In fact, it was Donald Junior who said in 2008 that ``we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia'' and Eric Trump who reportedly said in 2014 that ``we don't rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.'' We know that several Trump projects, like Trump SoHo and Trump Toronto, received significant funding from Kremlin-linked financiers. In fact, Trump Toronto was funded by an asset sale by the Russian bank VTB--a transaction that would have likely needed approval from Putin himself. We now know that the Trump Organization pursued the Trump Moscow project for far longer than he led on, including well into his campaign for President. The President has unequivocally said that he has ``zero investments in Russia.'' Well, here is the problem: Donald Trump may not have investments in Russia, but it is quite possible that the Kremlin has an investment in him. That is what keeps me up at night. That is why I believe the time is now to pass legislation requiring all Presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns and why I am the sponsor of such legislation. So many of my colleagues decried Trump's shattering of this norm, but since he arrived at White House, the Republicans have done nothing to stop it from becoming the new normal. We still don't know who is behind the vast majority of the Trump organization projects around the world, many of which continue to this day. We have to follow the money to get to the truth. How else will we ever know why our President is either unable or unwilling to publicly stand up to Putin? What too many of my Republican colleagues seem to forget is that at the end of the day, this is not about Donald Trump; it is about the American people. It is about whether an American President may be beholden to foreign interests and how those interests fare against our own. When the President embraces our greatest adversaries and gives the back of the hand to our closest allies; when he continually denies Russia's interference in 2016 and belittles the findings of our entire intelligence community; when, in spite of those findings, he suggests lifting sanctions on the Russians; when he backs down from challenging Putin after Russia commits an unacceptable act of aggression against Ukraine in the Sea of Azov, an international border, then we need a Congress willing to live up to its role as a coequal branch of government. We cannot blindly follow a potentially compromised President down this dangerous path in which our alliances are suffering, our leadership on the global stage is waning, and our competitors are seeking to fill the void. We need to know the facts--not the latest spin dropped by Rudy Giuliani--the facts. The American people deserve to know whom they elected to be their President. They deserve to know if he is, in fact, putting America's interests first. They deserve to know if Donald Trump is wittingly or unwittingly an agent for the Russian Federation. Congress must carry out its constitutional duty to fully and thoroughly investigate where the facts lead. That is why we must protect the integrity of all oversight efforts including the objective, sober investigation still being conducted by Robert Mueller, and that is why we must push for his final report to be made public to the American people. At the same time, this administration's deference to the Kremlin demands Congress be proactive in shaping U.S. foreign policy toward Russia, especially with respect to sanctions. We saw that with the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions or CAATSA law passed in 2017 with the support of 98 Senators. Given the circumstances we face today, we need additional legislation to protect American interests. That is why Senator Graham and I introduced just yesterday the Defending America's Security from Kremlin Aggression Act or DASKA, a bipartisan piece of legislation that is joined by several of our Republican colleagues. This comprehensive legislation will ensure our diplomats have the tools to advance our interests and stand up to the bully in the Kremlin. It includes new sanctions, as well as provisions designed to harden our democratic institutions and make us less vulnerable to attack. Perhaps most urgently, DASKA requires Senate consent, should the President act on his desire to pull the United States out of NATO. To risk letting this President pull our Nation out of a military alliance so vital to America's security would be a tragedy fit for the ages. The collapse of NATO is No. 1 on Mr. Putin's wish list, and with leaders like Secretary Mattis no longer around to babysit this President, Congress has a responsibility to act. This bipartisan bill is essential to giving the United States a more solid footing against the Kremlin moving forward. We should treat DASKA with urgency. The time to pass this legislation is now. We need hearings, a vote on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and swift consideration on the floor of the Senate. Likewise, we must finally pass legislation to protect the Mueller investigation and to require that all Presidential candidates release their tax returns. I know, deep down, that many of my Republican colleagues share my concerns. I have talked with them, a fair number of them, yet they are afraid of angering the Party of Trump. Well, I believe that they would be seen as American heroes. Should the facts confirm our greatest fears to be true, I ask my colleagues to consider what the history books will say about those who knew the President of the United States might very well be compromised by a foreign power, yet still did nothing. I am talking about my Republican colleagues who seem to have numbed themselves to the latest bombshell revelations about the President's posture on Russia. Apparently, they don't want to know why Russia interfered in 2016 to help Trump win. They don't want to know why the Republican platform's strong language on Russia was watered down by the Trump team. They don't want to know how someone deeply indebted to Russian oligarchs and later caught giving polling data to Russian intelligence contacts became chairman of the campaign. They don't want to know why Russia began hacking Hillary Clinton's emails the same day that Candidate Trump asked them to do so. They don't want to know why the President undermines our intelligence community and attacks law enforcement for investigating Russian interference. They don't want to know why he seeks to dismantle NATO, a pillar of security, prosperity, and the defense of western democratic ideals. They don't want to know why he shares Putin's joy when discord unfolds in Europe. They don't want to know why Trump forbade his interpreter from disclosing the contents of his conversations with Putin and took his notes. In short, they don't want to know the truth. Well, now is not the time to ignore the facts or avoid the truth. We are living in a time of unthinkable questions, and should the facts reveal the most unthinkable of answers, we must do what is necessary to protect the interests of the United States of America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I wish to express my deep concerns regarding President Trump's suspension of U.S. participation in the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces--INF--Treaty and decision to withdraw from the treaty in 6 months. Before diving into the substance of this misguided decision, I am compelled, as the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to object to the process. The President is pulling out of this treaty, a treaty that was approved by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 93-5 and that has been in force for three decades, without official notice or any meaningful consultation with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the congressional committee charged with responsibility and jurisdiction over treaties and without the approval of the Senate. This was despite multiple opportunities to explain the rationale for this decision, including a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on arms control and Russia. In that hearing, senior officials from the Department of State and the Department of Defense provided no indication that a decision to withdraw was even imminent, nor that U.S. forces envisioned any military operational benefit from near-term withdrawal. Article 2 of the Constitution endows the President and the Senate with shared power over treaties, including an exceptionally high bar for advice and consent. This President's unilateral decision to withdraw from the INF, without any meaningful engagement with the Senate, much less the approval of this body, is impossible to square with this shared constitutional power. In that vein, I urge all of my colleagues to focus not just on the substance of the President's decision but also on the process. INF is not alone; it is one of several treaties that the President has jettisoned without any input from the Senate. He is eroding the constitutional powers and institutional prerogatives of this body, and we cannot be silent. Even if the President had followed a sound process, this decision is misguided on substance. It is another example of the President and his team's apparent belief that destroying international agreements, with little or no thought given to how to address the underlying problem, is the solution to a complex security issues. In this case, there is no doubt, what the problem is and where it comes from. Russia, and Russia alone, bears the responsibility for the degradation of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty. It has brazenly violated the treaty and has been unwilling to take the steps necessary to come back into compliance. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats has succinctly laid out Russia's efforts to undermine the INF treaty. He stated ``the Intelligence Community assesses Russia has flight-tested, produced, and deployed cruise missiles with a range capability prohibited by the Treaty.'' Why is Russia doing this? Again, according to Director Coats: Russia is developing missiles to ``target critical European military and economic infrastructure'' with both conventional and nuclear capabilities. Russia is seeking the means to coerce our European and Asian allies by ``posing a direct conventional and nuclear threat'' to them. Russia's violation of its INF treaty obligations and its nuclear threats against Europe are not particularly surprising. It fits within a pattern of malign behavior that seeks to undermine the security framework that contributed to the peaceful end to the Cold War. Russia has suspended its participation in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and of course violated the core principles of the Helsinki accord by annexing Crimea and invading Ukraine. The question has never been whether Russia is violating the INF treaty. It is and has been in violation. The question is how the United States should respond. Throughout the process of trying to bring Russia back into compliance, I have raised serious concerns about the Trump administration's approach. As is the case with most major foreign policy challenges facing the United States, the Trump administration lacks a coherent strategy. In this case, they do not appear to have any realistic plan to address the threat that new Russian missile capabilities pose to the interests of the United States and those of our allies. By withdrawing from INF at this time, the United States is providing Russia with a pass on its obligations and giving them the unfettered and unconstrained opportunity to expand the deployment of their new missile system. The U.S. does not have the assets in place to defend against Russia's new missile, nor is it anywhere close to developing, manufacturing, and deploying a similar system that would operate as a counter to it. So the President is shredding the INF treaty without any credible alternative. It is not just bad policy; it is dangerous to European security. The path the administration has chosen leaves our allies vulnerable to Russian aggression, and at this moment, there is no recourse for the United States or our allies. It is within this vein of poor foreign policy planning that I want to discuss a second issue related to INF. In 2021, the United States will face the decision whether to extend New START. I am extremely concerned that President Trump has no appreciation or understating of the importance of arms control treaties and that this deficiency will lead him to abandon all limitations on U.S-Russian nuclear forces. We have historically negotiated and entered into agreements with our adversaries recognizing that we are dealing with hostile powers that cannot be trusted. We build in metrics that account for a probability of efforts to deceive and dodge. In high stakes agreements, provisions outlining U.S. intelligence verification and compliance are essential. In the universe of arms control agreements with Russia, we conduct on- site inspections of military bases and facilities, and we require data exchanges in order track the status and makeup of their nuclear forces. In assessing the value of an arms control agreement, we consider whether our participation in the agreement advances our national security interests. Let's be clear: The New START treaty clearly advances vital U.S. national security interests. Through our inspection regime, we are able to verify that Russia is adhering to the limitations the treaty places on the size of Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal. Through our data exchanges and our verification regimes, we gain extremely valuable insights into the size and location of their nuclear forces. At a time when Russia is engaged in malign behavior all over the world and Putin is pressing to reassert Russian power, it is critical we maintain key leverage points to protect against a revisionist Russia. New START is one of those points, and I urge my colleagues and the administration that, in light of ongoing Russian compliance with New START, we must extend the treaty for an additional 5 years. I strongly urge the administration try a new approach and develop a coherent strategy to stabilize our arms control regime. The relationship with the Russian Federation remains a challenge, but we must address these arms control issues and negotiate a durable agreement that ensures stability in our nuclear forces. Neither an unconstrained nuclear arms race nor blind faith in arms control agreements serve U.S. national security interest. American security is best served through a strong, credible deterrent that operates within a legally binding, stable, and constrained arms control environment.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up an amendment numbered 98 to amendment No. 97.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes, that is my understanding. My amendment should not be construed to affect in any way any existing authorities governing the use of military force. It only clarifies that the McConnell amendment is not an authorization for the use of military force or a declaration of war.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the Senate just invoked cloture on the majority leader's amendment, and I now rise to urge support for my second-degree amendment, the one where the colloquy included in the Record between the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and me leads to the conclusion of his support. I believe the amendment will also have the support of the majority leader and the rest of the body. The inclusion of my amendment will be essential for my vote in support in terms of moving forward. As I have stated over the past month, I continue to be seriously concerned that precipitously withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan will deeply harm American interests and security. With that in mind, I am generally supportive of Senator McConnell's amendment to S. 1, which echoes what I have been saying for much of the past 2 years, calling on the administration to develop a real strategy for securing our interests in the Middle East, including combating terrorist groups and effectively confronting Iranian and Russian aggression, and calling on the administration to more effectively engage with the legislative branch. I share in the belief that the way in which the President announced his Syria withdrawal--with no plan, without consultation with Congress or our allies or consideration of the implication for our partners--is not in our interest. American troops on the ground are on the frontline, fighting for our interests and also providing leverage to achieve diplomatic success. At the same time, it is imperative that this body, which has the responsibility to authorize the use of military force, emphasize that such force alone will not protect our interests; that military force alone cannot defeat ISIS, al-Qaida, or other nonstate actors; and that military force alone will not provide enduring, sustainable peace and security against our adversaries. More importantly, when we do send our sons and daughters into combat, we should do so only after careful consideration and consultation and with clear objectives and strategy--a strategy that requires investments into diplomatic efforts in coordination with our allies and partners. I want to make it crystal clear that the McConnell amendment cautioning against a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops in no way constitutes Senate support for their permanent presence for an undefined mission. As a legal matter, my amendment makes clear one critical point: Nothing in the McConnell amendment can be construed as an authorization for the use of military force. Authorizing military force is simply not part of the debate on either the McConnell amendment or S. 1. At the end of the day, I would like to see all of our troops back home and off the battlefield. I believe we must continue to have comprehensive strategies to achieve that outcome. So, in conclusion, I believe the majority leader's amendment sends an important message to the President--that while he is the Commander in Chief, the legislative branch will continue to exercise the due diligence and oversight of his actions regarding our security and interests abroad. It also sends a message that the United States will not abandon our allies and our partners. I particularly worry about the Kurds in this regard, who have been some of the most significant fighters on the ground in Syria and who are also in pursuit of our interests there. We cannot send a global message that once we have finished using you for our purposes, we will leave you to die on the battlefield. That sends a message across the globe: Don't fight, and don't join the United States because when it finishes with you, it will leave you to die on the battlefield. I want to make it clear to the American people, however, that we are not in the business of authorizing open-ended conflicts or of keeping our troops on the battlefield forever. Our safety and security depend on holistic, comprehensive strategies, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we are effectively using our powers to make sure the President is effectively using his. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to give voice to the more than 5,000 Federal employees across New Jersey who aren't getting paid due to President Trump's pointless government shutdown. Make no mistake. This shutdown is the result of a Presidential temper tantrum. Democrats have voted for border security funding, for new technology to scan vehicles for drugs, for more port-of-entry infrastructure personnel, and for new drones to detect unauthorized crossings. Yet President Trump is holding 800,000 Federal workers hostage all because he wants $5.7 billion for a border wall that he promised Mexico would pay for. We have long known that something is broken inside this President that makes him incapable of caring about anyone other than himself. Clearly, he does not see Federal workers as real people with real bills to pay--people like Emily Nering of Basking Ridge, NJ. Emily has worked at the EPA's Edison field office for 8 years. She coordinates water quality research and is in the midst of a major survey of the New Jersey-New York Harbor, and she assisted in emergency efforts to deliver clean drinking water to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands after Hurricane Maria. She said: I took an oath of office too. I want to get back to doing the important work that the EPA conducts and to continue to serve this great nation. I saved up to contribute to an IRA this year and to start saving for a down payment on a home, but those funds will now be used to help me pay rent and other bills, pushing my financial and life goals further out of reach. . . . I urge the President and Congress to put us back to work so we can continue to serve the American people! In recent days, I have heard from Coast Guard members, TSA agents, IRS workers--patriots who have built their careers on serving their fellow Americans. Their work is important, and they deserve to be paid. If President Trump wants to discuss issues like border security and comprehensive immigration reform, then he should end the shutdown, reopen all of those elements of the government that have nothing to do with his desired border wall, release his hostages, and reopen the government, but if he continues to bury his head in the sand, then it is time for the Senate to act. We could likely pass legislation to reopen the government with a veto-proof majority if only the majority leader would hold a vote. Let's do the right thing for Federal employees like Emily. Let's vote and end this shutdown now. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of S.J. Res. 2, expressing disapproval of the Trump administration's desire to remove sanctions from companies owned by Oleg Deripaska. In accordance with specific provisions in a law I helped write, Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions Act, the Senate has until Thursday to block this delisting; hence the urgency of this vote. If we wait, then under the law, we lose this important opportunity. Mr. Deripaska is a notorious Kremlin crony who may have played a role in the Russian Government's attacks during the 2016 Presidential election cycle. At this point, we simply do not know enough about his potential involvement in the cyber attacks and malign influence campaigns carried out by the Kremlin on the American people, and we will not find out until we see the full report of Robert Mueller's completed investigation. Until then, I am not comfortable with any measure that diminishes sanctions pressure on a powerful Russian oligarch with deep ties to Vladimir Putin, including this recent deal agreed to by the Treasury Department. I am a strong believer in the power of sanctions to incentivize behavioral change in support of our foreign policy priorities. I also deeply respect the skill, expertise, and dedication of the career officials at the Treasury Department who administer many of our sanctions against Russia. Nonetheless, the deal before us is seriously flawed. First, we must be clear that it is not the American people but, rather, Oleg Deripaska who would benefit handsomely from this arrangement. After his partial divestment in En+, which is the holding company for aluminum giant RUSAL, the Treasury Department would allow Deripaska to use a portion of his shares to pay a very sizable debt to a Russian bank called VTB. So with the deal, Deripaska's overall balance sheet significantly improves. This massive benefit to Deripaska alone is enough to question the merits of this deal. Moreover, VTB, the Russian bank, is already on a U.S. sectoral sanctions list, related to the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. By allowing VTB, the Russian bank, to participate in this agreement, the Treasury Department is undermining our overall sanctions regime. In effect, the administration is signaling to every entity and individual that has had U.S. sanctions imposed in response to Russia's aggression against Ukraine that they can continue to undermine a sovereign nation without consequence. Finally, this deal allows Deripaska to maintain a 44.9-percent ownership of En+. While this falls below the Treasury Department's automatic 50 percent threshold for ownership, it is still too high. Yes, perhaps Deripaska has given up control in a legal sense, a technical sense, but make no mistake--he will be the largest shareholder in En+. He will have the ability to appoint one-third of its board members, and he will continue to leverage his network of cronies to influence the conduct of this company. He also has family members who independently will have shares. At the end of the day, he will direct this company's future. I find that unacceptable. We should all find it unacceptable. No one can deny that we debate this resolution in an increasingly dire context. On top of the indictments and pleas piling up in relation to the Trump campaign's interactions with Russian officials or efforts to cover up those interactions, court filings recently revealed that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik during the 2016 Presidential election cycle. For years, we have known that Mr. Kilimnik has served as a key go- between for Manafort and Oleg Deripaska. He, too, has suspected ties to Russian intelligence. These latest revelations remind us again that we have more questions than answers about the relationships between the President's associates and the Kremlin. If that news was not disturbing enough, this past weekend, the New York Times reported that the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into the President, in part after he fired the FBI Director because of ``this Russia thing.'' Let that sink in. Senior officials at the FBI--Americans deeply committed to the hierarchy of law enforcement--saw enough evidence to suspect that Donald Trump, the sitting President of the United States, could be an agent of the Russian Government. That is stunning. It is absolutely stunning. Likewise, over the weekend, the press reported that President Trump went to extraordinary lengths to conceal the contents of his conversations with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki and elsewhere, even going as far as tearing up the notes of his interpreter. His own staff reportedly sought to learn the contents of the conversation, only to be told that the interpreter could not share the details because the President told him not to. As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I raised serious questions about what happened in Helsinki. I think the whole Nation was stunned by seeing the President's performance there. We wanted to bring the interpreter forward or to get access to those notes, and now we know those notes were destroyed. Throughout this Presidency, my colleagues and I have demanded accountability from this administration. I have been dismayed at the lack of clarity and transparency from the President when it comes to his dealings with foreign leaders, particularly Vladimir Putin. I should note that President Trump has had numerous conversations with President Xi of China, Kim Jong Un of North Korea, and leaders and other heads of state across the world. We are not aware of the same standard of secrecy being applied to those exchanges. The President seems to only keep secret his conversations with Putin. And that begs the question, why? Perhaps because Trump and his 2016 campaign staff have repeatedly lied about the extent of their interactions with Russians. Perhaps because the Trump-Putin discussions extended to Russian financing for the Trump Organization's real estate deals throughout the 1990s and 2000s or the Moscow tower project we now know the Trump Organization was still pursuing well into 2017--not advocating on behalf of the American people. Perhaps because the President inappropriately shared classified information with Putin, much like he did when Foreign Minister Lavrov met him for a meeting in the Oval Office. We just don't know, and we have a right to find out. I ask that my entire comments be printed in the Record, ending by asking my colleagues to vote in favor of moving forward so that this can come to light I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank my distinguished colleague from Georgia--a member of the committee--for doing so. I appreciate his courtesy. As I said, we don't know, and we have a right to find out. Our own FBI was worried he might actually be a foreign agent. Presidents certainly have a right to confidential conversations with world leaders. Never before in our history have we had a President under investigation by the FBI for being a foreign agent--an agent of the Russian Federation. With that in mind, I think we have the right, the responsibility, and the obligation to ensure that we know what happened in all of these conversations between President Trump and Putin and to understand the full extent of this relationship. I sent a letter to the President today, with the ranking members of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, demanding the preservation of all records associated with these meetings and the opportunity to interview the interpreters. This is a matter of U.S. national security. This Trump-Russia connection gets more confounding by the day. We have to protect the integrity of all oversight efforts, including the objective, sober investigation still being conducted by Robert Mueller. We must take all measures necessary to protect this investigation, including a rock-solid commitment by the President's nominee for Attorney General to not interfere in any way with Mr. Mueller's work. The American people deserve to know who they elected to be their President and what is going on in this regard. Again, it is time to move to legislation on DASKA, which Senator Graham and I have introduced, along with others. We hope to reintroduce it again. I think if this body is serious about protecting our institutions, our democracy, and about standing up to an increasingly emboldened Kremlin, if we are serious about our oaths to support and defend the Constitution, then, No. 1, we will agree to move forward on this RUSAL question and move forward to find out the rest of the information. I appreciate the distinguished gentleman yielding time.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I wish to call attention to President Trump's recent decisions to withdraw or threaten U.S. withdrawal from four treaties: the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, INF Treaty; the Universal Postal Union, UPU, treaty; the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, ``VCDR Option Protocol''; and the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran, ``Treaty of Amity''. The President made these decisions without notice or meaningful consultation with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the congressional committee charged with responsibility and jurisdiction over treaties. As the ranking member of that committee, I am compelled to strenuously object to the manner in which the President has acted, but all Senators should protest, regardless of their views on the substance of the respective agreements. The President's actions erode the constitutional powers of this body and our institutional prerogatives. Article 2 of the Constitution endows the President and the Senate with shared power over treaties. The President, it states, ``shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.'' While the Constitution does not expressly dictate a procedure for terminating treaty relationships, Senators have long asserted that the shared treaty power extends to withdrawal and therefore also requires Senate advice and consent. Even though the executive branch may not agree with this position, what is unacceptable is that Senators are first learning about these withdrawals online or in the newspaper instead of through proactive outreach by and meaningful dialogue with the executive branch. President Trump has regrettably shown exceedingly little respect for the Constitution and for the institutional prerogatives of this body. I stand today to highlight one area in which he has actively undermined the Senate's constitutional role and authority. I plan to do everything in my power to protect the Senate's role and responsibilities over treaties and urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, yesterday, Christmas came early to the Kremlin. First, we have President Trump's announcement to pull our troops out of Syria. Second, the administration wants to delist three companies controlled by Oleg Deripaska, though, I am not sure he has adequately relinquished control of those companies. Third, the administration has done nothing to respond to Russian aggression in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. This is a trifecta for Vladimir Putin and sends a global message that creates real concerns. Christmas has indeed come early to Moscow. The Trump administration's withdrawal from Syria lacks any strategy, is foolhardy, and it puts U.S. security in the Middle East--including our ally, the State of Israel--at great peril. This is not simply an error. It is dangerous. It is dangerous. Let me be clear. Withdrawal from Syria without success is failure. American credibility will take a horrible hit if the President moves forward with this decision. As a country, we have said that Assad, who has butchered his people, cannot stay in power. Assad is likely to stay in power into the foreseeable future. Second, we have said we cannot leave Syria because we have strategic interests. By leaving, and doing so precipitously, the President is willing to leave these strategic interests in the hands of Iran and Russia, and Moscow will be given a solid foothold in the Middle East--something it has aspired to for some time, and now it will happen. It will have developed bases there, and it will have unfettered determination as to what to do. Third, this move will strengthen Iran's ability to attack Israel. We are entering a very dangerous time, as it is increasingly clear to all--including many of my Senate Republican colleagues and especially our international allies and adversaries--that this President is completely incapable of addressing our security challenges. Only in Donald Trump's parallel alternate universe has ISIS been defeated. There is no one who would suggest that is reality at this point. We have made gains, and we have had successes, but they have not been defeated. His erratic decision making indeed poses a great threat to our security interests. Trump tweeted that Russia is ``not happy'' about his decision to withdraw our forces from Syria. Well, I guess he missed President Putin's end-of-the-year press conference where, in his own words, he showed this morning that Russia is indeed thrilled with this abdication of U.S. leadership. I worry that we are sending the wrong global message, as well, if this plan is executed. The Kurds have been the most significant fighting force on our behalf and in our interest in Syria. They have been our partners. By pulling out, we are abandoning them. Turkey will come in and seek to destroy them. They will be hit not only by Turkey, they will be hit by Assad, and they will be hit by others. Imagine the message that sends to other potential partners around the world. For those to whom we say ``Fight with us, fight for us, instead of sending our sons and daughters,'' the message is ``Once the United States is done using you, we will abandon you.'' We can't afford that message. In any other place in the world where we want people to fight with us or for us and carry the burden of being on the frontlines so that our sons and daughters are not in harm's way, they are going to look at this moment and say: No way. They will say: The United States will abandon us. They will say: The United States will leave us on the battlefield to die. As someone who has voted against the deployment of U.S. troops elsewhere, I don't take these issues lightly. I want our sons and daughters to come home as soon as possible. But by withdrawing these forces now with no strategy, the United States is placing our security and that of our allies at grave risk, and the sacrifices that have been made by our troops will be lost. Russia has entered into this war in Syria with an unholy marriage with Iran--yes, to prop up Assad, but also, for Iran, it was to gain a tactical vantage point on Israel's northern border. Our withdrawal leaves a vacuum that Iran will fill, putting Israel at even greater risk. To believe that we can outsource our allies' interest to Russia and that Russia will tell Iran to leave now, in Syria, is ridiculous. Iran is not a simple agent of Russia in this regard. Iran has shed its own blood and national treasure in pursuit of its interests, both to prop up Assad and to have a vantage point on the northern border with Israel--another place to strike at Israel. It is not going to give that up simply because Putin says to leave. Anyone who believes that has a clear misunderstanding of the realities of this relationship. Completely withdrawing the United States from Syria at this moment with no strategy in place signals to the region and to the world that we are willing to cede our interests to Putin, to Iran, and to others who will exploit this leadership vacuum. In addition, President Trump has been silent in the face of egregious behavior from Saudi Arabia, a behavior that this Chamber spoke to in a unanimous way. He has no strategy for securing our interests around the Middle East or the world. It is all too clear who is winning. The Kremlin attacked Ukranian ships and captured Ukranian sailors nearly a month ago. Those vessels and sailors remain in Russian hands. They are hostages--hostages--who were taken at the high sea in international waters in violation of international law. And what has the administration done--canceled a meeting with President Putin? It canceled a meeting; that is it. It hasn't rolled out new sanctions on those responsible for the attack. It has not increased U.S. and NATO presence in the Black Sea in order to preserve international maritime passage for all. It has not announced new security assistance for the Ukrainians. One month has passed, and President Putin has felt zero pressure-- zero pressure--on any of these actions or to release these sailors. There is zero pressure to ease the tensions in the Kerch Strait and zero pressure to negotiate an end to the war in the Donbass or to return Crimea to the Ukraine. In fact, Putin seems quite at ease. His yearly press conference earlier today was a victory lap. He is already prodding President Trump, welcoming the evacuation from Syria, and calling for President Trump to stand by his campaign commitment to also withdraw from Afghanistan. He is doing it purposely to see if he can elicit the same reaction he has elicited in Syria. This retreat has left Vladimir Putin with a glow of victory. He is winning in Syria; he is winning in Turkey; he is winning in the Ukraine; and Trump wants to take our players off the field. And this misguided withdrawal from Syria drives that point home. Putin's control of Trump came into sharp focus yesterday, and I urge our Republican colleagues to see this for what it is. The small price that Putin paid to interfere in our national elections has paid off in Syria; it has paid off in Ukraine; and the American people are paying the ultimate price. This is a dangerous time, and our security lies in the hands of a President who, I will respectfully say, is clearly not up to the task. I have called on this administration and the last to develop and present and execute a clear and comprehensive strategy to promote our interests in Syria. This means a comprehensive strategy to counter Iran and its proxy networks, which, from Hezbollah to the Houthis, have grown only stronger as this administration continues to bungle its way through one foreign policy crisis to the next. The President has the opportunity to reverse course and avoid a spectacular failure. He should listen to his military and national security advisers, none of which--none of which--ultimately recommended this course of action. He should listen to our allies, none of which have recommended this course of action. He should invest in alliances and international institutions that multilateralize and strengthen our reach across the globe. He should listen to this bipartisan chorus from Congress. There have been voices on both sides of the aisle here who have said: Change course. This is a grave mistake. He has an opportunity to avoid a grave mistake. I will repeat what I said earlier today at a press conference with Senator Graham and Senator Reed: Withdrawal from Syria without success is failure. Simply withdrawing is not a success. Withdrawing without honoring the sacrifices that have been made by our troops there, without honoring the sacrifices that have been made by our allies there, like the Kurds, without recognizing the enormous civilian casualties that will take place in the aftermath, without recognizing that we will leave a void for other particularly nefarious entities to ultimately fill that void, without recognizing that we create a risk for our ally, the State of Israel and its northern border, without recognizing that at the end of the day, our strategic interests will be totally lost in this regard, is indeed a great failure. I hope the President takes this opportunity to change course, to listen to his national security and military advisers and to the chorus of bipartisan voices in the Senate, including those of us who are engaged in national security questions, whether it is I, as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or Senator Reed, as the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, or Senator Graham, who sits on Armed Services and is the chair of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Appropriations Committee. These are bipartisan voices, among others, who are making it very clear that this is a grave mistake. We have a chance not to make that grave mistake and the consequences that flow from it. I yield the floor.

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

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 going to be shortly joined by my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, for an exchange we will have, but in order to preserve the time on the floor, I will start. I come to the floor today to once again join the Senator from Rhode Island in calling attention to the crisis that is climate change. I want to thank my friend Senator Whitehouse for his passion, his persistence, and his refusal to let the Senate be silent in the face of one of the greatest threats to ever confront our Nation and the world. Some say we can't afford to invest in clean, renewable, American-made energy. I say we cannot afford not to. The fact is, every year that goes by without a comprehensive strategy to reduce the carbon pollution responsible for warming our planet is another year in which the Federal Government of the United States fails to protect future generations from the immense environmental, economic, and human costs inflicted by climate change. I yearn for the day that this body summons the courage to stand up to the special interests and boldly confront this challenge, for the longer we wait, the more expensive and the less effective we will be. And if you don't believe me, just look at our National Flood Insurance Program, which is already in dire need of comprehensive, forward- thinking reform. I have spent the better part of the past 2 years bringing Democrats and Republicans together in support of such a plan. Yet the majority has stubbornly refused to debate our legislation, forcing us to pass short-term reauthorizations that preserve a broken status quo. Like the totality of the climate threat, when it comes to flood insurance, every time we kick the can down the road, the can only gets heavier. For our coastal and inlet communities, climate change isn't some far- out problem; it is here. We are already feeling the effects and bearing the costs in the form of rising sea levels and increasingly powerful storms. Even if the President of the United States suddenly reversed course and put America on a path to slow our changing climate, we would still need to address how we manage a heightened risk for flooding. From fishing, to tourism, to trade and so much more, the fact is, America's coastal communities are vital to our long-term economic competitiveness, and to give up on them in the face of rising sea levels would be to give up on our country. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, sea level rise will put an estimated 325,000 homes and businesses, worth more than $135 billion, at risk of chronic flooding in the next 30 years. With increased risks for flooding comes a whole host of challenges. Falling property values will further strain local budgets, leading to downgraded government credit ratings. As communities lose out on approximately $1.5 billion in property taxes per year, hard-working taxpayers will feel the pain. It will cut away at middle-class families' most valuable asset, the foundation of their financial nest egg, which is their home. According to a paper published by the University of Pennsylvania Libraries, ``As sea level rise manifests along the coasts--reducing property value--impacts on revenue will present new challenges in servicing debt . . . and present a greater probability of default by local government.'' We cannot simply keep spending money to preserve the status quo. We need a system for managing flood risk that pushes our country toward resiliency and treats our people and the communities they live in fairly. But, unfortunately, we have remained at an impasse for over a year now, unable to fix a program that we all know is badly broken. We in New Jersey witnessed firsthand the pervasive problems plaguing the National Flood Insurance Program--or what we call NFIP--after Superstorm Sandy hit in 2012. It was bad enough that so many New Jerseyans had to grapple with the heartbreaking loss of their homes in the wrath of Sandy, so it made my blood boil to see the suffering compounded by a badly broken flood insurance program. We found ourselves lost in a system that put the policyholder last and that looked for every reason to deny legitimate claims and made up some when they didn't exist. We had homeowners who found the foundations of their homes had washed away into the ocean, only to have their claim denied because their insurance company claimed it wasn't floodwaters but moving soil that caused the damage. The insurance adjuster didn't stop to consider that maybe it was the 5-foot storm surge that moved the soil in the first place. This is a photograph of Doug Quinn, who served honorably in the U.S. Marines. He is a constituent whom I have gotten to know very well and who got snagged by this very loophole. As you can see from this picture, the storm surge from Sandy inundated his home, and it ripped apart his foundation, leaving a large hole in his living room. But despite paying his flood insurance premiums for years and despite serving our Nation honorably as a U.S. marine, Doug's claim was denied. Supposedly it was Earth movement, but the Earth never moved until the 5-foot storm surge came along. We saw mitigation programs that were so cumbersome and delayed that many homeowners simply gave up. We had new flood maps come online that were 80 percent inaccurate in some counties. We had FEMA using taxpayer dollars to drag homeowners through expensive litigation until they gave up on their flood claims. The struggles of everyday New Jerseyans revealed to me the dramatic shortcomings in our Flood Insurance Program and left me determined to fix them, so I began working on flood insurance reform that took the lessons we learned after Sandy and turned them into action. In the summer of 2017, I introduced the Sustainable, Affordable, Fair, and Efficient--or SAFE--NFIP Act, which is a comprehensive flood insurance reform bill cosponsored by four Democrats and three Republicans here in the Senate. I know this town already has too many acronyms, but this one clearly spells out the first major goals we have in this bill. We want the NFIP--the National Flood Insurance Program--to be sustainable, we want it to be affordable, we want it to be fair, we and want it to be efficient. Let's start with sustainability. We have to put the NFIP on the path to solvency. Since Katrina in 2005, the NFIP has been in the red, borrowing from the Treasury Department to pay claims. Some say that we should just jack up the premiums on homeowners and keep charging more to get at this imbalance; that if we ask homeowners to pay more and more and more, eventually the NFIP will have enough money to pay all of the claims without borrowing. But higher premiums alone are not the answer. Of course we want everybody to pay their fair share, but the undeniable reality is that the more we raise the premiums, the more homeowners leave the National Flood Insurance Program altogether, and that guarantees the program's failure. Instead of looking simply to raise prices, I want to focus on reducing costs. I believe the best way out of this hole is to make proactive investments in resiliency and mitigation to reduce the damage in the first place. In other words, we must build coastal communities that are resilient and strong, so the damage inflicted by the storms of the future is less expensive to recover. That is why the SAFE NFIP Act includes $1 billion-per-year in mitigation funding and more than triples the maximum increased cost of compliance--or the ICC--grant from $30,000 to $100,000. We also require that this funding be spent more wisely, allowing homeowners to use ICC grants before their house is destroyed. I have never understood why we require homeowners to sit in harm's way and wait for the next storm to come before we help them reduce their flood risk. It makes no sense. Our bill would fix that. By giving Americans the tools to reduce their risks, we can save the NFIP and the taxpayer billions of dollars. Our legislation also goes after wasteful private insurance company fees, which consume about 30 cents of every premium dollar, despite taking on none of the risk. That is good business if you can get it. Don't get me wrong--that is good business if you can get it, and I have no problem with private companies making a profit, but every dollar they make comes from the pockets of policyholders. The NFIP also currently pays about $400 million in interest every year. That is 10 percent of its annual premiums--money that could be going toward flood prevention and mitigation. That is why our bill freezes interest payments on the NFIP debt and redirects that funding toward mitigation. Rather than paying interest to ourselves and forcing the NFIP to borrow even more, let's use that money to reduce future damages, save taxpayer dollars, and build safe communities. We cannot have a solvent and sustainable flood insurance program if it isn't affordable to the people who depend on it. The NFIP's debt and major hurricanes have put upward pressure on premiums, making it more and more expensive to get coverage. So it is no surprise that a lot of people have been forced to drop their flood insurance. Indeed, in the face of rising premiums, the NFIP has lost more than 650,000 policies--or over 10 percent of its total business--just since 2009. Has the risk of flooding decreased since 2009? Absolutely not. Are there fewer homes in floodplains now? No, of course not. By way of example, when you consider the floods that struck Louisiana and Texas and New Jersey in recent years, the answer is an unequivocal no. What is happening is that the premiums have just gotten too expensive for middle-class families to afford. At the end of the day, this also hurts the solvency of the NFIP because, just like every other insurance model, a small pool means a more risky, more expensive pool. Our bill creates a first-of-its-kind, means-tested affordability program that helps middle-class and working families afford flood insurance. Pricing families out of coverage and leaving them without a way to protect their homes does nothing to address the underlying risk. On the contrary, it will be taxpayers who ultimately assume the risk when they are asked to fund uninsured disaster assistance. It is our responsibility to taxpayers to make the NFIP as fair and as efficient as possible. I have no doubt that hundreds, if not thousands, of New Jerseyans dropped their flood insurance after Sandy because of how they were treated. They faithfully paid their premiums for years, often decades, without filing a single claim. Then, when Sandy struck and they tried to collect what they were entitled to, they had to suffer another disaster. This time it was a manmade one--the storm after the storm. After losing everything they had worked for their entire lives, they had to fight against an insurance company and a daunting Federal bureaucracy. Some appealed, some sued, and some just gave up. I pledged to them I would never let this happen again. Our legislation makes good on that promise by putting the customer--in this case, the policyholder--first. We close notorious loopholes that allow insurers to deny claims, such as the infamous earth-movement exclusion when we know floodwaters caused the damage. We fix the appeals process, enforcing FEMA's own deadline to respond to homeowners and giving people who just went through a disaster more time to file their appeal. We require engineer studies to be conducted by--imagine this--actual, licensed engineers in the State where they are operating. We require insurance companies to provide policyholders with all of the documents used to process their claims so that homeowners aren't left in the dark. We end the practice of private insurance companies spending hundreds of millions of policyholder premium dollars on private attorneys whose main goal is to bill as many hours as possible to ultimately deny the policyholder any resource. Taken together, these reforms will not only give policyholders a fair shake, they will also save the NFIP resources that can be better directed to mitigation, to mapping, and to other cost-saving investments. We have to recognize that the NFIP and its 5 million policyholders can't solve all of our Nation's flooding problems on their own. We need to invest tens of billions of dollars elevating and buying out flood- prone properties that get hit year after year, those particularly repetitively lost properties. We need to incentivize homeowners who ultimately will get out of those flood-prone properties so that they are not subject to the consequences of constantly getting flooded and we collectively are not subject to the incredible costs that are a result of that. There simply aren't enough resources in the NFIP to even put a dent in this problem. So instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on disaster grants each time a storm strikes, why not spend a fraction of that on the front end that will yield real dividends in the future? When a disaster strikes, our immediate priority should always be to save lives and get survivors back to a sense of normalcy as quickly as possible. While recovery funding is absolutely vital, it shouldn't be at the expense of rebuilding stronger, more resilient communities more capable of weathering the next storm. We have a problem in Congress of short-termism: living in the present and not looking ahead. We are afraid of making tough political decisions in the present, even when the future is on the line. We see it with flood insurance, and we see it with climate change. The American people desperately need Congress to overcome this shortsighted short-termism. We must start thinking beyond the storm that just hit or even the one that is on the horizon. We must begin thinking about the risk over the next several decades because flood risk is a climate risk we cannot afford to ignore. We must think about what kind of future, what kind of environment, what kind of economy we want to leave to our children and our grandchildren. It should not matter who controls the House, who controls the Senate, or who sits in the White House. The Americans of tomorrow are depending on us, the leaders of today, to be bold, unafraid, and willing to think big. That is why I hope Republicans and Democrats alike will continue to work with me on the issue of flood insurance and flood prevention when we return in 2019. I thank, as I said at the beginning of my comments, my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island who has really been the conscience of the Senate on this issue of climate change that affects not only those of us now here but future generations of Americans. I have taken one slice of that in talking about the National Flood Insurance Program and how we can mitigate our way and look to a set of circumstances in which we can save enormous consequences for New Jersey families and families across our country and save the taxpayers' money. But the ultimate savings in this is beyond a new flood insurance program. It is making sure that we don't continue to see the climate change that has taken place, which creates the storms that my State endured--Superstorm Sandy--and other major superstorms across the Nation that put us at risk as a people, that put our economies at risk, that really threaten the very essence of our existence as we know it. I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island leading us in this regard. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.